S TELLWAGEN 

BANK

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

April 2008

DRAFT 

MANAGEMENT PLAN

and Environmental Assessment
In Memoriam

Gerry E. Studds

1937–2006

Gerry Eastman Studds, former Congressman from the Massachusetts 10th 

District (1973–1996) and tenacious advocate for the ocean. Congressman 

Studds authored the National Marine Sanctuaries Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1992, which officially designated the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary. His legacy lives on in the sanctuary’s research, education 

and conservation efforts, as well as in the vast array of marine legislation that 

he eloquently supported. In honor of his dedication to marine issues, Congress 

renamed the sanctuary the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary during the 1996 reauthorization of the Sanctuaries Act.
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Draft Management Plan and 

Environmental Assessment

April 2008

United States Department 

of Commerce

Carlos M. Gutierrez

Secretary

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.

Administrator

John H. Dunnigan

Assistant Administrator

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service
Gerry E. Studds

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

175 Edward Foster Rd.

Scituate, MA 02066

(781) 545-8026

http://stellwagen.noaa.gov
i

About This Document

This document is the revised draft management plan and environmental assessment for the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary. The public is encouraged to provide comment on this document. When final, this plan will chart the 

course for the sanctuary over the next five years.

Comments or questions on this management plan should be directed to:

Craig MacDonald, Ph.D.

Superintendent

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

175 Edward Foster Rd.

Scituate, MA 02066

(781) 545-8026

sbplan@noaa.gov

Recommended citation:

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

2008. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan / Draft Environmental Assessment. Silver 

Spring, MD.
ii Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Executive Summary

Overview

The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS 

or sanctuary) stretches between Cape Ann and Cape Cod at 

the mouth of Massachusetts Bay in the southwestern corner 

of the Gulf of Maine. Virtually the size of the state of Rhode 

Island and located wholly within federal waters, sanctuary 

boundaries include the submerged lands of Stellwagen Bank, 

all of Tillies Bank and Basin, and the southern portions of 

Jeffrey’s Ledge. The sanctuary protects 842-square miles 

(638 square nautical miles) of open-ocean, overlaying a 

diverse seafloor topography and array of benthic and pelagic 

habitats that support biological communities broadly representative of the Gulf of Maine. 

The sanctuary mission is to conserve, protect and enhance 

the biological diversity, ecological integrity and cultural 

legacy of the sanctuary while facilitating uses that are 

compatible with the primary goal of resource protection. 

When Congress designated the sanctuary in 1992, it did 

so to recognize the nationally significant conservation and 

aesthetic qualities of the site. Congress directed that the 

sanctuary be managed to maintain the habitats and ecological services of the natural assemblage of living resources of 

the area, as well as its maritime heritage resources. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is the only federal entity mandated to 

conserve biological diversity and protect maritime heritage 

resources in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Maine.

The management plan review process is, in essence, an 

exploration and rediscovery of the sanctuary. It is a journey 

across earlier decades of scientific monitoring and analysis, leading to the directed research and evaluation of the 

moment. It draws upon a foundation of over 670 source 

documents, most of which are peer-reviewed scientific 

papers published in reputable professional journals. It is a 

quest for facts and findings, culminating in the up-to-date 

synthesis and characterization of the resources and human 

uses of the sanctuary today. It is a public collaboration of 

immense proportion, involving comments from over 20,000 

concerned citizens, more than 300 individuals participating 

in scoping meetings, and over 200 people serving on issuedriven working groups. The entire process was coordinated 

with, and reviewed by, the 45 members and alternates on 

the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council holding 

appointments during 2002-2006 and offering representation from Connecticut to Maine.

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary was designated for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was its long history 

of human use and its high natural productivity and resource 

diversity. The historic exploitation of the whales and fish 

on Stellwagen Bank and vicinity helped forge a cultural 

tradition that is difficult to perpetuate today as a result of 

overfishing, habitat destruction and rapid transformation of 

the region’s economy. The modern appreciation for these 

resources requires that they be protected for their intrinsic 

value, multiple ecosystem services, and recreational and 

ecotourism importance, while facilitating uses (including fish and seafood production) that are environmentally 

sustainable and compatible with the widely recognized 

need and Congressional mandate for resource protection.

The environmental condition of the sanctuary is subject to 

major alterations that are largely due to the effects of human 

activities. The basic diversity of marine life and the patterns 

and processes that control the distribution and abundance 

of marine organisms in the sanctuary is still not well understood. Yet, conserving this biodiversity is central to the 

implementation of ecosystem-based sanctuary management, 

an evolving approach that stresses the management of the 

entire sanctuary ecosystem including all biological communities, habitats and species populations, together with all 

compatible uses. Comprehending the great importance of 

marine biodiversity, and the need to maintain ecological 

complexity in the sanctuary, this draft management plan 

is based on the concept of managing marine resources for 

biodiversity conservation.

Key Findings

There are well over 575 known species in the sanctuary and 

the list is largely incomplete. Living landscapes (anemone 

forests, sponge gardens, hydroid meadows, worm tube beds) 

carpet the seafloor and the associated marine communities 

support benthic and pelagic species that are dependent upon 

them. The number of invertebrate species that constitute 

these landscape features remains to be adequately counted. 

Water column and seafloor habitats sustain over 80 species 

of fish and provide important feeding and nursery grounds 

for 22 marine mammal species, including the endangered 

humpback, fin and sei whales and the critically endangered 

North Atlantic right whale. The area supports foraging 

activity by 34 species of seabirds, dominated by gulls, storm 

petrels, gannets, auks (alcids), sea ducks and shearwaters. 

Four species of endangered or threatened sea turtles are 

known to frequent the area. Numerous shipwrecks occur 

throughout the sanctuary, encapsulating the rich maritime 

history of the place. 

The sanctuary is a hotspot for prey abundance, which is what 

ultimately attracts the whales, sustains the fish, seabirds and 

other wildlife, and supports the economic viability of most 

current uses in the sanctuary. Key prey species include 

sand lance (small semi-pelagic fish), herring and planktonic 

copepods. Sand lance numbers in the sanctuary are the 

highest and most concentrated anywhere in the southern 

Gulf of Maine and the sanctuary is in an area of high relative 

abundance of herring. Accordingly, the sanctuary is one of 

the most intensively used whale habitats in the northeast 

continental region of the U.S. The World Wildlife Fund and 

USA TODAY named Stellwagen Bank and vicinity one of 

the top ten premiere places in the world to watch whales. 

The readers of Offshore magazine voted Stellwagen Bank 

the best place to watch wildlife and the number three favorite recreational fishing spot in the northeastern U.S. 

However, fishing—especially commercial fishing—impacts 

and pressures every resource state in the sanctuary. On an 
iii

annual basis, virtually every square kilometer of the sanctuary is physically disturbed by fishing. Fishing has removed 

almost all of the big old growth individuals among biologically important fish populations and reshaped biological 

communities and habitats in the process. Commercial fishing lands 17.0 million pounds to 18.4 million pounds of fish 

and crustaceans from the sanctuary each year on average 

(1996-2005), yet discards approximately 23% of the total 

catch as bycatch (based on 2002/2003 estimates). The part of 

the catch from the sanctuary that actually is landed amounts 

to 1.9%–2.8% of the total New England landings value for 

all northeast fisheries. Fishing removes 3,200 metric tons of 

herring from the sanctuary each year on average, an amount 

sufficient to potentially deplete the forage base for whales 

and other sanctuary wildlife. The area in and around the 

sanctuary has the highest use of fixed gear vessels anywhere 

along the eastern seaboard of the U.S., and the sanctuary 

area has the highest number (41%) of reported whale entanglements in the Gulf of Maine. Fishing gear fouls eleven of 

eighteen known historic shipwreck sites in the sanctuary, 

which also display evidence of damage by gear impacts.

The sanctuary receives more commercial shipping traffic than any other location within U.S. jurisdiction in the 

Gulf of Maine and approximately ten percent of the vessel/

whale collisions recorded world-wide is reported from the 

sanctuary area. The annual mean and maximum operating speeds of whale watch boats in the sanctuary doubled 

between 1980–1987 and 1998–2004, as did their annual 

rate of whale strikes. The overall level of non-compliance 

with NOAA whale watch guidelines, based on the distance 

traveled by the whale watch boats, was 78%. The sanctuary 

seems prone to biological invasion by exotic species. This is 

based on factors associated with community maturity and 

niche opportunities created by a history of lowered species 

diversity and extensive chronic habitat disturbance by 

fishing, together with the sanctuary’s location amid extensive commercial shipping traffic that can serve as primary 

vectors for the introduction of exotics from hull bottoms and 

ballast water. Harmful algal blooms and degraded water 

quality continue to be concerns with expanding coastal 

development and increasing urbanization in the region, 

coupled with unrelenting population growth and commensurate waste management needs. Creeping industrialization 

along the western boundary of the sanctuary in the form of 

deepwater LNG ports may lead to chronic underwater noise 

affecting sanctuary resources in virtual perpetuity. Over 

half of all resource condition categories (10 of 17) evaluated 

for the sanctuary had fair through poor ratings. The general 

trend for habitat and living resources appears to be static 

and in need of improvement.

Management Plan

This document provides the basis to consider how things should 

be done differently to improve the resource conditions of the 

sanctuary, since that is what the findings indicate is needed. 

The Sanctuary Advisory Council provides a vision for the 

future that contrasts the current conditions in the sanctuary: 

“The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is 

teeming with a great diversity and abundance of marine 

life, supported by diverse, healthy habitats in clean 

ocean waters. The ecological integrity of the sanctuary 

is protected and fully restored for current and future 

generations. Human uses are diverse and compatible 

with maintaining natural and cultural resources.”

The management plan represents the first step toward 

achieving this vision.

This draft management plan serves as a non-regulatory 

policy framework for addressing the issues facing the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary over the next five years. It lays the 

foundation for restoring and protecting the sanctuary’s 

ecosystem. It details the human pressures that threaten the 

qualities and resources of the sanctuary. It recommends 

actions that should be taken now, and some that should be 

considered in the near future, for restoring and protecting 

this special place. 

At this time, NOAA is not proposing any regulations or 

changes to the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary designation document. However, several regulatory initiatives that derive 

from the strategies presented in the draft management plan 

ultimately could be considered for action prior to the next 

management plan review nominally scheduled for 2013. 

These include: management of whale watching, maritime 

heritage resources management, preventing local depletion 

of key forage species, and instituting requirements for habitat zoning and compatibility analysis. These initiatives may 

necessitate that the designation document be amended.

This document provides strategic guidance for management 

actions and focuses those actions on four priority programmatic areas: capacity building, ecosystem protection, 

marine mammal protection and maritime heritage management. NOAA is focusing on these priority areas because 

they will significantly contribute to achieving the vision and 

mission of the sanctuary. The eleven action plans in this 

document address issues relative to these four areas and are 

based extensively on the advice of working groups established by the Sanctuary Advisory Council.

The public is invited and encouraged to comment on this 

draft management plan. Comments may be submitted in 

writing to Dr. Craig MacDonald, Sanctuary Superintendent, 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, 175 Edward 

Foster Rd., Scituate, MA 02066 or by facsimile to (781) 

545-8036. For information on the open comment period, 

or to obtain a copy of the draft management plan, please 

call (781) 545-8026 or send an email to sbplan@noaa.gov. 

Copies of this document may be downloaded from the internet at http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/management.
iv Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Organization of this Document

The draft management plan is organized into ten principal 

sections. 

Section I provides background information on the national marine sanctuaries and the management plan review 

process. 

Section II is an overview of the institutional setting within 

which the sanctuary operates.

Section III presents the sanctuary setting. This section is 

divided into three sub-sections: biodiversity conservation; 

physical setting, including geography, geology, and oceanography; and primary producers and decomposers.

Section IV describes the resource states of the sanctuary 

and provides context and foundation for the action plans in 

Section VII. This section is divided into eight sub-sections: 

seafloor and water column habitats, benthic invertebrates, 

fishes, seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals, and maritime 

heritage resources.

Section V discusses the kinds and status of human use and 

the economic value where available.

Section VI is a summation of the effects of human uses on 

sanctuary resources including a discussion of cumulative 

impacts. 

Section VII contains the action plans, which detail the 

management actions the sanctuary will take to address 

priority issues and meet the purposes and policies of the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

Section VIII provides an environmental assessment of the 

two alternatives considered: no action and revising the 

management plan.

Section IX lists the sources and literature cited in this document.

Section X includes a number of appendices, which provide 

supporting information on various aspects of this draft 

management plan. 

The sanctuary management objectives, included in this draft 

management plan, are organized by priority programmatic 

area and their respective action plan in the list that follows.

Capacity Building

Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure Action Plan

ADMIN.1 Improve Site Staffing and Support Capabilities for SBNMS Programs

ADMIN.2 Maintain and Enhance the Infrastructure of the Site

ADMIN.3 Develop a SBNMS Volunteer Organization to Support Sanctuary Programs and Enhance Site Visibility 

Interagency Cooperation Action Plan

IC.1 Facilitate Cooperation and Coordination Between Agencies

IC.2 Establish Mechanisms for Improving Information Sharing

Public Outreach and Education Action Plan

POE.1 Improve Outreach and Education Capacity to Increase Sanctuary Visibility, Awareness, and Stewardship

POE.2 Improve Capacity for Formal and Informal Education Programs that Support Management Goals

Compatibility Determination Action Plan

CD.1 Develop a Framework for Sanctuary Compatibility Determination

Ecosystem Protection

Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management Action Plan

EBSM.1 Establish a Science Review Protocol

EBSM.2 Establish an Information Management System

EBSM.3 Understand Ecosystem Structure and Function

EBSM.4 Protect Ecological Integrity

EBSM.5 Evaluate the Need and Feasibility of Modifying the Sanctuary Boundary

Ecosystem Alteration Action Plan

EA.1 Reduce Impacts of Laying Cables and Pipelines

EA.2 Reduce Alteration of Benthic Habitat by Mobile Fishing

EA.3 Reduce Impacts of Biomass Removal by Fishing Activity 

Water Quality Action Plan

WQ.1 Assess Water Quality and Circulation

WQ.2 Reduce Pollutant Discharges and Waste Streams That May Affect the Sanctuary
v

Marine Mammal Protection

Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance Action Plan

MMBD.1 Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance by Vessels

MMBD.2 Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance by Noise

MMBD.3 Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance by Aircraft

Marine Mammal Vessel Strike Action Plan

MMVS.1 Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strike Between Large Commercial Ships and Whales

MMVS.2 Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strike Through Speed Restrictions

MMVS.3 Support and Develop Research Programs to Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strikes

Marine Mammal Entanglement Action Plan

MME.1 Aid Disentanglement Efforts

MME.2 Reduce Marine Mammal Interaction with the Trap/Pot Fishery

MME.3 Reduce Marine Mammal Interaction with the Gillnet Fishery

Maritime Heritage Management

Maritime Heritage Management Action Plan

MH.1 Establish a Maritime Heritage Program

MH.2 Inventory, Assess and Characterize Historical Resources

MH.3 Protect and Manage Historical Resources

MH.4 Develop and Implement a MH Outreach and Education Program

MH.5 Assess Shipwrecks and Other Submerged Objects for Potential Hazards 

Acknowledgements

This draft management plan was written and compiled by:

Craig D. MacDonald, Ph.D., Sanctuary Superintendent

Benjamin Cowie-Haskell, Management Plan Coordinator

Nathalie Ward, Ph.D., External Affairs Coordinator

With contributions by:

Peter Auster, Ph.D., University of Connecticut at Avery 

Point 

Les Kaufman, Ph.D., Boston University

Jesse Schwartz, Ph.D., Boston University

GIS analyses were conducted by Michael A. Thompson.

Technical support was provided by Perot Systems Government Services, notably Timothy Feehan, Ayhan Ergul 

and Ted Racine. Document design and layout by Marla 

Laubisch. 

Staff of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

and the National Marine Sanctuary Program are acknowledged for their contributions in the development of this draft 

management plan.

From 2002-2006, the Sanctuary Advisory Council was 

instrumental in the development of this draft management 

plan. NOAA acknowledges and thanks the Advisory Council 

representatives for their individual and collective contributions to this process. The following members of the Advisory 

Council are acknowledged for chairing the working groups 

that led to development of the action plans in this document: 

Regina Asmutis-Silvia, Susan Farady, Alan (Jerry) Hill, Porter 

Hoagland, Ph.D., Judith Pederson, Ph.D., Mason Weinrich, 

Richard Wheeler, John Williamson and Sally Yozell. NOAA 

also acknowledges and thanks the many members of these 

working groups. The early foundation for this management 

plan review was laid during 1998-1999 by Brad Barr, former 

Sanctuary Superintendent, and the previous Advisory Council (1996-2000), and is recognized. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program staff gratefully 

acknowledge the enormous assistance provided by the 

NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office and 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center for access to the numerous and extensive databases that underlay many of the analyses in this management plan, for the many agency scientists and managers who devoted considerable time serving 

on the working groups as members and technical advisors, 

and for collaboration with sanctuary staff on several key 

research projects conducted to inform sanctuary management. Related assistance was provided by local and State 

agency partners, which also is acknowledged. The Sanctuary Program’s collaboration with NOAA’s National Centers 

for Coastal Ocean Science yielded substantial information 

to characterize the sanctuary’s ecological setting, and is 

acknowledged.
vi Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Photography and Art Credits

Section I. Captain Henry S. Stellwagen—Courtesy of the 

Stellwagen Family

Section II. Smooth sunstar on seafloor—Credit: USGS

Section III. Northern red anemone and American lobster—

Credit: USGS

Section IV. Squid and starfish on mud habitat—Credit: 

USGS

Section V. Sand lance over gravel, shells and coarse sand—

Credit: USGS

Section VI. Frilled anemones on a boulder—Credit: USGS

Section VII. Burrowing anemone with pink shrimp—Credit: 

USGS

Section VIII. Northern sea stars in a muddy basin—Credit: 

USGS

Section IX. Shell pile in the trough between sand waves—

Credit: USGS

Section X. Gravel with encrusting coralline algae and 

sponges—Credit: USGS

Page 26 “Inside the anemone forest” painting—Credit: Joline 

Putnam, RI School of Design1

Page 36. “Exploring the deep boulder reef” painting—Credit: 

Mary Jane Brush, UConn2

Page 43. Diatoms (Chaetoceros affins, Coscinodiscus sp., 

Chaetoceros debilis)—Credit: Paul Hargraves, Univ. RI

Page 48. Feeding humpbacks and seabirds—Credit: Ari 

Friedlander, Duke Univ/SBNMS (NOAA Permit 981-1707)

Page 49. American lobster, cunner and benthic 

invertebrates—Credit: Matthew Lawrence, SBNMS

Page 57. Hydromedusae—Credit: Norman Despres

Page 68. Field of sand dollars—Credit: USGS

Page 74. Northern puffer—Credit: Norman Despres

Page 82. Greater shearwater—Credit: Glen Tepke

Page 90. Leatherback turtle—Credit: Glen Tepke

Page 92. Humpback whale calf fluke—Credit: Kate Sardi, 

WCNE/SBNMS (NOAA Permit 981-1707)

Page 120. “Evening Shipping on Boston Bay, 1898” 

painting—Credit: William G. Muller

Page 132. Various human uses during a summer day on the 

SBNMS—Credit: Regina Asmutis-Silvia

Page 132. Commercial Fishing section—Credit: SBNMS/

NOAA

Page 144. Recreational Fishing section—Credit: SBNMS/

NOAA

Page 154. Whale Watching section—Credit: Regina AsmutisSilvia

Page 155. Other Recreation and Tourism section—Credit: 

Deborah Marx, SBNMS

Page 156. Maritime Transportation section—Credit: SBNMS

Page 166. Cunner and invertebrates—Credit: Tane 

Casserley

Page 184. Whale tagging research boat—Credit: WCNE/

SBNMS; Humpback and NOAA Ship Nancy Foster—Credit: 

WCNE/SBNMS (NOAA Permit 981-1707); Sanctuary exhibit 

at Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center—Credit: Anne 

Smrcina, SBNMS; SBNMS facilities—Credit: Anne Smrcina, 

SBNMS

Page 207. Haddock—Credit: NURC-UConn; Greater 

Shearwater—Credit: WCNE/SBNMS; Atlantic herring—

Credit: Jon Witman, Brown Univ.; Sea Scallop—Credit: 

USGS 

Page 227. Breaching humpback whale—Credit: Ari 

Friedlander, Duke Univ/SBNMS (NOAA Permit 981-1707); 

Recreational boat and humpback whales—Credit: Kate 

Sardi, Duke Univ./SBNMS (NOAA Permit 981-1707); Dead 

right whale with propeller marks—Credit: PCCS; Entangled 

humpback whale—Credit: PCCS (NOAA Permit 932-1489) 

Page 246. Portland’s steam release pipe—Credit: NURCUConn, The Science Channel and SBNMS; Portland’s bitts 

with encrusting invertebrates—Credit: NURC-UConn, 

The Science Channel and SBNMS; Teacups in Portland’s

galley—Credit: NURC-UConn/SBNMS; Pipes and mug 

on Portland’s deck—Credit: NURC-UConn, The Science 

Channel and SBNMS.

LAST PAGE. Whales and birds feeding at sunset in the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary—Credit: Cara 

Pekarcik, WCNE/SBNMS (NOAA Permit 981-1707)

1,2Both paintings are scientifically accurate portrayals of characteristic seafloor landscapes based on the artists’ 

examination of over a hundred hours of underwater video made by remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) in the sanctuary.
vii

Contents

About This Document........................................................................................................................................................ i

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... ii

Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... ii

Key Findings.................................................................................................................................................................. ii

Management Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ iii

Organization of this Document .....................................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................................................................................v

Photography and Art Credits.............................................................................................................................................vi

I. Introduction to the Document...................................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of the National Marine Sanctuary Program.................................................................................................... 2

Overview of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary ....................................................................................... 4

Sanctuary Management Plan Review............................................................................................................................. 4

The Draft Management Plan.......................................................................................................................................... 6

II. Institutional Setting ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

Human Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

Sanctuary Superintendent............................................................................................................................................ 10

Sanctuary Staff............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Site Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

Vessels ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Sanctuary Advisory Council............................................................................................................................................ 12

Relationship with Other Agencies and Authorities .......................................................................................................... 12

NOAA Offices............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Other Federal Agencies ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Regional Authorities.................................................................................................................................................... 15

State Agencies............................................................................................................................................................. 15

Local Government Agencies........................................................................................................................................ 16

Tools for Formalizing Relationships ................................................................................................................................ 16

Sanctuary Funding.......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Appropriations ............................................................................................................................................................ 17

Additional Sources of Support ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Research and Monitoring................................................................................................................................................ 18

Education and Outreach................................................................................................................................................. 18

Intramural ................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Extramural................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Collaborative............................................................................................................................................................... 19

Enforcement and Permitting............................................................................................................................................ 20

Enforcement................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Permitting.................................................................................................................................................................... 20

III. Sanctuary Setting...................................................................................................................................................... 25

Biodiversity Conservation ............................................................................................................................................... 26

Emphasis on Community Ecology................................................................................................................................ 26

Managing for Biodiversity Conservation ...................................................................................................................... 27

Physical Setting .............................................................................................................................................................. 37

Geography .................................................................................................................................................................. 37

Geology ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Oceanography ............................................................................................................................................................ 38
viii Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Primary Producers and Decomposers............................................................................................................................. 44

Prokaryotes ................................................................................................................................................................. 44

Protists ........................................................................................................................................................................ 45

Fungi........................................................................................................................................................................... 46

IV. Resource States......................................................................................................................................................... 47

Context........................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Seafloor as Habitat ...................................................................................................................................................... 49

Water Column as Habitat ............................................................................................................................................ 57

Benthic Invertebrates................................................................................................................................................... 68

Fishes.......................................................................................................................................................................... 74

Seabirds ...................................................................................................................................................................... 82

Sea Turtles................................................................................................................................................................... 90

Marine Mammals........................................................................................................................................................ 92

Maritime Heritage Resources..................................................................................................................................... 120

V. Status of Human Use ............................................................................................................................................... 131

Context......................................................................................................................................................................... 132

Commercial Fishing .................................................................................................................................................. 132

Recreational Fishing.................................................................................................................................................. 144

Whale Watching ....................................................................................................................................................... 154

Other Recreation and Tourism................................................................................................................................... 155

Maritime Transportation ............................................................................................................................................ 156

Prohibited Uses......................................................................................................................................................... 160

VI. Summation ............................................................................................................................................................ 165

Context......................................................................................................................................................................... 166

Historic Importance................................................................................................................................................... 166

Status Today .............................................................................................................................................................. 167

Current Challenges.................................................................................................................................................... 168

Compatible Uses....................................................................................................................................................... 170

VII. Action Plans .......................................................................................................................................................... 177

Introduction to Action Plans ......................................................................................................................................... 178

What are Action Plans? ............................................................................................................................................. 178

What is their origin?.................................................................................................................................................. 178

How are they prioritized?.......................................................................................................................................... 178

How are they evaluated?........................................................................................................................................... 178

How are they organized?........................................................................................................................................... 180

What are the costs? ................................................................................................................................................... 180

How are they implemented?...................................................................................................................................... 181

Explanation of Vision and Mission ................................................................................................................................ 182

Vision:....................................................................................................................................................................... 182

Mission: .................................................................................................................................................................... 182

‘Unpacking’ the Vision .............................................................................................................................................. 182

Capacity Building......................................................................................................................................................... 184

Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure Action Plan ............................................................................................. 185

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 185

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 185

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 185

Interagency Cooperation Action Plan ........................................................................................................................ 192

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 192

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 192

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 192
ix

Public Outreach and Education Action Plan.............................................................................................................. 197

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 197

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 197

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 197

Compatibility Determination Action Plan .................................................................................................................. 203

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 203

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 203

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 203

Ecosystem Protection.................................................................................................................................................... 206

Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management Action Plan............................................................................................... 207

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 207

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 207

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 207

Ecosystem Alteration Action Plan .............................................................................................................................. 214

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 214

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 214

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 214

Water Quality Action Plan......................................................................................................................................... 222

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 222

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 222

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 222

Marine Mammal Protection.......................................................................................................................................... 227

Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance Action Plan ............................................................................................... 228

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 228

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 228

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 228

Marine Mammal Vessel Strike Action Plan................................................................................................................. 235

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 235

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 235

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 235

Marine Mammal Entanglement Action Plan............................................................................................................... 240

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 240

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 240

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 240

Maritime Heritage Management ................................................................................................................................... 246

Maritime Heritage Action Plan .................................................................................................................................. 247

Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................................................... 247

Goal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 247

Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 247

VIII. Draft Environmental Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 255

Purpose and Need..................................................................................................................................................... 256

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives....................................................................................................... 256

Affected Environment................................................................................................................................................ 258

Environmental Consequences.................................................................................................................................... 259

IX. Sources Cited......................................................................................................................................................... 261

X.Appendices............................................................................................................................................................... 283

Appendix A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act .............................................................................................................. 284

Appendix B. Designation Document for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary ............................................ 296

Appendix C. Key Topics and Issues Identified during Public Scoping for Revision of the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary 

Management Plan. ....................................................................................................................................................... 299
x Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix D. List of Current and Former Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council Members (2001-2006).............. 300

Appendix E. List of Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council Meetings Relating to Management Plan Review ....... 303

Appendix F. List of Working Group Members ............................................................................................................... 304

Appendix G. Existing Federal and State Authorities Relevant to Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Protection and 

Management ................................................................................................................................................................ 312

Appendix H. Questions and Answers Regarding Regulatory Coordination on Fishing between the National 

Marine Sanctuary Program and Federal Fishery Management Agencies ........................................................................ 319

Appendix I. Regulations ............................................................................................................................................... 321

Appendix J. Preliminary Species List for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary............................................. 324

Appendix K. Description of Typical Waste Discharges in the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary.............................................. 337

Appendix L. Cetacean and Pinniped Species Descriptions............................................................................................ 339

Appendix M. Northeast Region Whale Watch Guidelines Including the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary............................. 343

Appendix N. Federal Regulations on Approach to Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales......................................... 345

Appendix O. Prioritized Strategy Implementation Based on Funding Scenarios............................................................. 346

Appendix P. Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Cooperative Enforcement Plan........................................................................ 352

Appendix Q. Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Zoning Working Group Charge and List of Members .................................... 355

Appendix R. Existing Marine Resource Management Zones that Overlap the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary..................... 357

Appendix S. List of Acronyms....................................................................................................................................... 360

Appendix T. Glossary.................................................................................................................................................... 362

Appendix U. Metric Conversion Table .......................................................................................................................... 365
xi

Figures

Figure 1. The system of National Marine Sanctuaries. ....................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Illustration of the Proposed Management Continuum for the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary. ................................. 7

Figure 3. Current organizational chart for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary........................................................................ 10

Figure 4. Oblique aerial photograph showing the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary buildings (red roofs), pier and docks 

on Scituate Harbor in 2003 during facilities renovation. ............................................................................................. 11

Figure 5. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary’s 50-foot research vessel R/V Auk. ................................................................... 11

Figure 6. Explorer John Smith’s Map of New England, 1616, with Stellwagen Bank and the sanctuary area 

(shaded blue) superimposed........................................................................................................................................ 31

Figure 7. Species and trophic interactions of the northwest Atlantic food web. ............................................................... 33

Figure 8. Trophic cascades in kelp forests along the coast of Maine. ............................................................................... 34

Figure 9. Historic reduction in mean TLs in fishery landings in the GoM from statistical bulletin landings data 

(1901–1935) and LME Northeast U.S. continental shelf landings (1950–2003)............................................................ 35

Figure 10. Multi-beam sonar image of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary area showing (a) sun-illuminated seafloor 

topography and (b) backscatter intensity of sediments. .............................................................................................. 36

Figure 11. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary in relation to adjacent land and associated geographic places. ..................... 39

Figure 12. Generalized diagram of the counter-clockwise circulation patterns in the GoM. ......................................... 40

Figure 13. Generalized diagram of the various water circulation patterns in the upper layers that exist within the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during stratified conditions. ............................................................................................. 41

Figure 14. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image of internal wave events in Massachusetts Bay on August 7, 2003. ..... 43

Figure 15. Selected tracks of telemetered drifter buoys depicting generalized current flow in the vicinity of the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ......................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 16. Example of a microhabitat formed within a mud habitat by burrowing anemones. ...................................... 49

Figure 17. Map depicting the WGoMCA (cross-hatched) and its overlap with the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ............... 51

Figure 18. Location of long-term sampling sites for the Seafloor Habitat Recovery Monitoring Project............................ 54

Figure 19. Side-scan sonar image of bottom otter trawl tracks over the mud habitat of Gloucester Basin in the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ........................................................................................................................................ 55

Figure 20. Two conceptual models of pattern shifts in community state due to disturbance. ......................................... 56

Figure 21. Location of water column stations, including the additional Stellwagen Bank sanctuary stations 

sampled in August and October 2001-2005. ............................................................................................................... 59

Figure 22. Annual mean ammonium (top) and nitrate (bottom) concentrations in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, 

the nearfield and Cape Cod Bay relative to the outfall startup. ................................................................................... 59

Figure 23. Top: annual mean total dissolved nitrogen (TDN); Middle: dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN); 

Bottom: total nitrogen (TN) in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, the nearfield and Cape Cod Bay relative to 

the outfall startup. ..................................................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 24. Annual mean chlorophyll in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and other regions relative to the 

outfall startup. ........................................................................................................................................................... 60

Figure 25. Benthic community parameters at stations (FF05, FF04) in or (FF14, FF11) near Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary (1992-2005) relative to the outfall startup. ................................................................................................. 61

Figure 26. Location of the NOAA NS&T BE sampling sites (2004) within Massachusetts Bay including the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ....................................................................................................................................... 61

Figure 27. Concentration of contaminants, select metals (Cd [cadmium] and Pb [lead]) and organic compounds (total 

PCBs [Polychlorinated Biphenyls] and DDT [pesticide]), in sediments within Massachusetts Bay 

including the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. .................................................................................................................. 62

Figure 28. Location of sewer outfalls, the MWRA outfall, industrial discharge sites and dumping/disposal sites 

within Massachusetts Bay. ......................................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 29. Annual disposal volumes at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for the period 1982–2003. ...................... 66

Figure 30. Representative species of sponges in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ............................................................ 70
xii Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Figure 31. Representative species of cnidarians in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.......................................................... 71

Figure 32. Representative species of anemones in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.......................................................... 72

Figure 33. Empty ocean quohog shells (Arctica islandica) serve as habitat for a variety of fish such as the blenny 

shown here. .............................................................................................................................................................. 73

Figure 34. Representative species of tunicates in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary............................................................ 73

Figure 35. Seasonal mean fish species diversity (species richness) across the GoM for the period 1975–2005. ............ 74

Figure 36. Geographic strata of similar bathymetric profile used to compare diversity indices with the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary. ........................................................................................................................................................ 75

Figure 37a. Comparison of fish species diversity (species richness, Margalef’s and Shannon indices) between the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and other similar strata within the GoM. ......................................................................... 76

Figure 37b. Comparison of fish species diversity (Simpson, taxonomic diversity and taxonomic distinctness indices) 

between the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and other similar strata within the GoM. ..................................................... 77

Figure 38. Annual per capita egg production (in millions of eggs) for cod (Gadus morhua) as a function of age 

(and by implication size). .......................................................................................................................................... 78

Figure 39. Decrease in maximum length of white hake sampled in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by NOAA 

Fisheries Service standardized trawl surveys over the period 1963–2000. .................................................................. 79

Figure 40. Reduction in maximum length of 15 species of ecologically and commercially important fish over a 

38-year period (1963–2000) within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. .......................................................................... 79

Figure 41. Change in maximum length of a subset of fish species sampled in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 

1990–2005. ................................................................................................................................................................ 80

Figure 42. Relative seasonal abundance of seabirds within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary for the calendar year 

July 1994–June 1995. ............................................................................................................................................... 85

Figure 43. Part 1. Spatial distribution and density of seabirds in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. .................................. 86

Figure 43. Part 2. Spatial distribution and density of seabirds in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. .................................. 87

Figure 44. Demonstrated high seasonal and inter-annual variability in the relative abundance of seabird species 

frequenting the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary based on standardized survey sightings data for the period July 

1994–August 1995...................................................................................................................................................... 88

Figure 45. Illustration of the great auk. ......................................................................................................................... 89

Figure 46. Spatial distribution and density of key prey species for piscivorous cetaceans in the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary and the southern GoM. .............................................................................................................................. 95

Figure 47. Overlay of spatial distribution of North Atlantic right whale relative abundance (sightings-per-unit 

effort: SPUE) on spatial distribution of Calanus copepods for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the 

southern GoM. .......................................................................................................................................................... 95

Figure 48a. Spatial distribution and relative abundance of key cetacean species in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

and the southern GoM based on interpolation of SPUE for the period 1970–2005. ................................................... 97

Figure 48b. Spatial distribution and relative abundance of key cetacean species in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

and the southern GoM based on interpolation of SPUE for the period 1970–2005. ................................................... 98

Figure 49. Seasonal patterns of interpolated SPUE data for all baleen whale species in spring, summer, fall and 

winter and all seasons combined for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the southern GoM (1970–2005). ............... 99

Figure 50. Seasonal patterns of interpolated SPUE data for all dolphins and porpoises in spring, summer, fall, 

winter and all seasons combined for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the southern GoM (1970–2005). ............. 100

Figure 51. Relative occurrence of fin, humpback, minke and right whales in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ............. 101

Figure 52. Relative occurrence of harbor porpoise, white-sided dolphins and pilot whales in the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary. ................................................................................................................................................................ 101

Figure 53. Frequency of Cetacean Sightings within Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by month. Data are from 

standardized surveys from July 2001–June 2002. ..................................................................................................... 101

Figure 54. Comparison of the spatial distribution of baleen whales within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary from 

whale watch and standardized survey data. ............................................................................................................. 102

Figure 55. A three-dimensional visualization of the spatial distribution of baleen whales within the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary (1979–2004). ........................................................................................................................................... 103

Figure 56. A time/depth plot of the diving behavior of a tagged humpback whale in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

over a 15-hour period in July of 2006. ..................................................................................................................... 104
xiii

Figure 57. Visualization showing the NOAA Ship Nancy Foster acoustically mapping sand lance prey fields in the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ................................................................................................................................... 105

Figure 58. GPS tracks of 36 commercial whale watching trips from six major whale watching ports in 

Massachusetts that were monitored by onboard observers during the summer and fall of 2003. ............................... 106

Figure 59. Comparison of a vessel’s maximum recorded trip speed and its maximum recorded zone 1 speed 

for 46 commercial whale watching trips representing 12 companies operating in and around the Stellwagen 

Sanctuary in 2003 and 2004. .................................................................................................................................. 107

Figure 60. Co-occurrence of baleen whales and tuna fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 

July 2001–June 2002. .............................................................................................................................................. 108

Figure 61. Photograph of a hooked humpback whale in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary trailing tuna 

fishing tackle. .......................................................................................................................................................... 108

Figure 62. Approximate location of ship strikes to baleen whales along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. 

including the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary from 1979–2002. ..................................................................................... 108

Figure 63. Historical trends (1980–2004) in the cruising speed (annual minimum, maximum and mean) of c

ommercial whale watch vessels operating within and around the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ................................. 109

Figure 64. Maximum and average speed in knots for all (156) tracked commercial vessels transiting the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary during the months of April and May 2006 using the USCG’s AIS. .................................................... 109

Figure 65. Mandatory ship reporting system (MSRS) data from 1999–2002 showing tracks of large commercial 

vessels traversing the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. .................................................................................................... 111

Figure 66. Ship tracks in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and western GoM for the months of April and May 2006 

derived from the USCG AIS. .................................................................................................................................... 111

Figure 67. Sighting locations of whales reported entangled in fishing gear in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and 

GoM between 1985 and 2006. ............................................................................................................................... 112

Figure 68. Distribution and density of number of active fixed gear fishing vessels (gillnet, lobster, and other 

trap/pot fisheries) from Virginia to Maine during 2004. ............................................................................................ 112

Figure 69. Relative Interaction Potential (RIP) index showing the potential for interaction between baleen 

whales and fixed fishing gear in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, by 5-minute square area. ...................................... 113

Figure 70. Three-dimensional ribbon track of a tagged humpback whale showing extensive interdependent use 

of seafloor and water column during foraging along the bottom. .............................................................................. 114

Figure 71. Spatial distribution of commercial herring fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 

1996–2005. ............................................................................................................................................................ 115

Figure 72. Herring landings in pounds by fishing gear type and year from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

during 1996–2005. .................................................................................................................................................. 116

Figure 73. Realignment of the shipping lanes (TSS) into the Port of Boston by the International Maritime 

Organization to reduce the risk of ship strikes to baleen whales in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ......................... 118

Figure 74. Location of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary relative to Area 1A in the herring fishery management plan. ... 119

Figure 75. Historic photograph of the steamship Portland from 1891. The Portland sank with all hands during the 

Portland Gale in November 1898.............................................................................................................................. 122

Figure 76. The steamship Portland’s location in the sanctuary was confirmed by NOAA scientists in 2002. ............... 122

Figure 77. Fragile teacups and dishware in the galley survived the Portland’s plummet to seafloor in 1898. ................ 123

Figure 78. Historical photograph of the 4-masted coal schooner Frank A Palmer. ...................................................... 123

Figure 79. Historical photograph of the 5-masted coal schooner Louise B Crary. ........................................................ 123

Figure 80. In 2002, NOAA scientists confirmed the location of the schooners Frank A. Palmer and Louise B. Crary

in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. ............................................................................................................................ 123

Figure 81. The Frank A. Palmer’s stern cabin contains the remains of the captain’s sink and toilet. ............................. 124

Figure 82. Historical postcard of the 5-masted coal schooner Paul Palmer offloading coal in New Hampshire. ......... 124

Figure 83. The Paul Palmer rests on top of Stellwagen Bank with its wooden frames and hull planking protruding 

up from the sand. ..................................................................................................................................................... 124

Figure 84. Artifacts, such as the brass hand bell and ceramic dishes seen here, are well preserved on this wooden 

hulled shipwreck with a coal cargo. ........................................................................................................................ 125

Figure 85. The coal cargo depicted in this photograph covers the remains of a shipwreck. ........................................ 125
xiv Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Figure 86. This shipwreck’s granite block cargo was destined for use in the construction of sidewalks and 

sewer systems. ......................................................................................................................................................... 125

Figure 87. Many Eastern rig draggers similar to the one pictured here sank within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

and are being documented by sanctuary archaeologists. ......................................................................................... 126

Figure 88. Wire rope associated with a trawl net cuts into the steamship Portland’s bow. ........................................... 127

Figure 89. This large trawl net was once wrapped around the schooner Paul Palmer’s windlass, where it was a 

hazard to SCUBA divers and marine life. ................................................................................................................. 127

Figure 90. Gillnets cover the schooner Louise B. Crary’s bow. .................................................................................... 128

Figure 91. Jigs are evidence of hook and line fishing activity on the schooner Paul Palmer. ....................................... 128

Figure 92. Braided and monofilament fishing line is caught around the Frank A. Palmer’s steering wheel. .................. 129

Figure 93. Spatial density patterns based on fishing trips for two types of bottom mobile gear (otter trawls and 

dredges combined) in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary are compared using standardized survey data (a) and 

Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data (b) over the same time period (July 2001–June 2002). ................................................ 134

Figure 94. Spatial density patterns based on fishing trips using fixed gear (e.g., lobster traps, sink gillnets and 

longlines) in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary are compared using standardized survey data (a) and Vessel 

Trip Report (VTR) data (b) over the same time period (July 2001–June 2002). .......................................................... 135

Figure 95. Comparison of the density and distribution of surface buoys within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary over 

two survey periods: from May 1994 through August 1995 and from July 2001 through June 2002. ......................... 137

Figure 96. Comparison of the density and distribution of mobile fishing vessels (stern dragger, eastern dragger 

and scallop dredge) within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary over two survey periods: from May 1994 through 

August 1995 and from July 2001 through June 2002. .............................................................................................. 138

Figure 97. Size and location of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary relative to State of Massachusetts Offshore 

Area 19 for reporting lobster landings and NOAA Fishing Area 4 for reporting bluefin tuna landings. ..................... 139

Figure 98. Trends in value (2005$) of annual commercial fishery landings from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

for the period 1996–2005.......................................................................................................................................... 142

Figure 99. Trends in annual commercial fishery landings in pounds from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary for 

the period 1996–2005............................................................................................................................................... 142

Figure 100. Distribution of commercial fishery landings from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by county landed 

based on total landings value for the period 1996–2005. .......................................................................................... 142

Figure 101. Spatial density patterns based on fishing trips for party boat (a) and charter boat (b) fishing in the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary during July 2001–June 2002. .......................................................................................................... 145

Figure 102. Trend in number of party and charter boats fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 1996–2005. 147

Figure 103. Distribution of (a) party boat and (b) charter boat landings (number of fish) from the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary by county landed for the period 1996–2005..................................................................................... 149

Figure 104. Trends in number of anglers and trips by party boats fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 

1996–2005. ............................................................................................................................................................ 150

Figure 105. Trends in number of anglers and trips by charter boats fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 

1996–2005. ............................................................................................................................................................ 150

Figure 106. Trends in party boat and charter boat landings (quantity) from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 

1996–2005. ............................................................................................................................................................ 150

Figure 107. Sanctuary map showing that almost 15% or 126 square miles of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is 

within the recreational dive limit of 130 feet. .......................................................................................................... 156

Figure 108. Three-dimensional representation of large commercial vessel traffic (156 ships) crossing the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary based on USCG AIS data for April–May 2006. ................................................................................ 157

Figure 109. Number of commercial deep draft vessel transits to/from the Port of Boston by month for the years 

2001–2003. ............................................................................................................................................................ 158

Figure 110. Location of two separate Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) deepwater ports, Northeast Gateway and 

Neptune, proposed adjacent to the western boundary (inserts) of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. Each port 

would have at least two offshore installations indicated by the buoy locations. ......................................................... 162

Figure 111. Spatial density patterns based on trips for all fishing recorded in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

during July 2001–June 2002 based on Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data. ....................................................................... 169
xv

Tables

Table 1. Summary of current research and monitoring projects in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. .................................. 17

Table 2. Summary of representative education and outreach products and programs developed by the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary or through collaboration with its partners. .......................................................................................... 21

Table 3. Comparison of intensity and severity of various sources of physical disturbance to the seafloor (based on 

Hall (1994) and Watling and Norse (1998)). .............................................................................................................. 53

Table 4. Inventory of known invasive species to the Gulf of Maine region. ................................................................... 64

Table 5. Time taken for objects to dissolve at sea. .......................................................................................................... 67

Table 6. Sightings totaling 5,825 seabirds of 34 species in nine families recorded in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

during July 1994–August 1995. ................................................................................................................................... 84

Table 7. Conservation status of sea turtles found in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and GoM region. ............................. 91

Table 8. Conservation status of 22 species of marine mammals sighted in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary...................... 93

Table 9. The level of non-compliance with the speed portion of the NOAA whale watching guidelines based on 

the monitoring of 46 commercial whale watching trips operating in and around the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

during 2003–2004. .................................................................................................................................................. 106

Table 10. Herring landings (millions of pounds) from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by gear type (1996–2005).......... 115

Table 11. Principal gear types fished in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 1996–2005. ....................................... 135

Table 12. Commercial vessels fishing within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by state of homeport............................... 138

Table. 13. Landings value (2005$) by commercial fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by state and county 

landed (1996-2005). Table is based on VTR data with adjustments made for Area 19 and Area 4 landings. .............. 140

Table 14. Landings in pounds by commercial fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by state and county landed 

(1996-2005). Table is based on VTR data with adjustments made for Area 19 and Area 4 landings........................... 141

Table 15. Top ten species landed and top ten commercial fishing gear types used in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

(1996–2005) based on landed value (2005$) and volume (lbs.). ............................................................................... 143

Table 16. Comparison of ex-vessel value (2005$) of commercial fishery landings from the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary (1996–2005) by New England state landed relative to total value of fishery landings in those states 

from all sources. ...................................................................................................................................................... 143

Table 17. Number of (a) party boats and (b) charter boats by state of home port that landed fish from the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 1996–2005. ......................................................................................................... 146

Table 18. Number of vessels, trips and anglers fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by (a) party boats and 

(b) charter boats during 1996–2005........................................................................................................................... 147

Table 19. Quantity of fish landed by (a) party boats and (b) charter boats fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

by state and county landed (1996–2005)................................................................................................................... 148

Table 20. Top ten species caught by (a) party boat and (b) charter boat fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

during 1996–2005 based on number of fish landed................................................................................................... 150

Figure 112. Cumulative impacts caused by fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, mediated through 

directed mortality and collateral impacts affecting community interactions, leading to altered ecological 

integrity. .................................................................................................................................................................... 170

Figure 113. Effects on marine mammals caused by the cumulative impacts of human activities in the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary that could alter their role as a functional element of the sanctuary ecosystem................................... 172

Figure 114. Effects on maritime heritage resources in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary caused by cumulative impacts 

and leading to diminished archaeological integrity.................................................................................................... 173

Figure 115. NMSP performance evaluation logic model. .............................................................................................. 179

Figure 116. Five-year management plan costs............................................................................................................... 181

Figure 117. Current organizational chart for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.................................................................. 186

Figure 118. Organizational Chart—proposed. .............................................................................................................. 187

Figure 119. Hypothetical application of S-CAP process. ............................................................................................... 205
xvi Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 21. Landings (pounds) by species in the federal offshore waters of Massachusetts by (a) private/rental 

boats and (b) party/charter boats during 1996–2005 based on the NOAA Survey Query data. Adjustments 

were made as detailed in the text. ............................................................................................................................. 152

Table 22. Annual shipping transits of commercial deep draft vessels to/from the Port of Boston (2000–2005). ............ 157

Table 23. Characteristics of commercial deep draft vessels and other maritime traffic entering/leaving the Port 

of Boston. Number of transits indicated is for 2005. ............................................................................................... 159

Table 24. Revised summary of findings from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary Condition Report (2006) that was

prepared preliminary to this document. ................................................................................................................... 174

Table 25. Estimated Annual Costs for Action Plan Implementation................................................................................ 180

Table 26. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for ADMIN action plan......................................................... 186

Table 27. Estimated costs for ADMIN action plan. ........................................................................................................ 190

Table 28. Performance measures for ADMIN action plan.............................................................................................. 191

Table 29. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for IC action plan. ................................................................ 193

Table 30. Estimated costs for IC action plan.................................................................................................................. 195

Table 31. Performance measures for IC action plan. ..................................................................................................... 196

Table 32. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for POE action plan.............................................................. 198

Table 33. Estimated costs for POE action plan............................................................................................................... 201

Table 34. Performance measures for POE action plan. .................................................................................................. 202

Table 35. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for CD action plan. .............................................................. 204

Table 36. Estimated costs for CD action plan. ............................................................................................................... 205

Table 37. Performance measures for CD action plan..................................................................................................... 205

Table 38. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for EBM action plan. ............................................................ 208

Table 39. Estimated costs for EBSM action plan. ........................................................................................................... 212

Table 40. Performance measures for EBSM action plan................................................................................................. 213

Table 41. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for EA action plan. ............................................................... 215

Table 42. Estimated costs for EA action plan. ................................................................................................................ 220

Table 43. Performance measures for EA action plan...................................................................................................... 221

Table 44. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for WQ action plan. ............................................................. 223

Table 45. Estimated costs for WQ action plan............................................................................................................... 225

Table 46. Performance measures for WQ action plan. .................................................................................................. 226

Table 47. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for MMBD action plan. ........................................................ 229

Table 48. Estimated costs for MMBD action plan.......................................................................................................... 233

Table 49. Performance measures for MMBD action plan. ............................................................................................. 234

Table 50. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for MMVS action plan. ......................................................... 236

Table 51. Estimated costs for MMVS action plan........................................................................................................... 238

Table 52. Performance measures for MMVS action plan. .............................................................................................. 239

Table 53. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for MME action plan. ........................................................... 241

Table 54. Estimated costs for MME action plan. ............................................................................................................ 244

Table 55. Performance measures for MME action plan.................................................................................................. 245

Table 56. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for MH action plan............................................................... 248

Table 57. Estimated costs for MH action plan. .............................................................................................................. 252

Table 58. Performance measures for MH action plan.................................................................................................... 253
1

I. 

Introduction

to the

Document

This section introduces the draft management 

plan. It provides overviews of the National 

Marine Sanctuary Program and the Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary. It addresses 

NMSP authorization and sanctuary designation. It describes the management plan review 

process and the extensive role of the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council in development of the action 

plans. And, it illustrates the management 

continuum envisioned for the sanctuary.
2 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Overview of the National Marine

Sanctuary Program

The NMSP serves as the trustee for a system of 14 marine 

protected areas1, encompassing more than 290,000 square 

miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington 

State to the Florida Keys, and from New England to American Samoa (Figure 1). The NMSP is an office within the 

National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (see Sidebar). The sanctuary system includes: 13 national marine sanctuaries and 

the Papahanāumokuākea Marine National Monument. The 

NMSP works cooperatively with the public to protect the 

living marine and non-living resources of sanctuaries while 

allowing recreational and commercial activities that are 

compatible with the primary goal of resource protection. 

The NMSP raises public awareness of sanctuary resources 

and management issues through programs of scientific 

research, monitoring, exploration, education and outreach.

The national marine sanctuaries are an essential part of this 

country’s collective environmental riches. Within their 

protected waters, giant whales feed, breed and nurse their 

young, coral colonies flourish, and shipwrecks tell stories 

of our maritime history. Sanctuary habitats include beautiful rocky reefs, lush kelp forests, whale migration corridors 

1Ex. Ord. No. 13158, May 26, 2000, 65 F.R. 34909 Sec. 2. (a) defines a 

“marine protected area” as, “...any area of the marine environment that has 

been reserved by Federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural 

resources therein.”

and destinations, spectacular deep-sea canyons, and underwater archaeological sites. Our nation’s marine sanctuaries provide a safe habitat for species close to extinction or 

protect historically significant shipwrecks. They range in 

size from one-quarter square mile in American Samoa’s 

Fagatele Bay to the more than 140,000 square miles in 

the Papahanāumokuākea Marine National Monument in 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands—the largest marine 

protected area in the world. Each sanctuary is a unique 

place needing special protection. Serving as natural classrooms, cherished recreational spots and places for valuable 

commercial activities, marine sanctuaries represent many 

things to many people.

The NMSP provides oversight and coordination of the sanctuary system by setting priorities for addressing resource 

management issues and directing program and policy 

development. The NMSP is responsible for ensuring that 

the management plan prepared for each sanctuary is consistent with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The NMSP 

provides a general budget for expenditures for program 

development, operating costs and staffing. On an annual 

basis, the NMSP reviews and adjusts funding priorities and 

requirements to reflect resource management needs of the 

respective sanctuaries. The NMSP also monitors the effectiveness of the management plan, makes recommendations 

to promulgate regulatory changes 

where necessary, and monitors intraand inter-agency agreements.

The National Marine

Sanctuaries Act

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et. seq.) is 

the organic legislation governing the 

NMSP (Appendix A). The NMSA 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce 

to designate as national marine sanctuaries, areas of the marine environment 

or Great Lakes with special national 

significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, 

educational or aesthetic qualities. 

Sanctuaries are special areas set aside 

in perpetuity for long-term protection 

and conservation and are part of our 

nation’s legacy to future generations; 

essentially the marine equivalent 

to our national parks. The NMSP is 

the Federal program within NOAA 

charged with managing national 

marine sanctuaries. The primary 

objective of the NMSA is to protect 

sanctuary resources. The NMSA also directs the NMSP to 

facilitate all public and private uses of those resources, to 

the extent that they are compatible with the primary objective of resource protection. 

Figure 1. The system of National Marine Sanctuaries.
I. Introduction to the Document 3

The purposes and policies of the NMSA are

(1) To identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries 

areas of the marine environment which are of special 

national significance and to manage these areas as the 

National Marine Sanctuary System;

(2) To provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated 

conservation and management of these marine 

areas, and activities affecting them, in a manner that 

complements existing regulatory authorities; 

(3) To maintain the natural biological communities in the 

national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where 

appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, 

populations and ecological processes; 

(4) To enhance public awareness, understanding, 

appreciation, and wise and sustainable use of the 

marine environment, and the natural, historical, cultural 

and archeological resources of the National Marine 

Sanctuary System;

(5) To support, promote and coordinate scientific research 

on, and long-term monitoring of, the resources of these 

marine areas;

(6) To facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary 

objective of resource protection, all public and private 

uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited 

pursuant to other authorities; 

(7) To develop and implement coordinated plans for 

the protection and management of these areas 

with appropriate Federal agencies, state and local 

governments, Native American tribes and organizations, 

international organizations, and other public and 

private interests concerned with the continuing health 

and resilience of these marine areas; 

(8) To create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve 

and manage these areas, including the application of 

innovative management techniques; and

(9) To cooperate with global programs encouraging 

conservation of marine resources.

Comprehensive Management of National Marine

Sanctuaries

The NMSA states that the NMSP shall “maintain for future 

generations the habitat and ecological services of the natural assemblage of living resources that inhabit [sanctuaries]” 

(16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., §301(a)(4)(A),(C). The NMSA further 

recognizes that “while the need to control the effects of 

particular activities has led to enactment of resource-specific 

legislation, these laws cannot in all cases provide a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the conservation and 

management of the marine environment” (16 U.S.C. 1431 

et seq., §301(a) (3)). Accordingly, the NMSP subscribes to 

a broad and comprehensive management approach to meet 

the NMSA’s primary objective of resource protection. 

This comprehensive management approach differs from 

that of various other national and local agencies and laws 

directed at resource-specific management. Comprehensive 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA)

NOAA Mission: To understand and predict changes in 

Earth’s environment and conserve and mange coastal and 

marine resources to meet our Nation’s economic, social, and 

environmental needs (NOAA, 2005).

The NMSP is part of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which 

conducts research and gathers data about the global 

oceans, atmosphere, space and sun, and applies this 

knowledge to science and service that touch the lives 

of all Americans (www.noaa.gov). In doing so, NOAA 

warns of dangerous weather, charts the nation’s seas 

and skies, guides the use and protection of ocean and 

coastal resources, and conducts research to improve 

the collective understanding and stewardship of the 

environment that sustains the nation.

A Commerce Department agency, NOAA provides 

these services through five major organizations: the 

National Weather Service; the National Ocean Service; 

the National Marine Fisheries Service; the National 

Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service; 

the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; as 

well as numerous special program units. In addition, 

NOAA research and operational activities are supported 

by the nation’s seventh uniformed service, the NOAA 

Corps, a commissioned officer corps of men and women 

who operate NOAA ships and aircraft, and serve in 

scientific and administrative posts.

National Ocean Service (NOS)

The NMSP is part of the National Ocean Service (NOS). 

The NOS (http://www.nos.noaa.gov) develops the 

national foundation for coastal and ocean science, 

management, response, restoration and navigation. 

The NOS maintains a leadership role in coastal and 

ocean stewardship by bridging the gap between science, 

management, and public policy in the areas of healthy 

coasts, navigation, coastal and ocean science, and 

coastal hazards. Ten program offices are located within 

the NOS:

•	 National Marine Sanctuary Program 

•	 Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and 

Services (CO-OPS)

•	 National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

(NCCOS)

•	 Coastal Services Center (CSC)

•	 Office of Coast Survey (OCS)

•	 Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 

(OCRM) 

•	 Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R)

•	 National Geodetic Survey (NGS)

•	 International Program Office (IPO)

•	 Management and Budget Office (MBO)
4 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

sanctuary management serves as a framework for addressing long-term protection of a wide range of living and nonliving marine resources, while allowing multiple uses of 

the sanctuary to the extent that they are compatible with 

the primary goal of resource protection. The resources 

managed by the NMSP span diverse geographic, administrative, political and economic boundaries. Strong partnerships among resource management agencies, the scientific 

community, stakeholders and the public at-large are needed 

to realize the coordination and program integration that the 

NMSA calls for in order to comprehensively manage national marine sanctuaries.

Overview of the Stellwagen Bank

National Marine Sanctuary

Designation

Designation of Stellwagen Bank as the nation’s twelfth (and 

New England’s first and only) national marine sanctuary was 

the culmination of over a decade of effort (see Appendix B). 

In the late 1980s, an elevated public awareness of regional 

development activities prompted calls for greater protection of New England’s marine resources. Stellwagen Bank 

was first nominated for consideration as a national marine 

sanctuary in 1982 by the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, Massachusetts and the Defenders of Wildlife in 

Washington, D.C. The following year NOAA added Stellwagen Bank to its “Site Evaluation List” from which NOAA 

chose ocean areas as active candidates for designation as 

national marine sanctuaries.

NOAA elevated the Stellwagen Bank proposal to Active 

Candidate status on April 19, 1989 (54 FR 15787). This 

was done in response to a requirement in the 1988 amendments to the NMSA that a prospectus on the Stellwagen 

Bank proposal be submitted to Congress by September 30, 

1990 (P.L. 100-627, s. 205(b)(1)). NOAA commenced gathering public comment and prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan and the Prospectus 

for Congress. These were published on February 8, 1991, 

initiating a 60-day public comment period and a 45-day 

Congressional review period. During the comment period, 

a series of public hearings were held, 860 written comments 

were submitted, and petitions signed by more than 20,000 

persons supporting designation of the Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary were received by NOAA. 

On October 7, 1992, Congress passed legislation reauthorizing and amending Title III of the Marine Protection, 

Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) [now titled the 

National Marine Sanctuaries Act]. This legislation was 

signed into law on November 4, 1992. Section 2202 of that 

law designates the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Among related initiatives, it establishes the sanctuary boundary; prohibits the exploration for and mining of 

sand and gravel and other minerals in the sanctuary; and 

requires consultation with the Secretary of Commerce by 

Federal agencies proposing agency actions in the vicinity 

of the sanctuary that may affect sanctuary resources. The 

sanctuary consists of an area entirely within federal waters, 

measuring approximately 842 square miles (638 square 

nautical miles) and lying off the coast of Massachusetts. 

Resource Characteristics

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary was designated for a multitude of reasons, including its high natural productivity and 

species diversity, as well as its long history of human use. 

There are well over 575 known species in the sanctuary and 

the list is largely incomplete. Living landscapes (anemone 

forests, sponge gardens, hydroid meadows, worm tube beds) 

carpet the seafloor and the associated marine communities 

support benthic and pelagic species that are dependent 

upon them. Water column and seafloor habitats sustain 

over 80 species of fish and provide important feeding and 

nursery grounds for 22 marine mammal species including 

the endangered humpback and fin whales and the critically 

endangered North Atlantic right whale. The area supports 

foraging activity by 34 species of seabirds dominated by 

gulls, storm petrels, gannets, auks (alcids), sea ducks and 

shearwaters. Fish and invertebrate populations include 

both demersal and pelagic species, such as cod, flounders, 

bluefin tuna, herring, lobster and scallops. Leatherback and 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (endangered species) on occasion 

visit the area for feeding. 

Sitting astride historic fishing grounds and shipping routes, 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary has been a locus for a variety 

of human maritime activities for centuries. As Gloucester is 

America’s oldest seaport, Stellwagen Bank (formerly Middle 

Bank) is among the most historic fishing grounds in the Gulf 

of Maine, harkening back to colonial times. The major 

shipping corridors established in the past are still prominent 

today where they cross the sanctuary. Shipwrecks on the 

sanctuary’s seafloor represent the development of commercial fishing and maritime transportation during the nearly 

400 years that maritime commerce passed through the area. 

To date 18 historic shipwreck sites have been located in the 

sanctuary and four of the shipwrecks have been identified 

by name; three shipwreck sites are listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. These shipwrecks are tangible 

connections to the past that allow the sanctuary to study 

and better understand the area’s history. 

Sanctuary Management Plan Review

The sanctuary management plan review (MPR) process is 

based on three fundamental steps: 1) public scoping, which 

includes a formal comment period and public meetings 

to identify a broad range of issues and concerns related to 

management of the sanctuary; 2) analysis and prioritization 

of the issues raised during scoping, followed by the development of action plans; and 3) preparation of the draft and 

final management plans and relevant NEPA documentation, 

such as an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment. Public review of the draft management 

plan provides guidance for staff to revise the document 

and prepare the final management plan. Once approved by 

NOAA, the final management plan will outline the sanctuary’s priorities for the next five years. 
I. Introduction to the Document 5

Management plans are sanctuary-specific documents that 

perform many functions, including describing regulations and boundaries; outlining staffing and budget needs; 

setting priorities and performance measures for resource 

protection, research and education programs; and, guiding 

development of future budgets and management activities. 

Periodic management plan review, required by law for all 

National Marine Sanctuaries, is conducted to ensure that 

each site properly conserves and protects its nationally 

significant living and cultural resources. The Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary’s existing management plan was published 

in July 1993. Five years later, NOAA initiated its five-year 

management plan review.

From December 1998 to January 1999, the sanctuary initiated formal review of its management plan by holding public 

scoping meetings in Barnstable, Boston and Gloucester 

(MA) to ask the public for comments on the status of site 

management. The MPR was delayed several years due to a 

change in sanctuary management. The MPR resumed with 

an open public comment period during July 2–October 18, 

2002. An additional round of nine public scoping meetings, coincident with this comment period, was held during 

September and October at the following locations: Mystic, 

CT; New Bedford, MA; Provincetown, MA; Falmouth, MA; 

Plymouth, MA; Boston, MA; Gloucester, MA; Portsmouth, 

NH; and Portland, ME. The State of the Sanctuary Report, 

published in June 2002, set the stage for these meetings and 

public comment period. 

During the scoping process, the public identified a range 

of important considerations for sanctuary management. 

Eight key topics comprised of 27 issues were synthesized 

by sanctuary staff from the input of over 300 participants 

who attended the scoping meetings and the approximately 20,000 written comments received during both public 

comment periods. These key topics and their respective 

issues are listed in Appendix C. Upon conclusion of public 

scoping, the Sanctuary Advisory Council engaged in a 

lengthy and intensive effort during 2002–2005 to prioritize 

these issues and, through working groups, develop action 

plans with recommendations to address them.

Sanctuary Advisory Council

Citizens of New England are politically and socially engaged 

on issues affecting their communities and the surrounding 

environment, including the ocean. The Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary came about largely due to the dedication and 

determination of thousands of local citizens and elected 

officials who strongly advocated for sanctuary designation. To this day, public participation permeates nearly 

every aspect of the sanctuary’s management and operation, 

with people serving on the Sanctuary Advisory Council and 

its working groups, becoming involved in the sanctuary’s 

community outreach and educational activities, as well as 

offering informal advice on a variety of sanctuary issues and 

related opportunities. 

Much of the time, this public interest is channeled through 

the Advisory Council, which serves as the primary connection to the stakeholders of the sanctuary, including 

concerned citizens. The Advisory Council is formed of 

members from the public to provide advice to the sanctuary superintended on the management and protection of the 

sanctuary. Section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish Sanctuary Advisory Councils. This authority has been delegated 

to the Director of the NMSP. 

The current Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council 

was formally constituted and approved on October 3, 2001; 

the first meeting was convened on November 5, 2001. The 

Advisory Council is comprised of a total 21 members, of 

which 15 voting public members represent various stakeholder interests and 6 non-voting ex-officio members (or 

their designee) represent state and federal agencies. There 

are also 15 alternates for the public seats, who assume 

the seat and vote in the absence of the respective public 

member. [Note: the Advisory Council charter was amended on December 10, 2007 to increase the number of public 

members to 17.] The Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory 

Council has public representation from four states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine) and eight 

Congressional districts; the Advisory Council is among the 

largest in the national system and is distinguished by its 

multi-state representation. Advisory Council membership 

is listed in Appendix D. 

Advisory Council members are selected through an open 

recruitment process to represent the views of their particular constituency. Applications are reviewed by the Advisory Council executive committee working with the sanctuary superintendent, who makes final recommendations. 

Appointment is by the Director of the NMSP. Members are 

volunteers serving two- or three-year terms. The Stellwagen 

Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council has participated in every 

step of the MPR process, including the public scoping meetings. 

Between 2002 and 2005 the Advisory Council held frequent 

meetings to accomplish the following: 

•	prioritize issues

•	formulate action plan topics

•	agree on working group tasking and make-up

•	convene working groups to develop and recommend

action plans

•	review, revise and adopt working group action plans

•	forward amended action plans to the sanctuary superintendent

•	prioritize action plan strategies

•	formulate a sanctuary vision statement

Appendix E lists the Advisory Council meetings related to 

MPR.

Role of Working Groups

The preparation of action plans required a prodigious 

effort, involving the simultaneous convening of 11 working 
6 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

groups of the Advisory Council (see Sidebar). This effort was 

possible because of the able leadership and dedication of 

the Advisory Council members and alternates, who served 

as chairs for these groups. Other working group members 

represented stakeholder interests, including industry and 

environmental organizations, and government agencies having relevant jurisdiction and technical capacities, 

academia and general educational institutions, and members 

of the concerned public. In some cases, technical advisors 

informed working groups on specific issues. Sanctuary 

staff represented the sanctuary on each working group and 

offered support services, such as making meeting arrangements and preparing minutes. After the other 11 working 

groups had completed their tasks, an additional working 

group on compatibility determination was convened. This 

sequencing was necessary because the sanctuary did not 

have the capacity to simultaneously staff this working group, 

in addition to the others. 

Working group topics generated considerable discussion 

among the Advisory Council, particularly with regard to 

fishing. Some members felt that fishing warranted its own 

action plan. Others felt that the working groups should be 

organized around issues and concerns, irrespective of the 

type of activity that may be involved. As an outcome, the 

effects of fishing were largely subsumed within the broader 

context of ecosystem alteration and other related concerns, 

such as marine mammal entanglement and damage to maritime heritage resources. The Advisory Council chose to 

evaluate the suite of impacts first, and then consider their 

cause in relation to human activity. 

Working group members were selected through an open, 

competitive recruitment process approved by the Advisory Council. Recruitment was conducted by the Advisory 

Council executive committee working with the sanctuary 

superintendent. The working groups followed a set of 

ground rules that were approved by the Advisory Council. 

Working groups elected to operate by consensus rather than 

voting and allowed for alternates among their membership. 

Combined membership on the working groups totaled more 

than 200 people and is listed in Appendix F. 

Principal Outcomes

The Advisory Council reviewed and, where deemed necessary, modified the working group action plans at their October 10, 2004 meeting. The amended action plans were 

adopted by vote of the Advisory Council, and then forwarded 

as advice for consideration by the sanctuary superintendent. 

At a follow-up meeting in November 5, 2004, the Advisory 

Council prioritized the strategies and activities within each 

action plan. At their July 11, 2005 meeting, the Advisory 

Council developed a vision statement for the sanctuary that 

has been adopted by NOAA and included in this document. 

It reads as follows:

“The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is 

teeming with a great diversity and abundance of marine 

life supported by diverse, healthy habitats in clean 

ocean waters. The ecological integrity of the sanctuary 

is protected and fully restored for current and future 

generations. Human uses are diverse and compatible 

with maintaining natural and cultural resources.”

The intent and overall goals of the action plans, as submitted 

by the Advisory Council, have been maintained and serve 

as the foundation for the draft management plan. NOAA 

has significantly reorganized and condensed these versions 

in order to eliminate duplication among them and to make 

them more strategic in their expression. The action plans 

are presented in Section VII of this document. 

The Draft Management Plan

This draft management plan serves as a non-regulatory policy framework for addressing the issues facing the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary over the next five years. The document 

provides strategic guidance for management actions and 

focuses those actions on four priority programmatic areas: 

capacity building, ecosystem protection, marine mammal 

protection and maritime heritage management. NOAA is 

focusing on these priority areas because they will significantly contribute to achieving the vision and mission of the 

sanctuary. 

At this time, NOAA is not proposing any regulations or 

changes to the designation document and an environmental assessment (Section VII) accompanies this management 

plan, rather than an environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (42 U.S.C sec. 4321-4370 et seq.) and Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 

1500-1508). However a suite of regulatory initiatives that 

derives from the strategies presented in the draft management plan ultimately could be considered. Figure 2 illustrates the management continuum envisioned and examples 

of potential management actions. 

Working Groups

•	 Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure

Development and Maintenance

•	 Interagency Cooperation

•	 Public Outreach and Education

•	 Compatibility Determination

•	 Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management

•	 Ecosystem Alteration

•	 Water Quality

•	 Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance

•	 Marine Mammal Vessel Strike

•	 Marine Mammal Entanglement

•	 Maritime Archaeology

•	 Site Characterization
I. Introduction to the Document 7

The remainder of this document is organized into nine 

sections.

Section II. Institutional Setting provides an overview of the 

administration of the sanctuary and how the sanctuary interacts with other federal and state agencies to accomplish its 

mission. 

Section III. Sanctuary Setting introduces the concept of 

managing sanctuary resources for biodiversity conservation. 

It describes the physical characteristics of the sanctuary and 

the primary producers and decomposers that are essential to 

the sanctuary’s ecosystems function.

Section IV. Resource States offers an in-depth analysis of 

the status of the natural and cultural resources of the sanctuary, drawing on extensive new information never before 

compiled in one synthesis. For each resource state, the 

analysis begins with a discussion of status, followed by a 

description of pressures, and concludes with a summary of 

the current protections in place. 

Section V. Status of Human Uses characterizes the primary 

uses occurring within or near the sanctuary.

Figure 2. Illustration of the Proposed Management Continuum for the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary.

Section VI. Summation reviews points raised in previous 

sections, forms conclusions and considers outcomes of 

cumulative actions and effects.

Section VII. Actions Plans presents the suite of recommended strategies and activities that should be implemented to 

adequately address the many issues that need to be resolved, 

in order to manage, protect and restore the resources of the 

sanctuary.

Section VIII. Environmental Assessment complies with 

NEPA and CEQ regulations and provides a description of 

the proposed management action and alternatives.

Section IX. Sources Cited lists the more than 670 technical 

references that offer substantive documentation supporting 

or elaborating on statements made in the text.

Section X. Appendices include background documentation 

that lends support, context and fuller understanding to the 

draft management plan.
8 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment
9

II. 

Institutional

Setting

This section profiles the infrastructure and 

current capacity of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary to carry out its mission. It describes the 

basic components and functions of the sanctuary consisting of administration and management including human resources, funding, 

research, education, enforcement and permitting. In addition, it provides brief descriptions 

of the various federal, state and local agencies and organizations that bear on sanctuary 

management.
10 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Human Resources

Sanctuary Superintendent

The sanctuary superintendent oversees site-specific management functions, including revision and implementation of the 

management plan. The superintendent designates responsibility for implementing specific programs or projects, establishes the administrative framework to ensure all resource 

management activities are coordinated, and maintains and 

manages an appropriate infrastructure to adequately support 

site operations. The superintendent reports to the Regional 

Superintendent for the Northeast and Great Lakes Region of 

the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP). General 

responsibilities of the sanctuary superintendent include:

•	Submitting an annual operating plan that recommends

priorities to the NMSP for annual allocation of funds for 

site operations and resource protection;

•	Formulating and directing research, education, marine

resource management and maritime heritage resource 

management programs;

•	Determining staffing needs and requirements;

•	Coordinating with the NMSP in the evaluation, processing and issuing of permits and the conduct of inter-agency 

consultations;

•	Coordinating on-site efforts of all parties involved in sanctuary activities including state, federal, regional and local 

agencies;

•	Working closely with constituents and the community;

and

•	Evaluating progress made toward achieving sanctuary

goals and objectives.

Sanctuary Staff

Basic staffing supports program activities in ten functional 

areas: 

•	Management Planning

•	Technology Integration and Management

•	Site Operations

•	Resource Protection

•	Research and Monitoring

•	Education and Outreach

•	Maritime Heritage Resources

•	Sanctuary Advisory Council Coordination

•	External Affairs

•	Office Administration

Sanctuary staff has knowledge and expertise in policy, marine 

resource management, education and outreach, scientific research and monitoring, maritime heritage resources, 

geographic information systems (GIS), information technology, program development and office administration. The 

existing organizational structure is shown in Figure 3. There 

are currently seven full-time staff, four of whom are federal 

employees and three are contract employees. Five other 

contract employees are part-time status. There also is one 

post-doctoral fellow working with the sanctuary.

Infrastructure

Site Facilities

The site facilities of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary are located in the Town of Scituate, Massachusetts, approximately 

one hour drive south of Boston. These core facilities are 

situated in a residential area known as First Cliff, a peninsula that separates Massachusetts Bay and Scituate Harbor. 

The sanctuary offices reside at this one site; there are no 

plans in the next 5 years to develop a satellite office. 

However, the sanctuary maintains visitor exhibits in Gloucester and Provincetown in partnership with private organizations. It has semi-permanent displays in cooperation with 

the New England Aquarium, Cape Cod Museum of Natural 

History, Cape Cod National Seashore, Scituate Maritime and 

Irish Mossing Museum, and the Woods Hole Aquarium. It 

also has multiple traveling exhibits consisting of interactive 

Figure 3. Current organizational chart for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.
II. Institutional Setting 11

kiosks that rotate through town public libraries and community educational organizations in the region.

The site facilities consist of an administrative office, meeting annex, boathouse, attached pier and two floating docks 

(Figure 4). Administrative offices and conference room 

occupy a 6,800-sq-ft., three-story building in the former 

Scituate USCG Station. An adjacent 2,200-sq-ft., two-story 

annex houses a meeting facility and office space for visiting faculty, post-doctoral fellows and graduate interns. Both 

buildings are climate-controlled using geothermal technology. Major renovation of the Administrative Building and 

the Annex was completed in 2004. 

A 3,565-sq-ft., two-story boathouse is built on pilings over 

the water and includes a 300-ft. pier, with two floating docks 

attached. The docks have the capacity to berth one 50-ft. 

vessel and three smaller boats simultaneously. Additionally, the sanctuary has three moorings adjacent to the pier. 

Renovations are planned for both the boathouse and pier to 

better utilize the existing capacity and to accommodate the 

new 50-ft. research vessel. The entire complex of structures 

was transferred by Congress in 1999 to NOAA from the 

USCG, which had occupied the site since 1937. 

Vessels

The sanctuary currently operates two vessels in support 

of research and monitoring, education and emergency 

response. 

The R/V Auk is the sanctuary’s new aluminum hydrofoilassisted research catamaran (Figure 5). The R/V Auk is a 

multi-purpose research vessel designed primarily to support 

the sanctuary’s science and education missions. Its length 

overall is 50 ft., its beam is 19 ft. and its draft is less than 5.5 

ft. It has twin 484 hp diesel engines that drive propellers. 

Its cruising speed in the sanctuary is 20 kts, but has a top 

speed of 28 kts. It has a fuel capacity of 600 gallons and 

a range of 400 nm. It carries a crew of two and a science 

party of 12 for day trips. While principally intended as a day 

boat, it can conduct 2-3 day missions with berthing for six 

(two crew and four scientists). Its stable twin-hull configuration and sea keeping ability provide year-round access to all 

parts of the sanctuary. 

The vessel incorporates special design features to facilitate 

research. The vessel holds both wet and dry labs. It can 

deploy, tow, and retrieve scientific equipment with its 750 

lb capacity oceanographic winch. A 2,000-lb hydraulic Aframe and articulated knuckle crane aid in the deployment 

or retrieval of equipment. Bow thrusters aid in positioning 

the vessel. A dive ladder supports diving operations and 

the spacious flying bridge facilitates wildlife observations. 

An 11-ft. rigid hull inflatable can be deployed as necessary. 

The R/V Auk also offers secondary capabilities as an emergency response asset and for on-the-water enforcement 

patrols, if required. The R/V Auk was recognized as one 

of the “Great Boats of 2006” by Marine News magazine 

(December 2006).

The R/V Gannet is the sanctuary’s 28-ft. ‘quick response’ 

vessel. It is has twin 225 hp outboards, cuddy cabin and 

observation tower. The Gannet serves as a research and 

dive platform that supports single day or half-day trips.

Figure 4. Oblique aerial photograph showing the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary buildings (red roofs), pier and docks

on Scituate Harbor in 2003 during facilities renovation. 

(Source: Microsoft Corporation/Pictometry International Corp., 2006)

Figure 5. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary’s 50-foot

research vessel R/V Auk.
12 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Sanctuary Advisory Council

Public involvement in sanctuary management is vitally 

important. Section 315 of the NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish Sanctuary Advisory Councils. This authority has been delegated to the Director of 

the NMSP, who approves Council charters and appoints 

Council members. All sites in the NMSP have Sanctuary 

Advisory Councils.

The charter for the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory 

Council (Advisory Council) was revised and adopted in 

2001. The Advisory Council is composed of a total of 

21 members, of which 15 seats are public voting and six 

seats are ex-officio non-voting (three federal and three state 

agencies). There are also 15 alternates for the public seats, 

who assume the seat and vote in the absence of the respective public member. [Note: The charter was amended on 

December 10, 2007 to increase the number of public voting 

seats to 17.] The sanctuary superintendent participates in 

Advisory Council meetings in a non-voting ex-officio capacity. The Advisory Council has public representation from 

four states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire 

and Maine) and eight Congressional districts. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary Advisory Council is among the largest 

in the national system and is distinguished by its representation from multiple states.

The public member seats represent varied constituent interests. Two seats represent research interests, two represent 

conservation interests, two represent education/outreach 

interests, and one seat each represents marine transportation, recreational fishing, whale watching, fixed gear 

commercial fishing, mobile gear commercial fishing and 

business/industry, while three at-large seats represent the 

general public. [The two seats added by charter amendment on December 10, 2007 are for diving and maritime 

heritage.] With its broad expertise and diverse representation, the Advisory Council offers advice to the sanctuary 

superintendent on resource management issues that helps 

ensure that a wide range of viewpoints are provided upon 

which to base management decisions. 

In order to better understand and address specific management issues and broaden public involvement, the Advisory 

Council extends its capacities by forming a variety of working groups. Working groups invite additional community 

members and experts to participate in the development 

of sound management advice for the sanctuary. Working 

groups are temporary and chaired by an Advisory Council 

member. Working groups are instruments of and make their 

recommendations to the Advisory Council. The Advisory 

Council evaluates the working group recommendations 

and in turn makes their recommendations to the sanctuary 

superintendent. For a list of current and former Advisory 

Council members see Appendix D.

Relationship with Other

Agencies and Authorities

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary works with the numerous 

other agencies listed below. The laws authorizing many of 

these agencies and authorities are provided in Appendix G.

NOAA Offices

Several NOAA offices work closely with the sanctuary, 

including:

NOAA Fisheries Service (National Marine Fisheries Service 

or NMFS)

NOAA Fisheries Service administers NOAA programs that 

assess, manage and promote the domestic and international conservation of living marine resources within the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (3–200 miles offshore). 

NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office (NERO) 

(Gloucester, MA) and associated Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NEFSC) (Woods Hole, MA) serve the northeastern 

U.S. Fishery management plans (FMPs) are developed to 

manage Northeast fisheries by the New England and MidAtlantic Fishery Management Councils. These plans are 

reviewed by NOAA Fisheries Service and, if they comply 

with the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MFCMA) and other applicable laws, are approved and 

implemented. Many of these plans are developed cooperatively with the states through Interstate FMPs developed by 

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 

NOAA Fisheries Service promulgates and enforces the 

regulations for each FMP. NOAA Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division (HCD) plays an important role in 

proposed actions that may affect essential fish habitat (EFH) 

including coordination of comments to permitting agencies 

and sanctuary zoning.

NOAA Fisheries Service also shares responsibility with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), both of which prevent the 

taking of any endangered, threatened or otherwise depleted 

species. As part of the MMPA mandate, the NOAA Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources (OPR) works 

in collaboration with the protected resources divisions of 

the NOAA Fisheries Service regional offices and science 

centers to develop and implement a variety of programs 

for the protection, conservation, and recovery of marine 

mammals.

NOAA Fisheries Service OPR is also responsible for implementing the ESA, generally managing endangered and threatened marine species, including anadromous salmonids. 

NOAA Fisheries Service and USFWS share joint responsibility for managing sea turtles. In the Atlantic Ocean, NOAA 

Fisheries Service manages four species of sea turtles, the 

Atlantic salmon, including their critical habitat, five large 

whale species and several species of pinnipeds. In coordination with the regional offices and science centers, OPR 
II. Institutional Setting 13

develops policies and regulations to implement the provisions of the ESA with the goal of protecting and recovering 

endangered and threatened marine and anadromous species 

and their habitat.

NOAA Fisheries Service offers resources to the sanctuary 

such as collaborative assistance on environmental policy 

processes and enforcement through HCD and NOAA’s 

Office of Law Enforcement (OLE). NERO and the sanctuary collaborate on policy issues where there is an overlap 

in jurisdiction such as: marine mammal protection, habitat 

conservation and marine protected areas. This collaboration extends to permitting of prohibited activities in the 

sanctuary and review of proposed projects that may impact 

sanctuary resources such as the recent LNG deepwater 

ports. NOAA Fisheries Service and sanctuary staff periodically serves on each other’s agency issue-specific working 

groups. NERO is a non-voting ex-officio member (Regional 

Administrator or designated representative) of the Sanctuary 

Advisory Council.

Similarly, the NEFSC and the sanctuary collaborate on 

science and technical issues where there is an overlap in 

jurisdiction. Specifically, collaboration occurs on whale 

research, acoustic monitoring, ecosystem-based management and ecosystem monitoring.

Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO)

The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) 

operates NOAA’s large ships and aircraft by providing 

highly skilled NOAA Corps officers. The sanctuary periodically uses the NOAA ships Delaware and Nancy Foster and 

occasionally NOAA aircraft for research in the sanctuary. 

NOAA Corps officers sometimes assist with diving operations in the sanctuary.

Office of Coastal Resource Management (OCRM)

National Ocean Service’s (NOS) Office of Coastal Resource 

Management (OCRM), is responsible for implementing the 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), which 

Congress passed to address the growing concerns about the 

health of the nation’s coastal resources. The office works 

with state and territorial governments to implement their 

coastal management programs and find local solutions to 

problems occurring throughout the entire nation. Thirtyfour states and territories have active coastal management 

programs. The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management 

(MCZM) program implements the CZMA for the Commonwealth. 

Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R)

NOS’s Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) works 

to prevent and mitigate harm to coastal resources and is the 

primary NOAA office responding to oil spills and hazardous 

material releases. It provides scientific support to the U.S. 

Coast Guard for spills and technical assistance to other agencies for hazardous material releases. The Scientific Support 

Coordinator for the Northeast, based in Boston, serves as 

the sanctuary’s representative in the case of a hazardous 

material spill. OR&R also works with federal and state trustees to restore damaged coastal resources. 

Damage Assessment Center (DAC)

NOS’s Damage Assessment Center (DAC) makes natural 

resource damage assessments for releases of oil and hazardous substances. DAC scientists and economists provide the 

technical foundation for these assessments and work with 

other trustees and responsible parties to restore resources 

injured by releases of oil and hazardous substances, as well 

as other injury to resources of national marine sanctuaries 

and estuarine research reserves. DAC collects data, conducts 

studies, and performs analyses needed to determine whether 

coastal resources have sustained injury from releases of oil 

or hazardous materials, how to restore injured resources, 

and to ascertain the damages that must be recovered to 

accomplish restoration. DAC provides technical support to 

NOAA’s Office of General Counsel and the Department of 

Justice for litigation and for settlement of natural resource 

damage claims.

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) 

NOS’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) 

conducts and supports research, monitoring, assessment, and 

provides technical assistance for managing coastal ecosystems and society’s use of them. NCCOS recently completed 

the extensive ecological characterization of the sanctuary 

region (http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/sbnmns) (NOAA 2006).

Marine Protected Area (MPA) Center

NOS’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) Center works to implement Executive Order 13158, which directs federal agencies to conserve the nation’s valuable marine resources 

through a variety of tasks related to marine protected areas. 

This implementation requires considerable cooperation, 

collaboration and information sharing among many government and non-governmental institutions. Working with the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners, the 

MPA Center: develops the framework for a national network 

of MPAs; coordinates the development of information, 

tools, and strategies; and guides agencies in their efforts to 

enhance and expand the protection of existing MPAs, and 

to establish or recommend new ones; coordinates the MPA 

web site; partners with federal and non-federal organizations to conduct research, analysis and exploration; helps 

construct and maintain an inventory of existing U.S. marine 

managed areas and the MPA List; and supports selection of 

the MPA Advisory Committee and its operation. 

National Undersea Research Program (NURP)

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) 

National Undersea Research Program (NURP) and its 

regional centers work to support marine science conducted 

in situ underwater. NURP is a grant program that provides 

advanced technologies and funding support for scientists to 

address issues of national and regional importance through 

a comprehensive proposal solicitation and review process. 

NURP maintains a network of six regional National Undersea Research Centers (NURCs), funded by annual grants 

from NOAA, that implement the majority of its research 

mission. 
14 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

DOI’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides scientific 

information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize 

loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, 

biological, energy and mineral resources; and enhance and 

protect our quality of life. The USGS has no regulatory or 

management mandate. Scientists within the USGS work 

within four disciplines: biology, geography, geology and 

water. Scientists at the USGS Woods Hole Coastal Geology Center conduct extensive research on habitat mapping 

and classification, sediment transport and contaminant 

transport modeling. In 1994–1995, the USGS successfully 

mapped the entire sanctuary area in high resolution using 

multi-beam echo-sounder technology in conjunction with 

the Canadian Hydrographic Service. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

The Department of Defense (DOD) U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) has authority to issue permits, based 

on EPA guidelines, for the disposal of dredged materials 

at EPA-approved and designated ocean disposal sites (i.e., 

the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site). Under Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act, the USACE is responsible for issuing permits for any marine construction, excavation, or 

fill activities in navigable waters of the U.S. In 2000, the 

USACE issued a permit for the burying of a fiber optic cable 

across the northern portion of the sanctuary. 

U.S. Navy

DOD’s U.S. Navy seldom conducts operations in the sanctuary, due to the shallow depths which are unsuitable for 

submarine operations, and the crowded waters which make 

warfare training exercises inadvisable. Naval ships transit 

the sanctuary approximately seven times a year primarily 

to access the Port of Boston and in so doing follow internal protocols of posting a lookout for whales and avoiding 

discharges in the sanctuary (Tom Fetherston, U.S. Navy, 

personal communication, 2004). Operations in deep 

waters (greater than 200 m) beyond the sanctuary have the 

potential to acoustically disturb sanctuary resources. The 

Navy’s Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island 

has provided research support to the sanctuary by deploying a bottom-imaging autonomous underwater vehicle to 

characterize one of the sanctuary’s historic shipwrecks. 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG or Coast Guard) 

The Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) has broad responsibility for enforcing all federal 

laws and regulations throughout the sanctuary and assists 

NOAA in the enforcement of sanctuary regulations. The 

USCG provides on-scene coordination with Regional 

Response Center facilities under the National Contingency 

Plan for removal of oil and hazardous substances in the 

event of a spill threatening sanctuary resource or qualities. 

In addition to enforcing fishing and vessel discharge regulations, the USCG is responsible for regulating vessel traffic, 

maintaining aids to navigation, increasing boater safety, and 

coordinating search and rescue operations. On any given 

week, the USCG typically has one 270 ft cutter transiting the 

The NURC North Atlantic and Great Lakes at the University 

of Connecticut (NURC-UCONN) is one of the six regional 

centers and is affiliated with the University of Connecticut. 

The sanctuary partners with this center frequently to characterize sanctuary resources.

National Sea Grant College Program

OAR’s National Sea Grant College Program encourages 

the wise stewardship of marine resources through research, 

education, outreach and technology transfer. Sea Grant is a 

grant program working in partnership between the nation’s 

universities and NOAA. It began in 1966, when the U.S. 

Congress passed the National Sea Grant College Program 

Act. Sea Grant specializes in synthesizing the latest developments in marine research and making it accessible to the 

public. The sanctuary works closely with MIT Sea Grant and 

UNH Sea Grant to increase public awareness of sanctuary 

issues and ocean literacy.

Other Federal Agencies

The sanctuary seeks to provide comprehensive and coordinated sanctuary management in ways that complement 

existing regulatory authorities and shares resources when 

appropriate. The following federal agencies have jurisdiction or conduct research within or adjacent to the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

National Park Service (NPS)

The Department of the Interior (DOI) National Park Service 

(NPS) operates the Cape Cod National Seashore (CCNS) 

and the Salem Maritime National Historic District. The 

NPS conserves scenery and wildlife, historic structures and 

provides for the enjoyment of those resources in a manner 

that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations—goals that are consistent with the sanctuary’s 

mission. The CCNS seashore’s proprietary jurisdiction 

extends out to one nautical mile offshore, including northward from the tip of Cape Cod which does not overlap with 

the sanctuary jurisdiction that begins three nautical miles 

offshore. The sanctuary and CCNS cooperate in areas of 

mutual interest, such as increasing awareness of environmental stewardship among the public and interpreting maritime heritage resources. 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

DOI’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) manages the 

nation’s oil and natural gas resources in the outer continental shelf (OCS) pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act (OCSLA), as well as leases pertaining to these resources. 

OCS lands technically include the sanctuary, but there is a 

moratorium on hydrocarbon exploration in the sanctuary.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

DOI’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) works to 

conserve, protect and enhance seabirds, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats. In the sanctuary, the USFWS is responsible for protecting migratory seabirds pursuant to the ESA 

and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
II. Institutional Setting 15

Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area (WGoMCA) looking 

for fishery violations. The USCG is a non-voting ex-officio

member (Admiral 1st District or designated representative) 

of the Sanctuary Advisory Council.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helps protect 

sanctuary water quality by regulating sewage outfalls via 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits 

and ocean dumping under Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, & Sanctuaries Act. Title I requires a federal 

permit for the transportation and disposal of any materials 

beyond state jurisdiction (3 nm) and out to the 200 mile 

EEZ. EPA is responsible for designation of ocean disposal 

sites, certifying the dredged material is suitable for disposal 

in designated ocean dumpsites, and oversees ACOE permits 

for disposal of dredged material. 

Regional Authorities

Three regional fishery management authorities are responsible for managing species occurring in the sanctuary. The 

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and 

the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) 

are authorized by the MFCMA; 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 (ACFCMA).

Species or species complexes in federal waters are managed 

under fishery management plans (FMPs) prepared by the 

NEFMC and MAFMC. For those species that cross jurisdictional boundaries, one of these authorities will take the 

lead on the management plan development and coordinate 

implementation with the other as affected. The ASMFC 

prepares coastal fishery management plans (CMPs) for any 

fishery resource that moves among, or is broadly distributed 

across, waters under the jurisdiction of one or more States 

or waters under 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(s) 

for managing fisheries for the following species, which at 

least sometimes 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 national marine sanctuaries is a collaborative process whereby the sanctuary 

superintendent works with fishery managers and the councils to ensure that sanctuary resources are appropriately 

managed (Appendix H). Stellwagen Bank sanctuary works 

primarily with the NEFMC on fishery management and 

habitat protection issues. Sanctuary staff sits on the advisory 

board to the Habitat and MPA committee. The NEFMC is a 

non-voting ex-officio member (Executive Director or designated representative) of the Sanctuary Advisory Council.

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment (GoM 

Council)

The Gulf of Maine Council is a U.S.-Canadian partnership 

of government and non-government organizations working to maintain and enhance environmental quality in the 

GoM to allow for sustainable resource use by existing and 

future generations. The sanctuary and the GoM Council 

share many common goals and objectives albeit at different 

scales. To date, interaction between the two organizations 

has been intermittent. Much of what is being learned about 

the smaller scale of the sanctuary is applicable and transferable to the larger scale gulf. Many of the projects of the 

GoM Council are of related interest to the sanctuary.

State Agencies

The sanctuary lies entirely outside of state waters. However, the sanctuary boundaries to the north and south are coterminus with those of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 

(EOEA)

The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) is 

responsible for implementing the Commonwealth’s environmental protection policies including those related to coastal 

zone and ocean protection. EOEA recently developed an 

ocean management policy. EOEA oversees the MCZM 

Office, the Ocean Sanctuaries Program and the Board of 

Underwater Archaeological Resources. The sanctuary 
16 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

coordinates with EOEA primarily on proposal reviews for 

projects that may mutually impact on both state and sanctuary (federal) waters. 

Coastal Zone Management Office (MCZM)

The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (MCZM) 

implements the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) on 

behalf of the Commonwealth. The sanctuary works with 

MCZM on issues such as pollution prevention, invasive 

species, ballast water discharge, MPA policy and habitat 

protection. The MCZM south shore extension agent is colocated at the sanctuary headquarters in Scituate. MCZM 

is a non-voting ex-officio member (Director or designated 

representative) of the Sanctuary Advisory Council. 

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) is 

responsible for managing the Commonwealth’s fishery 

resources and developing and implementing fishery policies including aquaculture. The sanctuary works with DMF 

on issues such as project proposal review, MPA policy, 

contingency planning and fish research. DMF is a nonvoting ex-officio member (director or designated representative) 

of the Sanctuary Advisory Council. 

Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE)

The Division of Fish and Wildlife and Environmental Law 

Enforcement (DFWELE) is responsible for enforcement of the 

Commonwealth’s environmental protection laws. DFWELE 

oversees the Massachusetts Environmental Police (MEP). 

The MEP provides uniformed patrol officers to enforce laws 

on both land and water. One of MEP’s South Coastal offices is co-located at the sanctuary headquarters in Scituate. 

By formal agreement, MEP officers are cross-deputized to 

work with NOAA OLE in sanctuary enforcement. MEP is a 

nonvoting ex-officio member (Director or designated representative) of the Sanctuary Advisory Council.

Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological 

Resources (BUAR)

The Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) 

is responsible for managing the Commonwealth’s underwater archaeological resources. The sanctuary works with 

BUAR on outreach efforts associated with maritime heritage 

resources and on the development of maritime heritage 

resource management policies in the sanctuary. 

State Ocean Sanctuaries Program

The Ocean Sanctuaries Program protects five state-designated ocean sanctuaries (two of which abut the sanctuary) from 

exploitation, development or activity which would seriously 

alter or otherwise endanger the ecology and appearance of 

the ocean, the seabed, or the subsoil of the seabed, or the 

Commonwealth waters adjacent to the Cape Cod National 

Seashore. Activities specifically prohibited in ocean sanctuaries include the building of any structure on the seabed or 

under the subsoil; the construction or operation of offshore 

electrical generating stations; the removal of sand and gravel; oil and gas exploration and exploitation; and the dumping or discharge of commercial or industrial waste. 

Local Government Agencies

Town of Scituate

The town and the sanctuary are developing a relationship around common interests such as marine operations, 

increased ocean literacy, heritage resource management 

and environmental stewardship. Specifically, the town and 

sanctuary are working on the following projects:

•	Marine operations — the sanctuary is considering leasing

slip space at the town’s new Marine Park for winter berthing of the R/V Auk and the sanctuary provides the Fire 

Department slip space at its pier;

•	Ocean literacy — the sanctuary has placed a temporary

interactive exhibit at the town library and provides presentations upon request to town and school groups;

•	Heritage resources — the sanctuary worked with the

town’s historic commission to create an exhibit at the 

town’s Maritime and Irish Mossing Museum and the sanctuary has facilitated the town’s application for designation as a “Preserve America City” which would qualify the 

town for potential grant funds to develop and interpret its 

heritage resources; and

•	Environmental stewardship — the sanctuary provides the

town use of its meeting annex for marine-related committee meetings including the Waterways Commission and 

the Marine Park Authority Committee.

City of Gloucester

The mayor’s office facilitated development of the sanctuary’s exhibit in partnership with the Gloucester Maritime 

Heritage Center. The sanctuary worked with the mayor’s 

office to help facilitate the town’s successful application for 

designation as a “Preserve America City.”

City of Provincetown

The sanctuary is working with the city to secure a space for 

a permanent sanctuary visitor exhibit. A seasonal exhibit 

has been available since 2001.

Tools for Formalizing

Relationships

The sanctuary superintendent has numerous options to 

formalize interactions with these and other federal, state 

and local agencies or private interests including:

•	Memoranda of Understanding and Memoranda of Agreement formalize in writing, relationships between the sanctuary and other entities for a specific purpose or project;

•	Interagency Agreements are used to share expertise,

equipment and/or personnel;

•	Grants/Cooperative Agreements are financial assistance

tools used to provide or receive certain funding for projects and/or products benefiting the public;
II. Institutional Setting 17

•	Contracts are used to procure goods and services to meet

sanctuary goals and objectives;

•	Consultation is formal communication between agencies,

which can be invoked when one agency’s activity may 

affect the resources of another.

Sanctuary Funding

Appropriations

Funding for the NMSP is derived primarily from federal 

appropriations and divided into two principal categories: 

funds for base budget and funds for capital facilities. The 

NMSP distributes its base budget funds to individual sanctuaries for site-specific core operations (labor costs for existing 

staff and other administrative expenses) and programmatic 

costs (the additional costs the sanctuary incurs carrying out 

management strategies such as marine mammal protection). 

Capital facility funds supplement the site’s base budget to 

cover costs of such things as exhibits and building renovations. Each action plan in the Management Plan section of 

this document includes a table identifying costs for the individual strategies over the next five years (from the date of 

publication of this document). The tables provide a rough 

estimate of the programmatic costs needed to implement 

each of the strategies. 

Additional Sources of Support

In addition to federal appropriations, the sanctuary relies on 

partnerships, appropriate outside funding sources, such as 

grants and in-kind services, to assist in the implementation 

of the management plan. These other sources include: 

The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) 

The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) provides 

collaborative opportunities for the national marine sanctuaries through public and private sector partnerships. The 

NMSF helps to develop external funding opportunities for 

NMSP outreach and education programs and other resource 

protection efforts.

Federal, Regional, State and Local Agencies

Federal, regional, state and local agencies participate in 

on-going resource protection, management, monitoring, 

enforcement and permit programs to help carry out sanctuary goals and objectives. As intra- and interagency relationships become formalized and common goals and objectives 

are identified, the sanctuary pursues opportunities to share 

staff, expertise and financial resources, as appropriate.

Nonprofit Organizations and Foundations

Nonprofit organizations and foundations have joined the 

sanctuary in numerous cooperative projects. For example, 

in conjunction with the sanctuary, the International Wildlife 

Table 1. Summary of current research and monitoring projects in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

Project

Type Funding

Research Monitoring Intramural Extramural Collaboration

Marine Mammal Protection

Whale tagging for understanding behavior ■ ■ ■ NMFS, WHOI, UNH, 

UHI, Duke, WCNE

Passive acoustic characterization ■ ■ ■ Cornell U., NMFS

Commercial shipping ■ ■ ■ NMFS

Marine mammal distribution ■ ■ WCNE, PCCS

Whalewatch guidelines ■ ■ ■ NMFS

Ecosystem Protection

Seafloor habitat recovery monitoring ■ ■ NURC-UConn, U. Maine, 

Brown U.

Use assessment ■ ■

Water quality ■ ■ Battelle, MWRA

Ocean observing ■ ■ GoMOOS

Commercial fisheries effort ■ ■ NMFS, NEFMC

Sand lance ecology ■ ■ ■ MFP, Boston U.

Fish tagging ■ ■ ■ Boston U.

Trends in fish size ■ ■

Historical ecology ■ ■ UNH

Maritime Heritage Management

National Register listed site monitoring ■ ■ ■ NURC-UConn

Maritime heritage inventory ■ ■ ■ NURC-UConn

Historic wrecks characterization ■ ■ ■ NURC
18 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Coalition originated and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society spearheads the “See-A-Spout” program to 

increase boater awareness of how to enjoy and protect 

marine mammals in the sanctuary and beyond. 

Research and Monitoring

The sanctuary conducts a robust science program focused 

on providing information to support key management 

needs. Science is comprised of both research and monitoring activities. The science coordinator works with the 

superintendent to develop the program and is responsible 

for both conducting and facilitating science activities in the 

sanctuary. A status summary of the current research and 

monitoring projects supporting sanctuary management is 

presented in Table 1. By necessity, the sanctuary relies on 

partnerships with other organizations that have the specialized knowledge and/or technical capability to conduct the 

science essential to answer management questions.

The year-around capabilities of the R/V Auk enhances the 

sanctuary’s capacity to understand seasonal dynamics in 

ecosystem structure and function. The sanctuary provides 

office space for visiting scientists, fellows and interns working on sanctuary research needs. Renovation of the boathouse and development of the marine operations center 

will expand support for science conducted in the sanctuary. 

The following is a brief description of recent science findings in the sanctuary that have management implications. 

Marine mammal protection:

•	Whale tagging has begun to reveal the underwater behavior of humpback and right whales. Humpbacks feed in the 

water column and scour sand habitats to forage on prey 

species such as sand lance. The latter behavior makes 

them highly vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear on 

the seafloor. 

•	Right whales have been documented spending extensive

time feeding on zooplankton patches less than 20 m below 

the sea surface where prey is concentrated along the thermocline. This is within a depth range that increases the 

chances of collision with deep draft oceangoing vessels 

that are not always able to detect whales in time to divert 

from their path. 

•	Right whales vocalize extensively during the winter and

early spring. This makes their detection and monitoring 

possible by remote hydrophones on the seafloor and has 

implications for the extent of anthropogenic noise in the 

sanctuary that masks communication of this endangered 

species.

Ecosystem protection:

•	The Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area (WGoMCA)

overlaps 22% of the sanctuary and is referred to as the 

“sliver.” The sliver serves as a relatively unimpacted 

reference area for studying seafloor habitat recovery in the 

absence of bottom tending fishing gear relative to natural 

disturbance. Preliminary results demonstrate that cessation of fishing gear impacts can help restore ecosystem 

structure.

•	Cod tagging on gravel and boulder reef habitats reveals

that approximately 35% of the tagged cod are long-term 

residents of specific small areas and an additional 13% 

are repeat visitors to the same area they were tagged. This 

implies that local subpopulations of cod and possibly other 

demersal species may respond to relatively small scale 

area management measures, such as marine reserves.

•	Biodiversity in mud habitats is equivalent to or greater

than biodiversity in other habitats such as gravel and 

boulder reefs, implying that measures to restore or protect 

biodiversity need to include representation of all habitat 

types in the sanctuary. 

Maritime heritage:

•	The sanctuary contains many shipwreck sites of historic

value and importance.

•	Shipwrecks have been heavily impacted by fishing gear.

•	Shipwrecks in deep water have good structural preservation.

•	Shipwrecks become important habitat for sessile organisms and refugia for fish.

Education and Outreach

The goals of the education and outreach program are to bring 

information about the sanctuary’s research and resource 

protection programs before the public, to encourage stewardship of sanctuary resources, and to advance ocean literacy among students, teachers and the general public, which 

is a NOAA priority. The education coordinator works with 

the sanctuary superintendent to develop the education and 

outreach program and is responsible for conducting and 

facilitating activities that implement it. 

The education and outreach program for the sanctuary 

consists of multiple elements including print publications 

and audio-visual productions, general public outreach, 

user group outreach, formal education, informal education, 

media relations and exhibits. A summary of representative 

education and outreach products and programs developed 

by the sanctuary or through collaboration with its partners 

is listed in Table 2. Many of the sanctuary’s education and 

outreach projects have developed as cooperative ventures 

with partners including non-governmental organizations, 

educational institutions, museums and aquariums. In recent 

years, a variety of projects have been initiated that meet site 

needs and incorporate NMSP priorities, including several 

education mini-grant projects. 

Intramural

Intramural products and programs are specific to the sanctuary and are funded primarily through NOAA. These efforts 

are directed at delivering information about ongoing sanctuary research and resource conservation programs to the 

general public and specific user groups. Funding for these 
II. Institutional Setting 19

programs has come from the site budget, national education mini-grants, capital facilities funds for exhibits, and 

national program priority allocations. The following is a 

brief description of recent education products and programs 

developed by the sanctuary that have management implications, particularly in describing work in three principal 

resource sectors—marine mammal protection, ecosystem 

protection and maritime heritage management.

Media Relations. The sanctuary has produced press releases, media advisories and backgrounders, including notices 

about upcoming sanctuary advisory council meetings, 

special events, workshops and research results. When 

applicable, press conferences have been held to announce 

significant findings, as was done with the confirmation of 

the wreck of the steamship Portland. Editorial board visits 

by sanctuary staff have also been made to major news 

outlets. When appropriate, sanctuary staff members have 

been interviewed by reporters from print and broadcast 

media to provide technical expertise and program content 

to the stories. Recent articles have highlighted sanctuary 

whale tagging research and shifting of the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme to protect whales from ship strikes. 

Media relations is a key means of disseminating sanctuary 

news to the wider public.

Publications and Audio-Visual Materials. The sanctuary 

has produced various printed and A-V materials, including 

an annual summer newspaper called “Stellwagen Soundings” since 1995 and periodic newsletters called “Stellwagen Banknotes” since 2002, along with a variety of other 

flyers, brochures, posters and videos. The summer newspaper, print run of approximately 40,000, contains updates 

on sanctuary research, discussions of management issues, 

and provides information on stewardship programs. It is 

distributed in bulk to whale watch operations, museums, 

and tourism centers and serves as the major outreach tool 

for the sanctuary to the interested public.

Web Site. The sanctuary redesigned the entire Web site in 

2006 to better meet management needs. It serves as the 

primary year-round distribution point for sanctuary information. The Web site now includes sections about the 

resources of the sanctuary, visitor uses, research and education programs, enforcement, staffing and facilities. The site 

incorporates design and navigation standards developed for 

the NMSP’s Web page.

Exhibits. The sanctuary has developed seasonal visitor 

exhibits in Provincetown and Gloucester, gateway communities to the sanctuary. The sanctuary has also developed 

several traveling exhibits, including interactive computer 

kiosks that tour local public libraries, a trade show popup, window shade banners and photograph collections, 

which have been displayed at various venues, including 

the Independence and Cape Cod Malls, Nantucket Whaling 

Museum, Salem National Historic Site Visitor Center, New 

England Aquarium and South Shore Natural Science Center; 

a newly redesigned version of the show was completed in 

2007. These exhibits provide a means of explaining key 

sanctuary management issues and research to the public, 

using attractive visual media, including videography, 

photography and computer graphics. The sanctuary exhibit 

at the New England Aquarium is a collaborative effort that 

received funding from various governmental and nongovernmental sources.

Extramural

Various organizations and commercial operations, such as 

whale watch companies, provide education and outreach 

about the sanctuary to the public without funding from the 

sanctuary. The organizations often consult with sanctuary 

staff in the development of their outreach programs, and 

may use data or imagery from the sanctuary in the products or programs they produce. Table 2 includes listings of 

extramural projects that have been entirely undertaken by 

outside organizations or have some component of external 

funding/expertise and sanctuary participation.

Of foremost importance in this category are public outreach 

products (advertising flyers and brochures from whale 

watch companies, books and articles) and formal and informal education programs, including multi-day programs or 

dock-side half-day programs on regional tall ships. These 

vessels include the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies’ Spirit of Massachusetts, Sea Education Association’s 

Corwith Cramer, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 

Schooner Ernestina. Marine policy and marine science 

programs at area colleges and high schools may include 

information about the sanctuary when covering the Gulf of 

Maine ecosystem. 

Collaborative

The sanctuary collaborates with many institutions in the 

development and delivery of public outreach products, 

such as printed information, video programs; formal and 

informal education programs; and exhibits. In many cases, 

the sanctuary shares the cost of the project with its partners, 

or may offer in-kind support in the form of staff time or facility use. These collaborative efforts are a key element in 

disseminating information about sanctuary resources, issues 

and management activities to a wider public. Table 2 lists 

important collaborative education and outreach efforts; the 

following productions and programs are of particular note.

Media Productions

The high cost of producing audio-visual programs has led 

to several collaborative projects. The sanctuary provided 

technical expertise and staff assistance in the production of 

The Science Channel’s one-hour special on “The Wreck of 

the Portland,” on the History Channel’s “Deep Sea Detectives: Portland” and Chronicle Magazine’s episodes focusing 

on shipwrecks. Game Warden/Wildlife Journal produced 

an episode on the sanctuary research and enforcement, and 

Divers Down covered fish and invertebrate biodiversity. 

The sanctuary aided master storyteller Jay O’Callahan in 

the development of his oral presentation/tape/CD on “The 

Spirit of the Great Auk,” which focused on human use of 

the marine environment and extinction of a marine species. 
20 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

This audiotape/CD serves as a companion piece to the 

NOVA special (The Haunted Cry of a Long Gone Bird). The 

“Whaling to Watching: Right Whales” video was developed 

jointly with the Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary and 

the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and serves 

as a companion piece to a book and poster by the same 

name. 

In 2005 and 2006, the sanctuary worked with the National 

Undersea Research Center at the University of Connecticut 

to deliver two live broadcasts from sanctuary historic shipwreck sites in collaboration with the Provincetown Memorial Museum and the Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center. 

These programs, in addition to showings at on-shore auditoriums, were streamed live on the World Wide Web.

Formal and Informal Education

The sanctuary has worked collaboratively with various 

organizations to develop education products and programs 

for formal and informal education audiences (K-12, college/

graduate students, teachers, and user groups). Of particular 

note was a 13-week course offered at the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History in the spring of 2005 that focused on 

sanctuary resources and issues, and was targeted to high 

school educators, whale watch naturalists and the interested public. The sanctuary has worked with the Boston Globe 

to develop two education supplements: “Water” in 1998 

and “Saltwater Sanctuary” in 2002. A special issue of the 

Massachusetts Marine Educators quarterly journal focused 

on the sanctuary in 1997 and again in 2007. 

Less formal, more user-oriented education programs have 

also been developed, including the Fish and Invertebrate 

Identification Programs for divers, and the See-A-Spout 

boater education program with the Whale and Dolphin 

Conservation Society to promote safer boating around 

whales. The annual Whale Naming Workshop serves to 

identify new humpback whales in the sanctuary, a service 

to researchers and naturalists, and is conducted in collaboration with several local non-governmental organizations. 

Enforcement and Permitting

Enforcement

Sanctuary resource protection depends in part upon enforcement of sanctuary regulations and other applicable state and 

federal statutes and regulations. The sanctuary’s approach 

to enforcement focuses on two specific components: 1) the 

use of interpretive enforcement as a means to inform the 

public and encourage voluntary compliance, and 2) the 

legal enforcement of regulations. Currently the sanctuary 

enforcement program consists of ad hoc patrols conducted 

by the USCG or the OLE and Massachusetts Environmental 

Police (MEP). Routine patrols are not conducted because of 

budget limitations to fund dedicated enforcement officers. 

When a violation is documented in the sanctuary, NOAA 

OLE and General Counsel prosecute the case. 

Sanctuary regulations are enforced by the NOAA OLE and 

the USCG, through cooperative agreements which allow 

OLE to cross-deputize enforcement officers from state 

agencies. Accordingly, enforcement officers from MEP are 

authorized to enforce sanctuary regulations. The sanctuary currently has individual enforcement agreements with 

USCG and the MEP. The sanctuary continues to develop 

and update cooperative agreements among enforcement 

agencies (see Strategy ADMIN 2.5) for purposes of ensuring effective enforcement of sanctuary and other pertinent 

federal regulations. 

Permitting

Permits are required in all sanctuaries for conducting activities otherwise prohibited by sanctuary regulations (current 

sanctuary regulations, Appendix I). Under current regulations, the sanctuary superintendent may issue, in some 

cases with NMSP Director’s approval, a permit to conduct 

an activity in the sanctuary otherwise prohibited by sanctuary regulations provided the activity: 1) is research related 

to the resources of the sanctuary, or 2) furthers the educational value of the sanctuary, or 3) furthers the management 

purposes of the sanctuary (15 CFR Subpart N). 

The permit application process requires the submittal of a 

project summary, including the exact location of activities, 

description of methods, rationale for use of the sanctuary 

environment, explanation of environmental consequences, 

and plan for reporting results to the sanctuary. In considering whether to grant a permit the sanctuary superintendent (or NMSP Director where appropriate) evaluates: the 

professional and financial responsibility of the applicant; 

the appropriateness of the methods envisioned to the 

purpose(s) of the activity; the extent to which the conduct of 

any permitted activity may diminish or enhance the value 

of the sanctuary as a source of recreation, or as a source of 

educational or scientific information; the end value of the 

activity; and such other matters as may be deemed appropriate (15 CFR. Subpart N). 
II. Institutional Setting 21

Table 2. Summary of representative education and outreach products and programs developed by the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary or through collaboration with its partners.

Products and Programs Intramural Extramural Collaboration

Publications

Book — Stellwagen Bank: A guide to the whales, sea birds, and 

marine life of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

1995.

■ Provincetown Center for Coastal 

Studies (PCCS)

Stellwagen Soundings — annual newspaper (bulk distribution, 

approx. 40,000) 4-color, 8-page, tabloid, 1995–present. ■

Bulk distribution though whale 

watch companies, aquariums, 

museums, tourism offices, NGO’s

Stellwagen Banknotes — periodic newsletter (approx. 5,000 per 

issue) B&W, 8-page, 8.5x11 (3xyr), 2002–present. ■

State of the Sanctuary Report – 2002. ■

Whale Watch Guidelines — brochure — 2001, 2006. ■ ■ NOAA Fisheries Service

Whale Safety Sticker — 2001. ■ International Fund for Animal 

Welfare (IFAW)

See A Spout boater education brochure, sticker, transparencies and 

CD — 2003, 2005, 2007. ■ ■

International Wildlife Coalition 

(IWC) — 2003, 2005; Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation Society 

(WDCS) — 2007

Advertising flyers and brochures from whale watch companies 

incorporating sanctuary information. ■ Various companies and whale research groups

Technical fact sheets on sanctuary geology and oceanography. ■ US Geological Survey (USGS)

Assorted flyers and fact sheets, including sanctuary rack card, Provincetown exhibit rack card — 1994–present. ■

Exhibits

Provincetown MacMillan Wharf Kiosk — 1995–present. ■ PCCS

Provincetown Exhibit (formerly at Bradford Street, now in Aquarium Wharf) — 2001–present. ■

Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center — temporary exhibit 2004–

2005; permanent exhibit 2006–present. ■ ■ Gloucester Maritime Heritage Center (GMHC), NMSF

Museum of Natural History; South Shore Natural Science Center; 

Nantucket Whaling Museum — 1997–2000.

Revised/Updated Photo Exhibit (whale research) — South Shore 

Natural Science Center, other locations in future — 2007. ■ Various whale researchers/ photographers

Traveling Touchscreen Kiosks and Windowshade Exhibit for libraries, nature centers and other educational venues and public meeting places — 2006–present.

■

NE Aquarium — interpretive signs; Immersive Theater show — 

Storm Over Stellwagen; Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary exhibit (two 

tanks and associated signage) in Gulf of Maine cold water gallery 

— 1997–present.

■ ■ NE Aquarium (NEAq), NMSF

Scituate Maritime and Irish Mossing Museum (Shipwreck exhibit) 

— 2003–present. ■ Scituate Maritime Museum

Woods Hole NOAA Fisheries Service Aquarium — signs, photos, 

and tanks with sanctuary species; distribution of sanctuary literature — 2000–present.

■ NOAA Fisheries Service

Sanctuary wall panels at Provincelands Visitor Center of the Cape 

Cod National Seashore. ■ Cape Cod National Seashore

Portable 8’x10’ Pop-Up Exhibit and Portable Windowshade Panels 

— 1996–present. ■

National Aquarium in Washington DC (tank with photos) — 2003–

present. ■ ■ NMSF

Public Outreach Programs & Events — General Public

Sanctuary Speakers Program — staff talks to various groups, including Rotary Clubs, Power Squadrons, historical societies, etc. ■

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Celebration and Great 

Annual Fish Count in Gloucester — 2002–present. ■ GMHC
22 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 2. Summary of representative education and outreach products and programs developed by the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary or through collaboration with its partners.

Products and Programs Intramural Extramural Collaboration

Sanctuary Open House — 2006. ■

Participation in various fairs and celebrations, including Marshfield 

Fair, Duxbury Bay Day, Earth Day (Boston), Gloucester Seafood 

Festival.

■

Whale Day at various sites, including Independence Mall, Cape 

Cod Mall, Boston Children’s Museum, South Shore Natural Science 

Center.

■ ■ NOAA Fisheries Service, WDCS

Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary 10th Anniversary Lecture Series — 

2002. ■ ■ NEAq

Stellwagen Bank lectures as part of Cape Cod Biodiversity Course 

with Cape Cod Museum of Natural History — 2002, 2003. ■ ■ Cape Cod Museum of Natural History (CCMNH)

Steamship Portland Symposium with Portland Harbor Museum 

— 2003. ■ ■ Portland Harbor Museum

Sustainable Seas Expedition (SSE) and Sanctuary Weekend on 

Central Wharf — 1999. ■ ■ National Geographic Society (NGS), NEAq

Sanctuary Video and Lecture Series in Scituate — 2006–2007. ■

User Group Meetings and Conferences

Coastal Zone 99 conference. ■

Boston Sea Rovers (divers) Annual Conferences — 

2000–present. ■

Massachusetts Marine Educators Annual Conferences — 

1994–present. ■

National Marine Educators Conference — 2001. ■

Massachusetts Environmental Education Society Annual Meetings 

— 1998, 1999. ■

Fish Expo, Workboat Atlantic — 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006. ■

Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association Annual Meetings — 

2002–present. ■

Oceans 2006 Conference. ■

Cape Cod Natural History Conference — 2005–present. ■

Media Outreach

Press releases and community calendar notices as needed (fax and 

e-mail distribution) 1994–present. ■

Interviews with local print, radio, TV and cable stations as needed 

— 1994–present. ■

PSA on right whales and the sanctuary 1996. ■ ■ Boston University

Articles in tourism publications, including Kids on the Cape — free 

articles in publications (250,000 circulation) 2002-present; Official 

Cape Cod Guidebook (Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce) 4-page 

article — 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007.

■

Articles in trade publications, including Sea History, Oceanography, etc. ■

Audio-Visual Productions

“The Wreck of the Portland” one-hour HD TV program. ■ The Science Channel

“Deep Sea Detectives: Portland” one hour TV program. ■ History Channel

“Massachusetts Shipwrecks”(2006) and “Wreck of the Portland” 

(2001) half-hour TV program. ■ Chronicle Magazine (WCVB-TV5)

“Stellwagen Bank” one-hour TV program. ■ Game Warden/Wildlife Journal

“Bounty of the Banks” (1998) half-hour video. ■
II. Institutional Setting 23

Table 2. Summary of representative education and outreach products and programs developed by the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary or through collaboration with its partners.

Products and Programs Intramural Extramural Collaboration

“Northern Right Whales: From Whaling to Watching” (1997) halfhour video. ■ ■ Gray’s Reef NMS, Georgia Dept. of 

Natural Resources

“The Spirit of the Great Auk” audiotape by master storyteller Jay 

O’Callahan (2002). ■ ■

GreenCape radio shows with WOMB in Provincetown (5-15 

minute programs) — 1998. ■ Creative Resources Group (studio 

time donation)

Live Video Programs of missions to the Portland and Palmer/

Crary shipwrecks — 2005, 2006. DVDs of footage from programs 

(2007).

■ ■ NURC-UConn

Education Programs K-12 and college/graduate — Guest Lectures, workshops, programs, products

Graduate Credit course on Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary natural and cultural resources (credit from Framingham State 

College) — 2005.

■ ■ CCMNH

Right Whale Course, 12 professional development points for educators — 2007. ■ ■ WDCS

Northern Right Whale: From Whaling to Watching – educator book 

and poster — 1997. ■ ■ Gray’s Reef NMS

ROV Teacher Workshops — 2004, 2006; annual support for 

regional ROV Competition. ■ ■

Marine Advanced Technology 

Education Center (MATE), New 

England Chapter Marine Technology Society (NE-MTS)

“Lefty the Right Whale” traveling inflatable whale program for 

elementary schools — 1997–present. ■

Staff talks and workshops at various schools, High School science 

symposia workshops — 1994–present. ■ Mass Marine Educators (MME); Mass Maritime Academy

Annual Marine Art Contest (K-12) — 1994–present. ■ ■ MME, NEAq

Newspaper in Education Supplement (topics: water — 1998; sanctuary — 2003). ■ ■ Boston Globe

Exploring Data with GIS to Experience Sanctuaries (EDGES) curriculum — 2004; Discovering Sanctuaries GIS teacher workshop 

— 2005.

■ ■

Channel Islands, Gray’s Reef and 

Florida Keys NMSs; National 

Geographic Society (NGS)

MimiFests for students (1500 students per year) — 1995–1999; 

teacher workshop 1995. ■ ■ Barn School Trust and Brockton and Plymouth School Systems

Sustainable Seas Expedition — web pages, logs, activity in teacher 

resource book — 1999. ■ ■ NGS

Salt Water Studies Teacher Workshop — 2004, 2005. ■ ■ Waquoit Bay National Estuarine 

Research Reserve (WBNERR)

Cape Cod Biodiversity college course (3-week marine component) 

— 1998–2001. ■ ■ CCMNH

Stellwagen Bank Science and Education Symposium — 1997. ■ ■ MME

Student Ocean Forum — 2002, 2003, 2004. ■ ■ Coastal America; NEAq

Heroes of the Planet — distance learning lecture series (subjects 

Sylvia Earle, Dick Wheeler, U.S. Coast Guard). ■ ■ Cape Cod Community College and Cape and Islands high schools

Aquanaut Program with, cruise support and on-shore education 

1994–present. ■ ■ NURC–UConn

Tall Ship education programs. ■

PCCS, Sea Education Association 

(SEA), Commonwealth of Mass., 

and others

User Education Programs

Whale Watch passenger education by on-board naturalists. ■

Most whale watch companies 

traveling into the sanctuary; some 

are affiliated with whale research 

groups
24 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 2. Summary of representative education and outreach products and programs developed by the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary or through collaboration with its partners.

Products and Programs Intramural Extramural Collaboration

Fish and Invertebrate Identification courses for divers — 

2002–present. ■ ■

Reef Environmental Education 

Foundation (REEF); Professional 

Association of Diving Instructors 

(PADI); MIT Sea Grant

See a Spout boating safety around whales — 2001–present. ■ ■ International Wildlife Coalition 

(IWC) and WDCS

Whale Naming Workshop, production of new whales CD-ROM 

— 2001–present. ■ ■

Whale Center of New England 

(WCNE), PCCS and other cetacean 

research groups

On-the-water Boater Education — 2001–2003. ■ Massachusetts Environmental 

Police (MEP)

Stellwagen Bank Flotilla of the USCG Auxiliary/Operation Cetacean Shield and other joint Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and USCG programs — 1996–present.

■ ■ USCG Auxiliary

Whale Watch Naturalist Lectures — 2002, 2006. ■ ■ NEAq, WDCS
25

III. 

Sanctuary

Setting

This section presents the concept of managing 

marine resources for biodiversity conservation in the sanctuary. It describes the physical 

setting of the sanctuary including its geography, geology and oceanography, as well as its 

connectivity to other parts of the Gulf of Maine. 

It profiles the primary producers and decomposers essential to the sanctuary’s ecosystem 

function.
26 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Biodiversity Conservation

The environmental condition of the sanctuary is subject to 

major alterations that are largely due to the effects of human 

activities. Threats to resource states (e.g., water quality, 

ecological integrity, habitat complexity) fall into two general categories: those that involve exploitation of resources 

above a certain level or threshold and those that destroy 

or degrade marine habitats and the associated biological 

communities. Exploitation includes both directed harvest 

and incidental taking of marine life. Threats to habitat 

include activities leading to physical alteration, various 

sources of pollution, coastal development and introduction 

of alien species. Many of these threats are interrelated and 

have cumulative impacts.

The ability to accurately evaluate the scale and consequences of changes in the sanctuary’s resource states (and 

the subsequent impacts on human society) is challenged by 

inadequate knowledge of historic baselines for comparison 

with conditions today. The basic diversity of marine life and 

the patterns and processes that control the distribution and 

abundance of marine organisms in the sanctuary is still not 

well understood. At the same time, exciting new technologies and conceptual advances permit us to implement novel 

research approaches that seek to reveal fuller understanding 

of the sanctuary’s ecological structure and the diversity and 

function of its biological communities.

NOAA can and should play a powerful role in protecting 

this special marine area, increasing public awareness and 

support for marine conservation, and providing sites for 

research and monitoring. By changing public attitudes, 

improving scientific understanding and developing effective models for management, the sanctuary can extend its 

benefit well beyond the limit of its geographic boundaries. 

Comprehending the great importance of marine biodiversity, 

and thereby gaining insights to interpret, explain and maintain ecological complexity, is the basis for marine resource 

management in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

Emphasis on Community Ecology

Sanctuary management is predicated on the application 

of science to help formulate understanding of key issues 

and problems and to infuse the related public dialogue 

with substantive fact and thought. While many scientific 

disciplines (e.g., geology, oceanography) are invoked in 

the process, ultimately, ecology is paramount. While there 

have arisen a variety of approaches to the study of ecology 

(e.g., physiological, evolutionary), three basic and classical 

approaches remain fundamental to the science and are prevalent in the articulation of public policy. These approaches 

are population ecology, community ecology and ecosystem 

ecology (Ricklefs and Miller, 2000; Ricklefs, 2001).

Population ecology emphasizes the uniquely biological 

properties that are embodied in the dynamics of populations. A population consists of many organisms of the same 

species living together in the same place. Populations differ 

from organisms in that they are potentially immortal, their 

numbers being maintained over time by the births and deaths 

of new individuals that replace those that die. Populations 

also have properties such as geographic boundaries, densities and variations in size and age composition. Population ecology is essentially the study of the vital rates (births, 

deaths, recruitment) and biological processes that maintain 

numbers of animals in a species population. Population 

ecology is directly relevant to the management of fisheries, 

forestry and agriculture where rates of removal by harvest 

need to be balanced against natural means and rates of 

replenishment.

Community ecology is concerned with understanding the 

diversity and relative abundances of different species living 

together in the same place. An ecological community is the 
III. Sanctuary Setting 27

sum of many populations of different species living in the 

same or similar habitats. The community approach focuses 

on interactions among multiple populations, which promote 

and limit the coexistence of species. The focus of community studies is principally on how biotic interactions such as 

predation and competition in relation to habitat influence 

the numbers and distributions of organisms. These interactions include feeding relationships, which are responsible for 

the movement of energy and materials through the ecosystem, providing a link between community and ecosystem 

approaches. Community ecology has particular relevance 

to the understanding of the nature of biological diversity 

and to the management of national marine sanctuaries.

Ecosystem ecology describes the dynamics of energy transformations and material transfers among large assemblages 

of organisms and the physical environment occupied by 

those organisms. Ecosystems are large and complex systems, 

sometimes including many thousands of different kinds of 

organisms living in a great variety of habitats. In the course 

of their lives, organisms transform energy and process materials. To accomplish this, organisms must acquire energy 

and nutrients from their surroundings and rid themselves 

of unwanted waste products. In doing so, they modify the 

conditions of the environment and the resources available 

for other organisms, and they contribute to energy fluxes 

and the cycling of elements. Ecosystem function results 

from the activities of organisms as well as from physical and 

chemical transformations in the seafloor, water column and 

atmosphere. Ecosystem understanding and approaches to 

both fishery and sanctuary management are recognized as 

essential by NOAA.

For purposes of implementing ecosystem-based resource 

management, the term “ecosystem” needs to be defined. 

A marine “ecosystem” is a human construct that artificially 

delineates a related portion of the ocean (Francis et al., 

2007) over what can be a variable spatial scale (e.g., Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, Gulf of Maine). In the context of 

this DMP a marine ecosystem is defined by NOAA (2005:3): 

“An ecosystem is a geographically specified system of 

organisms, the environment, and the processes that control 

its dynamics. Humans are an integral part of an ecosystem. An ecosystem approach to management is management that is adaptive, specified geographically, takes into 

account ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers 

multiple external influences, and strives to balance diverse 

social objectives.”

During the public comment phase of sanctuary management plan revision, questions were raised about the respective roles of the National Marine Sanctuary Program and 

NOAA Fisheries Service. Both parts of NOAA strive to meet 

a common goal of preserving or restoring the ecological 

integrity of unique habitats while recognizing that human 

uses of those habitats must be managed in an environmentally sustainable manner. Both NMSP and NOAA Fisheries 

Service work towards that goal using the various statutory 

and regulatory tools at their disposal. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MFCMA), NOAA Fisheries Service strives to provide for 

sustainable fisheries using principles of population ecology while at the same time conserving the habitat of both 

target and non-target marine species. While many of the 

existing fishery management plans focus on single species 

or multi-species complexes, NOAA Fisheries Service is 

mandated to consider the broader impact of fishing on the 

ecosystem and has begun converting many of these plans 

into ecosystem plans. The NMSP is principally tasked with 

managing biological communities (together with maritime 

heritage resources) using the principles of community ecology within explicitly designated areas (under the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)). Both take an ecosystem 

approach to managing fisheries and sanctuaries respectively 

and when applied in a complementary fashion, both statues can advance the goal of conserving and restoring the 

ecological integrity of important marine areas. 

Conserving biodiversity is central to the implementation 

of ecosystem-based sanctuary management, an evolving 

approach that stresses management of the entire sanctuary 

ecosystem including all biological communities, habitats 

and species populations, together with all uses. Biodiversity encompasses all levels of organizational complexity in 

the sanctuary, from genetic diversity to species diversity to 

community diversity. Maintaining the ecological integrity 

of the sanctuary and, hence, its sustained production of 

resources and services requires attention to how the component species interact and how we value those species and 

interactions. 

Managing for Biodiversity Conservation

In federal waters, marine biodiversity conservation is 

achieved primarily by the interplay of four national statutes: the MFCMA, MMPA, ESA, and the NMSA. These statutes encompass two main objectives: (1) enable long-term 

sustainable harvest and/or human use and (2) protect and/

or restore species, habitats, biological communities, and/or 

ecosystems. 

The MFCMA was primarily designed to ensure the sustainable harvest of fish and shellfish and has evolved to include 

the capability to protect the habitat of target and non-target 

species. Similarly, the MMPA was designed to protect 

marine mammal species many of which were severely 

depleted. While offering broad protection to these species 

to ensure their recovery, the MMPA also regulates sustainable harvest or take in specialized cases. By ensuring that 

marine mammals are protected as “significant functioning 

elements of the ecosystem” the MMPA maintains the capability to protect individual animals, species, populations, 

and the habitats that sustain them. The ESA’s mandate overlaps that of the MMPA for marine mammal species facing 

extinction. The ESA’s mandate to protect listed species also 

includes a mandate to protect distinct animal population 

units and habitats deemed critical to their survival. 

Enacted around the same time, Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (now NMSA) was the 

first legislation to focus on comprehensive and area-specific 
28 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

protection of the marine environment. The NMSA allows 

uses compatible with the primary purpose of resource 

protection. The NMSA affords managers the opportunity 

to consider management measures (e.g., zoned use within 

designated areas) for the purpose of maintaining “natural 

biological communities.” By including the broad mandate 

“to protect, and where appropriate, restore and enhance 

natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes” the 

NMSA highlights its purpose to provide holistic protection 

of biodiversity in these special areas. Thus, within designated sanctuaries, NOAA encourages integrated implementation of these four statutes for the purpose of biodiversity 

conservation.

Of the 3,317 species of marine life documented in the GoM 

region to date (COML, 2006), there are 41 species of fish 

that are managed by the regional fishery management councils and the ASMFC, eight species of tuna and shark that 

are managed separately as highly migratory species, and 12 

species of marine mammals and sea turtles managed under 

the ESA. Additionally, there are 39 species of seabirds 

managed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Many other 

species occur in the GoM which are not subject to direct 

management plans, including species that are rare but not 

endangered, and this group is sizeable (see Sidebar). While 

many of these species could potentially be the subject of 

direct management, they often gain significant derivative 

benefits from the directed management actions mentioned 

above and other actions taken by Federal, State and local 

partners in the region.

In addition, seven important fish species—Atlantic wolfish, 

cusk, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sturgeon, 

thorny skate and barndoor skate are all on the Species of 

Concern List for the Endangered Species Act (NOAA 2006). 

While this designation does not grant any protected status, 

it indicates that these species warrant attention to insure 

their populations do not decline further. All of these species 

currently frequent the sanctuary or once did (salmon and 

sturgeon). Halibut, salmon, sturgeon and skates are included under various fishery management plans (FMPs). Two 

of these species (wolfish and cusk), while being considered 

for inclusion under the Multispecies FMP, have no directed 

fishery management plan despite continued exploitation of 

their populations; they are among the top ten species caught 

by the recreational fishery in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

(see Table 20 in Recreational Fishing section of this document).

The NMSA is unique in that it allows management actions 

focused on the protection and conservation of the full 

spectrum of biological diversity at a unique and significant 

site (e.g., the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary) and can serve as 

an important complement to other tools available under 

the MFCMA and the ESA or MMPA. Congress found that 

national marine sanctuaries are areas of the marine environment which have special conservation and esthetic qualities (among others). Congress mandated that sanctuaries 

be designated upon a determination that existing authorities are insufficient or need to be supplemented to protect 

the resources of that area. Congress directed that national 

marine sanctuaries be managed to maintain the habitats, 

and ecological services, of the natural assemblage of living 

resources that inhabit these areas. Among the purposes 

and policies of the NMSA is provision of authority for 

comprehensive conservation and management to maintain 

the natural biological communities and to protect, restore 

and enhance natural habitats, populations and ecological 

processes.

In specifying the management of “natural biological 

communities,” “natural assemblages of living resources” 

and “natural habitats” rather than focusing on species populations per se, Congress essentially mandated that national 

marine sanctuaries be managed to protect and conserve 

biodiversity. In managing for biodiversity conservation, the 

authorities and protection measures afforded by all relevant 

statutes should be brought to bear on solving the problems 

described in this Draft Management Plan (DMP). Given the 

unique roles that sanctuaries can play in overall resource 

conservation and management, it is reasonable to anticipate 

Rarity

Ecological rarity is defined in a variety of different 

ways over a range of spatial scales, and the forms that 

analyses take are highly varied (Kunin and Gaston, 

1997). Although definitions of rarity differ in regard to 

the metrics involved, the concept of rarity is universally 

accepted and implicitly linked to the practice of 

managing for biodiversity conservation. Notably, rare 

species most often are not targeted for economic gain 

but are impacted as a consequence of activities directed 

at the exploitation of more abundant species (e.g., 

Auster 2005; Watling and Auster 2005).

Most species in the GoM might be considered rare 

based on the relative abundance of their numbers that 

occur in samples. For example, over a 30-year period 

(1975-2005), 90% of the numerical abundance of the 

fish community came from 7-10 species out of a total 

of 77 species sampled during NOAA Fisheries Service 

research trawls (Auster et al., 2006). The remaining 

67-70 species made up only 10% of the numerical 

abundance and, therefore, would be considered to have 

some degree of rarity in the community.

Analysis of such sample data leads to questions about 

the distribution and abundance of rare species within 

the sanctuary. For example, are species rare due to 

human-caused disturbance or are they naturally rare in 

their associated communities? Answers to this question 

lead to discussions of the necessity of management 

and the need for listing under provisions of the ESA. 

Another question that arises is focused on whether rare 

species are distributed sparsely and evenly through 

particular habitats or are they rare in most places 

and have dense concentrations at limited locations? 

Answers to this question may indicate the need to 

manage impacts in centers of species abundance and to 

insure that potential source populations continue their 

ecological function.
III. Sanctuary Setting 29

that the DMP would advocate for a higher level of conservation of living marine resources in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary than may apply broadly throughout the whole Gulf of 

Maine. And it is reasonable to expect that human uses such 

as fishing would be done in a manner that was environmentally sustainable (see Sidebar).

Biodiversity Explained

The ocean is the cradle of biological diversity as life began 

in the sea. A liter of ocean water contains over a 100 million 

micro-organisms (Sogin et al., 2006). In fact, micro-organisms represent over 50% of the biomass in the sea. Some 

micro-organisms produce their own food using sunlight 

while others are predators, hunting for microbial prey in 

a fluid and turbid environment. The ocean also contains 

larger multi-cellular plants, including encrusting species 

that produce calcareous “skeletons” as well as large fast 

growing kelps that can produce dense forests rivaling those 

in tropical jungles. Unlike the land and freshwater realms 

of our planet, the ocean contains representatives of every 

major type of animal group (phyla) on earth, from sponges 

to mammals. Although animals are but a single branch of 

the tree of life, they are the group with which we are most 

familiar.

Biological diversity is, simply stated, the variety of life on 

earth; it is the variability in all living things at all levels of 

examination (United Nations, 1992). It is inclusive of the 

millions of plants, animals and microbes; the genes they 

contain; and the ecosystems they build into the living environment. The definition of “biological diversity” or “biodiversity” deserves some discussion as it can mean different 

things to different people. The most common meaning refers 

simply to “species diversity,” which is all of the species in 

a defined area or on earth as a whole, including bacteria, 

protists, and fungi as well as the multi-cellular organisms 

(plants, animals).

The genetic variation within species, both among geographically separate populations and among individuals within 

single populations is termed “genetic diversity.” While 

species diversity by definition includes all of the species, 

or particular groups of species in an area, genetic diversity 

refers to the variation within single species. The level of 

genetic diversity within a population is an indication of the 

ability of the population to respond to and persist in the face 

of environmental change.

At the highest levels of complexity, “community diversity” 

and “ecosystem diversity” refer to the different biological 

communities and their associations with the physical environment (i.e., the ecosystem) that occur within an area, 

geographic region or the earth as a whole. The diversity of 

communities and ecosystems within a region is an indication of the range of evolutionary forces that have influenced 

species distributions. The range of organisms supported at 

particular sites provides a benchmark to understand both 

natural and human-induced change

Species diversity, quantified simply as the number of species 

in a particular area, is one of the most straightforward means 

Concept of Environmentally Sustainable 

Fishing

The concept of environmentally sustainable fishing 

is compatible with the goal of managing sanctuary 

resources for biodiversity conservation. An 

environmentally sustainable fishery protects the fish 

and the environment in which they live while allowing 

responsible use of the species that come from that 

environment. It is a fishery in which target species 

populations and associated habitats and biological 

communities remain functionally intact while ensuring 

a future for the industry and all those who depend on 

the fishery for their livelihoods. It is a fishery based on 

the principle of optimization that incorporates within 

its goals the maintenance of biodiversity, biological 

community structure and ecological integrity together 

with the realization of economically and socially viable 

fishery production and yield.

An environmentally sustainable fishery is prosecuted in 

a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion 

of the exploited resources to a level that imperils their 

ability to be a long-term functional component of the 

ecological community and the industry that relies 

on them. For those populations that are depleted to 

that level, the fishery is conducted in a manner that 

demonstrably leads to their recovery to sustainable 

levels. Environmentally sustainable fishing allows for 

the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function 

and biodiversity of the ecosystem, including habitat 

and associated dependent and ecologically related 

biological communities. The fishery is conducted in a 

way that does not lead to trophic (food web) cascades or 

ecosystem state changes. The fishery does not threaten 

biological diversity at the genetic, species or population 

levels and avoids or minimizes mortality of, or injuries 

to endangered, threatened or protected species. The 

fishery minimizes bycatch (unintentional capture of 

non-target species) and reduces the wasteful practice of 

discarding that bycatch.

The practice of environmentally sustainable fishing 

is consistent with the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct 

for Responsible Fisheries (United Nations). 

Environmentally sustainable fishing is conducted in 

ways that are consistent with the MFCMA national 

standards and that are most likely to be compatible with 

the sanctuary’s primary goal of resource protection. Its 

practice derives from implementation of the principals 

of ecosystem-based resource management, and its 

fishery products can gain promotional and market 

advantage through voluntary certification programs 

(e.g., Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)). Managing 

the sanctuary for biodiversity conservation does not 

imply that fishing should be eliminated and may require 

the sanctuary to work with its partners, including 

the Fishery Councils and NOAA Fisheries Service, to 

modify fishing within the sanctuary in order to conserve 

biodiversity.
30 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

of characterizing biodiversity and is the metric used in this 

document. Using this measure, there are over 575 species 

in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. Appendix J provides a 

preliminary list of species, ordered by phylum, currently 

known to occur within the sanctuary boundaries. The list is 

incomplete as it does not include many pelagic planktonic 

species that are difficult to capture and identify. NOAA 

intends to augment this list as more is learned about the 

diversity of species in the sanctuary.

Biogeographic Context

Gulf of Maine (GofM) Large Marine Ecosystem (LME)

The GoM LME forms a distinctive sub-region of the North 

American continental shelf in the northwest Atlantic Ocean, 

based not only on topography and circulation but on the 

communities of organisms that inhabit the area (Sherman et 

al., 1996). The GoM LME is located at the southerly end of 

the Acadian biogeographic province, which also includes 

the Bay of Fundy and the Scotian Shelf. The Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary is the only national marine sanctuary in the 

Acadian biogeographic province.

Georges Bank is included in the Acadian biogeographic 

province by some scientists but in the Virginian biogeographic province to the south by others. The affinity to one 

or the other biogeographic province is based on differences 

in the distributions of major groups of organism, patterns 

of endemism or oceanographic features (Cook and Auster, 

2007). Many scientists view Georges Bank, as well as the 

southern New England Shelf and mid-Atlantic Bight, as a 

broad transition zone with no unique biogeographic characteristics.

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is located in the southwest 

part of the GoM LME and has depths that range from 20 

to greater than 200 m. The shallower parts of the sanctuary support species that are primarily coastal in origin while 

the deeper waters support species more characteristic of 

northern and deeper marine communities. Seafloor topography in the western GoM blocks the flow of Maine deep 

water from the north and east, thereby excluding species 

that reside in conditions characteristic of Maine deep water 

environments from sanctuary waters.

The diversity of organisms that occur in the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary is a subset of the species that occur within the 

larger GoM LME. While not all species found in the GoM 

LME occur within its boundaries, the sanctuary contains a 

representative sample of many of the species in the region. 

Because of the wide range of depths (that cross major water 

column boundaries) and the high diversity of habitat types 

(e.g., mud, sand, gravel, boulder), the sanctuary exhibits a 

wide range of communities and species in a relatively small 

area (Auster et al., 2001; Auster, 2002; Cook and Auster, 

2006).

The GoM LME is relatively species poor when compared to 

other shelf ecosystems in the world ocean. For example, 

while the GoM has 652 species of fish (GoM Register of 

Marine Species at http://www.usm.maine.edu/gulfofmainecensus/Docs/About/GoMRMSClassification/index.htm; 

downloaded 8 August 2006), the tropical seas off northern 

Australia and Indonesia contain over 2,000 species of fish 

(Allen and Steene, 1999)—a diversity hotspot with the greatest number of fish species on earth.

Biodiversity Coldspot

Biodiversity “hotspots” are regions of the world with unusually high concentrations of endemic species (species that 

are found nowhere else on Earth) and that, by the original 

definition (Myers, 1988), also suffer severe habitat destruction. Today the term is more loosely applied to areas having 

the perceived biological quality of high species richness. 

The term is used in practice to identify areas of the world 

that should be managed to protect biodiversity (Myers et al., 

2000).

By this definition, hotspots occur almost exclusively at 

lower latitudes in tropical and subtropical climes. Temperate places in the world that may be relatively species poor 

can also have high biological value, when those values are 

defined differently. Such places are considered to be biodiversity “coldspots” (Kareiva and Marvier, 2003). Coldspots 

take on particular and unique importance when they can 

be linked in additive fashion to become part of a regional 

network that fully characterizes and effectively maintains 

functioning ecosystems.

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is an important biodiversity coldspot. The sanctuary area is one of thirty priority 

sites for networked marine ecosystem conservation in New 

England and Maritime Canada that were identified through 

an extensive science-based approach (Crawford and Smith, 

2006). That study is the foundation for a systematic effort to 

conserve and network high-quality and enduring examples 

representative of the full range of communities, habitats, 

environmental gradients and ecological processes in the 

GoM and northeast continental shelf. The sanctuary was 

a particularly important contributor for meeting a range of 

network goals, including demersal fish goals (89%), marine 

mammal goals (73%) and benthic habitat and seascape 

goals (80%).

So while the GoM region is not a global hotspot of biological diversity (sensu Myers, 1988), it does contain species 

endemic to the region, species which are the products of 

evolutionary forces that act selectively within the region. 

Hence the GoM LME contains a unique fauna based on a 

number of species occurring nowhere else, some having a 

distinct genetic composition if they are a subset of a wider 

ranging species, and others occurring within unique communities or habitats and having a unique ecological role when 

compared to other regions.

Fundamental Concepts of Biodiversity

Historical Baselines

To the extent possible, an understanding of the historic 

abundance and diversity of organisms in the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary area is essential to effectively manage for 
III. Sanctuary Setting 31

biodiversity conservation. Long-term population trends 

of economically important fish species, as well as marked 

changes in the ecosystem through time, can be used to 

make empirical estimates of key metrics. While historical 

baselines may be insufficient by themselves to set realistic 

targets for restoration efforts, they add useful perspective for 

consideration of what the goals and policies should be (e.g. 

Roberts, 2007; Bolster, 2008).

The phenomenon of “shifting baselines” as described by 

Pauly (1995) and Jackson et al. (2001), whereby standards of 

resource condition degrade through time, directs us towards 

the importance of historical perspectives as tools for determining long-term trends and setting baselines for comparison. Historical baselines can help avoid underestimations 

of ecosystem capacity or biased policy decisions resulting 

from lack of historical context. For example, Rosenberg et 

al. (2005) used fishing logs from the mid-19th century to 

model Atlantic cod biomass on the Scotian Shelf of Canada 

in 1852.

Using daily catch records, fleet activity and communication 

with other vessels, Rosenberg et al. (2005) inferred fishing 

capacity of the Beverly (Massachusetts) fishing fleet, and 

related the change in catch per unit fishing effort between 

1852 and 1859 to a population dynamics model. This 

analysis allowed for estimation of original biomass prior to 

1852 of 1.26 million metric tons of Atlantic cod. The 2002 

biomass estimate, determined by Canada’s Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans was approximately 3,000 metric tons, 

a decline of 99.7% from the population biomass of 1852. 

Growth of cod populations due to recent conservation efforts 

does not bring numbers of fish close to historical biomass.

Determination of historical baselines of ecosystem condition 

are required to make appropriate conservation decisions. 

Without a historical baseline, there is the risk that managers 

and the public mistakenly assume that recent condition of 

the resource in question is an appropriate reference point on 

which to base target restoration measures when, in fact, this 

reference point represents a significantly degraded condition. Absent historical context to gauge ecological potential, restoring the sanctuary’s resources may result in serious 

underestimation of the system’s capacity to respond.

The GoM cod project focuses on the collection and analysis 

of historical data of fish populations in the GoM including 

the sanctuary area (Rosenberg et al., 2005). The first phase 

of this project was aimed at the collection and review of 

historical sources providing biological indicators and population trends for fishes in the sanctuary. Data indicate that 

the sanctuary area was identified as a site of high biological productivity from the earliest times (Figure 6). The 

Figure 6. Explorer John Smith’s Map of New England, 1616, with Stellwagen Bank

and the sanctuary area (shaded blue) superimposed.

The ship was positioned over Stellwagen Bank (and within the boundaries of what today is the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary) and was 

an early convention to identify good fishing grounds. In the 1635 revised edition, the map was embellished with a pyramid of “cod 

heads” under the ship to depict the area as being especially good fishing. Courtesy: Karen Alexander, GoM cod project, University 

of New Hampshire.
32 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

second phase will incorporate the data into 

a Geographical Information System (GIS) 

database, as well as analyze the data in order 

to determine historical trends in fish diversity and population abundance. The Sidebar 

on researching historical trends offers background for work ongoing in the sanctuary.

Trophic Interactions

Food Webs

Other than primary producers and chemosynthetic organisms that make their own food 

from inorganic sources, all other organisms 

must consume others to sustain life processes, grow and reproduce. The range of interactions of species feeding on one another 

is referred to as a food or trophic web. The 

food web is a conceptual model of how the 

ecosystem functions.

Species are grouped according to trophic level 

(TL) as primary producers (like phytoplankton and algae), primary consumers (those 

that feed on primary producers), secondary 

consumers (those that feed on organisms that 

feed on primary producers), and up through 

higher TL predators (like sharks and tunas and 

humans) as well as the tremendous diversity 

of microbial organisms that either prey on 

other microscopic prey or decompose organic material in microbial food webs. While 

this is a highly simplistic view of the major 

types of trophic interactions that occur within 

natural communities, the true nature of such 

interactions are highly complex when many 

species are involved.

For the GoM region, which includes the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, Link (2002) developed a food web model that was composed 

of 81 “trophic compartments” from detritivores and phytoplankton through to human 

predators (Figure 7). Some nodes of this food 

web are actual species (like Atlantic cod and 

silver hake) while other nodes are designated 

as trophic groups (like copepods and sponges). The food web is most detailed for fishes 

and their interactions with primary prey and 

reveals a highly complex and interconnected 

set of relationships. 

This food web, based on relationships between 

predators and prey from across the northeast 

continental shelf (northwest Atlantic ocean), 

is in sharp contrast to food webs developed 

in more discrete and complex habitats such 

as coastal kelp forests and coral reefs. It is 

in such distinct habitat types that trophic 

Researching Historical Trends

Context. European settlement marked the beginning of documented 

exploitation of marine resources in Massachusetts Bay. Explorations 

of the New England region reported the abundance of fish as far 

back as 1602, when Bartholomew Gosnold visited the sanctuary area. 

The abundant marine resources provided surrounding settlements 

with close, protected fishing grounds to make a living. From 

Plymouth to Gloucester, regional fishing camps grew into towns 

dependant on the local fisheries. As early as 1670, concerns arose 

over the coastal fisheries resources. Licensing fees and limits on the 

taking of particular fish species, such as mackerel, came about in the 

Plymouth colony. However, open ocean resources were viewed as 

“inexhaustible,” a view held until relatively recent times.

The early 19th century brought about rising concerns over declines 

in fish species and populations. In 1839, David Humpheys Storer 

reported concerns of fisherman over changes in “composition, 

size, and distribution of the region’s fish populations.” Louis 

Agassiz established the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard 

University, collecting samples and investigating the biology of fishes 

of the GoM. Human activity, such as damming rivers, and pollution 

had significant effects on fish populations, particularly anadramous 

species such as alewife, shad and salmon, as did directed fishing 

pressures.

The federal government established the U.S. Fish Commission in 

1871 to investigate the declines of fisheries of the area and research 

the biology and oceanography of the regional marine ecosystem. 

This Commission was replaced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

in 1940. The federal government did not impose fishing restrictions 

on the banks or any offshore areas of New England until the mid 20th 

century. In 1970, the National Marine Fisheries Service became a 

part of the NOAA. 

Sources of Information. Baselines based on historical data and 

trends are essential to decision-making agencies needing to compare 

present resource conditions to those of the past. Sources of these 

historical data range from personal journals of sailors aboard fishing 

vessels, to documents annually reported to the federal government. 

Maps, journals or log books, letters and interviews taken directly 

from fishermen throughout the history of this area provide specific 

quantitative fish counts, areas of high catch and trends of catch 

throughout years of fishing, as well as observations and insight into 

the lives of fishermen and their thoughts on changing environmental 

conditions.

Private business records from many fishermen provide some on the 

most detailed information with names, bait used, catch and other 

personal information. Newspapers from local fishing towns, as well 

as census data from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, provide 

detailed information on vessels owned and run in the region, giving 

insight into fleet size and investments or products of the fisheries in 

the area.

Scientifically collected data from government research vessels 

through the U.S. Fish Commission, local government or local 

scientific societies such as the Boston Society of Natural History, are 

available in serial sets published as early as 1834. Federal statistics 

collected from fishermen on a monthly basis (in the later half on the 

19th century) provide data on types of fish caught, landings, numbers 

of crew members and fishing methods. Legislative documents from 

as early as the 17th century and right up through the 20th century 

provide information on regulations focused on local fishing activities. 

These various forms of historical documentation provide many pieces 

to a puzzle that must be carefully pieced together, producing baseline 

context for conservation decision making.
III. Sanctuary Setting 33

1 = detritus, 2 = phytoplankton, 3 = Calanus sp., 4 = other copepods, 5 = ctenophores (comb jellies), 6 = chaetognatha (arrow 

worms), 7 = jellyfish, 8 = euphasiids, 9 = Crangon sp., 10 = mysids, 11 = pandalids (shrimp), 12 = other decapods, 13 = gammarids 

(amphipods), 14 = hyperiids, 15 caprellids, 16 = isopods, 17 = pteropods, 18 = cumaceans, 19 = mantis shrimps, 20 = tunicates (sea 

squirts), 21 = porifera (sponges) , 22 = cancer crabs, 23= other crabs, 24 = lobster, 25 = hydroids, 26 = corals and anemones, 27 = 

polychaetes, 28 = other worms, 29 = starfish, 30 = brittlestars, 31 = sea cucumbers, 32 = scallops, 33 = clams and mussels, 34 = 

snails, 35 = urchins, 36 = sand lance, 37 = Atlantic herring, 38 = alewife, 39 = Atlantic mackerel, 40 = butterfish, 41 = loligo (squid), 

42 = illex, 43 = pollock, 44 = silver hake, 45 = spotted hake, 46 =white hake, 47 = red hake, 48 = Atlantic cod, 49 = haddock, 50 = 

sea raven, 51 = longhorn sculpin, 52 = little skate, 53 = winter skate, 54 = thorny skate, 55 = ocean pout, 56 = cusk, 57 = wolfish, 

58 = cunner, 59 = sea robins, 60 = redfish, 61 = yellowtail flounder, 62 = windowpane flounder, 63 = summer flounder, 64 = witch 

flounder, 65 = four-spot flounder, 66 = winter flounder, 67 = American plaice, 68 = American halibut, 69 = smooth dogfish, 70 = 

spiny dogfish, 71 = goosefish, 72 = weakfish, 73 = bluefish, 74 = baleen whales, 75 = toothed whales and porpoises, 76 = seals, 77 

= migratory scombrids (tunas), 78 = migratory sharks, 79 = migratory billfish, 80 = birds, 81 = humans (adapted from Link, 2002).

Figure 7. Species and trophic interactions of the northwest Atlantic food web.

This tangled “bird’s nest” represents interactions at the approximate trophic level (TL) of 

each species, with increasing TL towards the 

top of the web. The left side of the web generally typifies pelagic organisms, and the right 

to middle represents more benthic/demersal 

oriented organisms. Species interactions in 

the top half of the web are dominated by 

predation on fish. 

cascades have been shown to regularly occur when these 

communities are disturbed by human activities.

Trophic Cascades

Trophic cascades occur when change in the abundance of 

a particular species affects the abundance of species at two 

or more lower TLs. For coastal kelp forests in the GoM, 

Steneck et al., (2004) defined trophic relationships that were 

significantly more limited and well defined than those for 

the northeast continental shelf (Figure 8). The effects of 

human exploitation over the last century produced trophic 

cascades in the kelp forests by reducing predators such as 

cod and other gadids (phase 1). This reduced predation 

pressure, primarily on green sea urchins, resulting in urchin 

dominated communities that decimated kelp forests and 

shifted the dominant primary producers to species of corralline algae (phase 2). Overexploitation of urchins in the late 

1980s and early 1990s resulted in the recovery of kelp forests 

and increased abundances of crabs and lobsters (phase 3). 

Similarly, over-exploitation of piscivores and herbivores has 

caused trophic cascades on coral reefs shifting the system 

from one dominated by corals to one dominated by algae 

(Jackson et al., 2001).

One of the underlying assumptions of the trophic relationships discussed above is that interactions of species within 

particular habitat patches (e.g., kelp forests, coral reefs) is 

tightly linked to those habitats, and that interactions with 

species outside of those habitats is weak (i.e., not “leaky”). 

While made an explicit assumption of many trophic web 

models, this is not necessarily the case in less complex and 

more spatially extensive habitats such as those of the offshore 

GoM, including the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. For example, approximately half of the fish species in communities 

on deep boulder reefs in the sanctuary are either seasonal 

residents or transients (Auster and Lindholm, 2006), suggesting that such habitats are quite “leaky” and that predatorprey interactions extend beyond their boundaries.

Given the high levels of exploitation of fish species on the 

northeast continental shelf, the concern is that regional or 

shelf-wide trophic cascades could occur, resulting in longterm changes in the shelf ecosystem including that of the 

sanctuary. Such cascades have already occurred in more 

discrete habitats in the nearshore environment of the GoM 

(Jackson et al., 2001; Steneck, 2004). However, an analysis 

of patterns in the abundance of fish species within particular trophic guilds (groups of species that feed on the same 

kinds of prey, e.g., piscivores, benthivores, crab eaters, 

echinoderm eaters, planktivores, shrimp-fish eaters) on the 

northeast continental shelf revealed that most trophic guilds 

remained remarkably stable over the four-decade time 

series studied, despite large changes in the abundance of 
34 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

individual species (such as Atlantic cod) within the guilds 

(Auster and Link, in preparation).

These data suggest that there is a form of compensation in 

the way fish communities within the GoM and the sanctuary respond to exploitation and that in habitats and landscapes where significant connectivity occurs, a level of 

protection against trophic cascades exists. This is not to say 

that trophic cascades could not occur in the sanctuary. For 

example, data suggest a trophic cascade has occurred in the 

nearshore kelp communities of the GoM and on the Scotian 

Shelf to the north, attributed to extreme reductions in the 

abundance of top predators (Steneck et al., 2004; Frank et 

al., 2005). However in the offshore GoM, researchers have 

shown that compensation in the abundances of species 

within trophic guilds, including piscivores, may buffer the 

potential for trophic cascades (Auster and Link, in preparation).

Structuring Biological Communities

While trophic cascades per se among fish communities 

may not have occurred on the northeast continental shelf, 

despite the extreme effects of overexploitation on individual species, competitive interactions due to changes 

in the populations of exploited species have impacted the 

composition of GoM fish communities. For example, the 

decline in cod and flounders due to fishing likely resulted in 

a competitive release allowing extreme increases in skates 

and spiny dogfish on Georges Bank (Fogarty and Murawski, 

1998). Consider also the documented decrease in mean 

TL in the northeast continental shelf fishery landings for the 

hundred-year period, 1901-2003 (Figure 9).

The abundance and distribution of preferred prey species 

has played a significant, perhaps critical, role in structuring the distribution of baleen whale populations in the 

GoM (Payne et al., 1990). The distribution of humpback 

whales has been shown to be significantly correlated with 

the number of sand lance obtained from standardized trawl 

tows (Payne, et. al., 1986). Humpback whale sightings from 

1978-1986 showed a shift in distribution from the upper 

GoM-lower Bay of Fundy region to the southwestern GoM 

concurrently with an increase in sand lance in this area 

during the same period. This shift in distribution coincided 

with a dramatic increase in the concentrations of sand lance 

throughout the shelf waters of the eastern United States. The 

sand lance populations apparently expanded in response to 

the collapse of the Atlantic herring stocks in the mid-1970s 

due to over-fishing from foreign, distant water factory fleets 

(Meyer et al., 1979; Sherman et al., 1981).

Significant changes in the biomass of sand lance and the 

abundance of copepods have co-occurred with a shift in 

the occurrence and abundance of four species of baleen 

whales (northern right, humpback, sei and fin) in the southFigure 8. Trophic cascades in kelp forests along the coast of Maine.

All species determined to have been abundant at one time were plotted with their assigned TL. Abundant species are shown in bold 

face; rare or low-abundance species are shown in smaller regular type. Most trophic linkages (TL-lines connecting species) have been 

demonstrated with ecological studies. Apex fish predators (all above TL 3.2) feed on invertebrates (TL less than 3). Predatory invertebrates (TL 2.5-3.0) feed on the herbivorous sea urchin (TL 2), which feeds on algae (all TL 1). Interaction strengths correspond to the 

width of trophic linkage lines. Some species are weak interactors in this system, for example flounder have no identifiable trophic 

linkage with other species in this system. Note: Lobster’s trophic linkages are weak despite their abundance in recent years because 

they feed primarily on lobster bait in the trap fishery (Steneck, unpublished) (adapted from Steneck et al., 2004).
III. Sanctuary Setting 35

ern GoM (Payne et al., 1990). Peak years in the abundance 

of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus were the lowest 

years in abundance for sand lance. Right whales and sei 

whales were common in the region only during 1986, when 

C. finmarchicus reached a regional maximum and sand 

lance were at a regional minimum. These distributional 

shifts in cetaceans have been characterized as an ecological 

response to human-induced changes in the abundance of 

herring and mackerel due to over-harvesting and a compensatory response by sand lance (Payne et al., 1990).

Since the elimination of foreign fisheries on the northeast 

continental slope in the late 1970s, Atlantic herring populations were able to re-colonize much of the area’s spawning habitat during the period from 1988-1993 (US DOC, 

NOAA, 1993a). During 1992-1993, the abundance of sand 

lance was well below the average for previous years. This 

change in the abundance of species which feed at the same 

TL is referred to as a “biomass flip”. This shift in the abundance and distribution of cetacean prey could possibly trigger a similar shift in the distribution of humpbacks and other 

cetaceans that feed on these small pelagic species. Many 

species of marine mammals and predatory fish follow the 

movements and abundance of their prey, which in turn may 

be linked to physical oceanographic conditions including 

circulation patterns, water temperature and salinity as well 

as local depletion of prey species due to targeted fishing 

activity.

Climate change may have the most unpredictable effects on 

community structure and trophic interactions. Many species 

are at the southern or northern limits of their distributions in 

the sanctuary area. Small increases in water temperature 

may result in significant increases in more warm temperate 

species and the loss of cold water taxa. Long-term trends in 

warming have already resulted in shifts in the distribution of 

fishes in the GoM (Garrison, 2001).

Habitats

A variety of habitats occur within the sanctuary. The 

underwater landscape is a patchwork of habitat features 

that are composed of both geologic and biologic components. Habitat is defined as the location occupied by an 

organism, population or community. It is the physical part 

of the community structure in which an organism finds its 

home, and includes the sum total of all the environmental conditions present in the specific place occupied by an 

organism. Habitats can be found on the seafloor or in the 

water column. Seafloor habitats are formed by the physical substrata in an area or by the combination of physical 

substrate and inhabiting organisms (biogenic habitats), such 

as anemones attached to a boulder. 

Habitat features provide shelter from predators and the flow 

of tidal and storm generated currents, serve as sites that 

enhance capture of prey such as drifting zooplankton, and 

serve as foci for spawning activities including egg laying 

and brooding young. All organisms have particular habitat 

Fishing pressure over the past century has reduced the mean TL of landings in the GoM region, a long-term trend that continues 

through the present. This figure serves as an example of a historical baseline of ecosystem condition. Trophic level indicates position 

in the food chain determined by the number of energy-transfer steps to that level. By convention, plants have a TL = 1, herbivores TL = 

2, and so on up to a TL = 5 such as for killer whales. Courtesy: Stephan Claussen, GoM cod project, University of New Hampshire.

Figure 9. Historic reduction in mean TLs in fishery landings in the GoM from statistical bulletin landings data

(1901–1935) and LME Northeast U.S. continental shelf landings (1950–2003).
36 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

requirements and the important attributes of “habitat” vary 

between species and between the various life history stages 

within species.

Regional topography and surficial seabed features of the 

sanctuary have been mapped in great detail based on multibeam echo sounder imagery and on extensive ground-truthing with video and photographic imagery and geological 

and biological sampling. Habitat characterization produces descriptors of habitats based on geological, biological, 

chemical and oceanographic observations. Habitat classification produces a set of habitat types based on a suite of 

standard descriptors of topographical, geological, biological, 

natural, and anthropogenic features and processes. Habitat 

mapping is the spatial representation of described and classified habitat units (Valentine et al., 2005). The development 

of a new seabed classification scheme has made it possible 

to map habitats based on substrate texture, seabed dynamics, the complexity of physical and biological structures on 

the seabed, and fauna (Valentine et al., 2005).

The simplest classification of habitats in the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary that can be discerned is based on the multi-beam 

echo sounder imagery which reveals backscatter intensity—a measure of the hardness of the substrate (Figure 10). 

Based on this imagery, the sanctuary contains three basic 

physical habitat types: gravel, sand and mud with the following coverage: 34%, 28% and 38%, respectively. Bedrock 

outcrop and piled boulder reefs are other important physical 

habitats. Bedrock outcrop is found only on Sanctuary Hill 

in the northeastern-most corner of the sanctuary; piled boulder reefs are extensively associated with sand and gravel 

areas of the sanctuary (Valentine et al., 2001). Imagery from 

ground-truthing and physical sampling reveals that each of 

the three basic habitat types can be further subdivided into 

more descriptive categories such as mobile rippled coarsegrained sand, for example (Valentine et al., 2005).

Figure 10. Multi-beam sonar image of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary area showing (a) sun-illuminated seafloor

topography and (b) backscatter intensity of sediments. 

Source: USGS.
III. Sanctuary Setting 37

Physical Setting

The physical setting of the sanctuary is the structural foundation for its biological processes. The first set of sanctuary 

regulations that were established when the sanctuary was 

designated was intended to prevent Stellwagen Bank from 

being mined for its sand and gravel resources. Minerals 

extraction has enormous potential to adversely impact the 

ecosystem functions of the sanctuary by physically altering the surface profile of Stellwagen Bank and its attendant 

oceanography. Exploring for, developing or producing 

industrial materials such as oil and gas within the sanctuary 

are strictly prohibited. Other regulations prevent the drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the 

sanctuary or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the seabed of the sanctuary, except as exempted as an incidental result of traditional 

fishing operations, for example.

An understanding of the physical setting—the linkages 

between its geography, geology and oceanography—enables 

understanding of how regional, large-scale processes of the 

GoM ecosystem connect with and directly impact the local 

biodiversity patterns and processes at the scale of the sanctuary. For example, the habitats of marine mammals are 

affected by the physical and chemical properties of the water 

through which they swim and communicate, the topography 

and substrate type of the ocean bottom and water column 

characteristics where they feed, the physical state of the 

ocean surface where they breath, and the numerous factors 

influencing the distribution of food organisms (including 

temperature, salinity, currents and winds) that determine 

their distribution and local abundance.

Geography

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary stretches between Cape Cod 

and Cape Ann at the mouth of Massachusetts Bay and is 

virtually the size of the state of Rhode Island (Figure 11). It 

covers 842 square-miles (2,182 km2) of marine waters and 

is located entirely within federal jurisdiction. At its greatest 

distance from the coast, the sanctuary is located approximately 25 nautical miles east of Boston, Massachusetts, and 

3 nautical miles off Cape Ann and Cape Cod. On a regional 

scale, the sanctuary is a part of the GoM LME.

The sanctuary is a topographically diverse area that encompasses the submerged Stellwagen Bank and Basin, Tilles 

Bank and Basin and a portion of Jeffreys Ledge in the southern GoM. The GoM is a large gulf of the Atlantic Ocean on 

the northeastern coast of North America, roughly between 

Cape Cod in Massachusetts to the south and Cape Sable 

Island on the southern tip of Nova Scotia to the northeast 

(Figure 12). It includes the entire coastlines of the States of 

New Hampshire and Maine, as well as Massachusetts from 

the north side of Cape Cod, and the southern and western 

coastlines of the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and 

Nova Scotia, respectively. Massachusetts Bay and the Bay of 

Fundy are included within the GoM LME.

There are three major basins contained within the GoM: 

Wilkinson Basin to the west, Jordan Basin in the northeast, 

and Georges Basin in the south, which are isolated from 

each other beneath the 650 ft. (200 m) isobath. Georges 

Basin, just north of Georges Bank, is the deepest of the 

three at just over 1,200 ft. (370 m) and generates a pocket 

at the end of the Northeast Channel, a deep fissure between 

Georges Bank and Browns Bank, the southwestern edge of 

the Nova Scotian Shelf. The Northeast Channel is the major 

channel between the GoM and the rest of the Northwest 

Atlantic. A secondary, shallower connection to the rest of 

the Atlantic is the Great South Channel, located between 

Georges Bank and the Nantucket Shoals. The sanctuary’s 

geographic location relative to the arctic and temperate 

regions of the Northwest Atlantic makes it an obvious focus 

for biodiversity research.

Geology

Stellwagen Bank is the most prominent geological feature in 

the sanctuary and is one of only two shallow (less than 20 m 
38 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

depth) sandy banks in the Gulf of Maine (GoM)—the other 

one being Georges Bank. Stellwagen Bank is a glaciallydeposited feature, curved in a southeast-to-northwest direction for almost 32.2 km; it measures 18.75 miles in length 

and roughly 6.25 miles across at its widest point, at the 

southern-most portion of the bank (Figure 11). The seabed 

of the sanctuary is a complex of geomorphic features and 

substrate types that formed by 1) glacial ice movement, 2) 

erosion and deposition of sediments during ice melting and 

sea level rise, and 3) reworking by modern currents (Valentine et al., 2005).

Like Cape Cod and the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and 

Nantucket, Stellwagen Bank and other submerged banks 

and ledges off the northeastern United States coast were 

created by the advance and retreat of glaciers. Stellwagen 

Bank owes much of its existence to the Laurentide Ice Sheet 

that advanced out of Canada and into southern New England 

approximately 21,000 years ago (Oldale, 1993,1994). As 

the ice sheet advanced, it was shaped into huge lobes. One 

ice lobe was formed by what is now Cape Cod Bay; the 

other by the present-day Great South Channel, located to 

the southeast of Cape Cod. The advance of ice over the 

continental land mass ground the land into fragments and 

carried them along with the movement of the ice.

With general climatic warming between 18,000 and 15,000 

years ago, the glaciers began to melt and retreat from their 

coverage. The ice lobes became more pronounced, and 

retreated at differing rates, depending on the depths of topographical depressions within which they moved. During 

this process enormous amounts of pulverized continental 

land were released from the melting ice. These land fragments, or “outwash” from the two ice lobes formed much of 

the present-day Cape Cod peninsula. Retreat of the ice lobe 

formed by the Great South Channel was sufficiently slow 

that much of the land fragments it carried melted out and 

was deposited on the sea floor. These materials formed the 

submerged elevation now known as Stellwagen Bank

Through the continual evolution and refinement of technologies for mapping the seafloor, the characterization of the 

sanctuary landscape is also continuously evolving (Valentine et al., 2001). Multi-beam imagery provides a level of 

resolution of landscape features that has been unattainable 

with lower resolution bathymetric and seafloor geological 

surveys. Multi-beam imagery provides a highly detailed 

picture of the seafloor landscape, providing detailed bathymetry. Most multi-beam systems also provide a measure of 

acoustic backscatter. Using backscatter data, the relative 

hardness of a substrate can be determined by the strength of 

the acoustic signal reflectance.

The USGS completed an initial series of 18 seafloor topographic maps (scale 1:25,000) in 1997 that covers the entire 

sanctuary. The data were collected using a hull-mounted 

multi-beam system. This map series was followed by sunilluminated versions of the multi-beam maps in 2001. Additional backscatter and sediment characterization maps are 

in preparation that will also cover the sanctuary.

The entirety of the sanctuary as well as a surrounding buffer 

area has been mapped using multi-beam sonar (approximately 1,100 nm2 in total) at a vertical resolution of approximately 25 cm and a horizontal resolution of approximately 

10 m. Figure 10 shows the sun-illuminated seafloor topography and acoustic backscatter sediment maps of the sanctuary. Substrate type is color coded and superimposed over 

the bathymetry. The sanctuary multi-beam map, in conjunction with extensive ground truthing (e.g., video, still photos, 

sediment samples), provides the most complete characterization of the seafloor in the GoM. For more information 

on seafloor maps of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary go to 

http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/stellwagen/stellwagenbank.html.

This section served as an introduction to the gross geological 

features and processes of the sanctuary area. Descriptions of 

additional geological aspects of the sanctuary are provided 

in subsequent discussions of landscapes and physical and 

biogenic habitats.

Oceanography

Ocean circulation through and around the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary drives the dynamic biology of the area, and that 

circulation is greatly influenced by the sanctuary’s location within the greater GoM. While Stellwagen Bank is an 

important feature driving local water circulation, the sanctuary’s water properties and dispersal mechanisms are largely 

determined by large-scale oceanographic patterns. To gain 

perspective, it is necessary to understand these large-scale 

patterns and how they influence the smaller-scale unit of 

the sanctuary. Many processes (tides, currents, sea surface 

temperature, internal waves, thermal fronts, etc.) comprise 

the oceanographic character of the region and their interactions drive large and small-scale biological dynamics.

An in-depth description of the sanctuary area’s physical 

oceanography is provided in “An ecological characterization 

of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary region” 

(NOAA, 2006). Drawing from that document, a general 

description of the key oceanographic features that shape the 

sanctuary environment follows and includes discussion of 

general patterns of circulation at different geographic scales 

and the role of internal waves. A key attribute of the sanctuary’s physical oceanography is its regional connectivity with 

other parts of the GoM. This connectivity is important in 

understanding the sanctuary’s ecological role in supplying 

and receiving larval recruits across the region, as well as the 

paths taken by pollutants and contaminants in relation to 

the sanctuary.

General Patterns of Circulation

Gulf of Maine Circulation

A combination of physical and oceanographic characteristics in the GoM results in cycles of biological productivity 

that support exceptionally large and diverse populations of 

fish, that in turn attract and support seasonal populations of 

cetaceans and seabirds. Bounded by underwater offshore 

banks, the prevailing counterclockwise circulation results 
III. Sanctuary Setting 39

Figure 11. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary in relation to adjacent land and

associated geographic places. 

The image shows the glacially-deposited Stellwagen Bank within the boundaries of the national 

marine sanctuary. Source: NOAA/NOS.

from ocean currents, freshwater 

inflow, and the configuration 

of shoreline and underwater 

topography which together 

create a nearly self-contained 

oceanographic system (Figure 

12).

The interior GoM has cyclonic 

circulation regions situated over 

three deep basins—Georges, 

Jordan and Wilkinson. The 

gyres are influenced by the deep 

inflow of saline waters through 

the Northeast Channel and 

forced by topography (Hannah 

et al., 1996; Lynch, 1999). The 

dominant temporal variability 

in the gyres or between gyres is 

on the order of months (Xue et 

al., 2000). The current patterns 

in the GoM are greatly affected 

by the physical characteristics 

of the gulf and its coastline.

In general, cold water enters 

the gulf over the Scotian Shelf, 

Browns Bank and through the 

Northeast Channel. Water 

flows around Nova Scotia and 

into the Bay of Fundy. The 

coast then deflects currents 

southwestward forming the 

GoM gyre, which rotates counterclockwise, moving surface 

waters about 7 nm per day. 

Tidal fluctuations and shallow 

water over Georges Bank form a 

secondary, clockwise-spinning 

gyre. Water leaves the Gulf 

through the Great South Channel and over the eastern portion 

of Georges Bank. It takes about 

three months for surface water 

to completely circle the GoM. 

Deep waters also circulate, but 

much more slowly, taking about 

a year to complete the circuit 

(Xue et al., 1999).

Current speed and direction can 

vary spatially and temporally throughout the GoM. Over 

20 buoys are stationed throughout the Gulf that collect 

hourly oceanographic and meteorological data as part of 

the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS). 

For more information, visit URL http://gomoos.org/buoy/

buoy_data.shtml. Hourly current speeds were obtained 

from the GoMOOS Buoy A during 2002-2006 to examine 

monthly and inter-annual patterns. During this time period, 

mean current speed was highest (and most variable) during 

April and May and lowest speeds were observed during the 

summer and fall.

Massachusetts Bay Circulation

Circulation in Massachusetts Bay (Figure 13) is controlled by 

the large-scale circulation in the GoM, localized wind forcing, and freshwater inflow (Signell et al., 2000). The Maine 

Coastal Current (MCC) flows south at 5–15 cm/s along the 

Maine and New Hampshire shoreline. A weak branch (2–5 
40 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

cm/s) occurs near Cape Ann. 

Usually the MCC flows south 

along the eastern edge of Stellwagen Bank and east of Cape Cod 

(Normandeau Associates, 1975; 

Vermersch et al., 1979; Blumberg et al., 1993; Bumpus, 1973; 

Lynch et al., 1997). However, as 

explained below, the MCC can 

strongly influence the circulation pattern in Massachusetts 

Bay and Cape Cod Bay depending on the season (Figure 13).

The circulation pattern can be 

altered by seasonal wind and 

runoff events (Signell et al., 

2000). The main current joins 

smaller coastal currents and 

flows southward, often penetrating deep into Cape Cod Bay 

(Jiang and Zhou, 2004). Seasonal 

variation in stratification occurs 

in Massachusetts Bay, with wellmixed conditions during winter 

and strong stratification during 

summer (Geyer et al., 1992). 

The stratification greatly reduces vertical exchange between 

surface and bottom waters and 

isolates the bottom water from 

the direct influence of wind 

stress and river runoff (Signell et 

al., 2000).

The seasonal variations of stratification, wind stress, and 

river discharge change the nature of transport and dispersion processes in Massachusetts Bay. During winter, strong 

northerly winds enhance the counter-clockwise circulation along the shoreline and northward flow in the deeper 

portions of the Bay (Butman, 1975; Brickley, 1994). In 

the spring, shallow (5–15 m) fresh water plumes enter the 

Bay, commonly generating strong currents (20–30 cm/s) 

with 10–30 km spatial scales (Butman, 1976; Lee, 1992). 

Summer conditions stratify the water column and frequent 

southwesterly winds can result in localized upwelling along 

the western and northern coast. During the fall, mean circulation reverses and flows northward as the result of strong 

cooling (Geyer et al., 1992).

Significance to the Sanctuary

These broad-scale circulation patterns significantly affect 

water column mixing and transport mechanisms in the 

sanctuary. Mixing on the continental shelf is an important 

process for redistributing nutrients, sediments, freshwater, 

pollutants, plankton and fish larvae (Carter et al., 2005). 

Stellwagen Bank serves as a boundary between the GoM to 

the east and Massachusetts Bay to the west and is an important determinant of the water properties within Massachusetts Bay. The sanctuary is located along the major path of 

the Maine coastal current, while also receiving surface and 

subsurface flows from Massachusetts Bay (Figures 12 and 

13).

The physical oceanographic processes at work in Massachusetts Bay are critical to the generation of biological 

productivity and maintenance of biological diversity in the 

sanctuary. These ecological qualities are in turn important 

to sustaining local fishing and recreation industries and for 

resource conservation efforts. Understanding circulation 

patterns helps to identify biological sources to and exports 

from the sanctuary in the form of larval recruits or zooplankton concentrations and provides insight into the transport 

and deposition of sediments and “red tide” spores as well 

as potentially harmful contaminants from local sewage 

discharges.

Internal Waves

Internal waves are particularly important for internal mixing 

and localized transport within the sanctuary area (Figure 

14). Stellwagen Bank (most notably) and Cashes Ledge are 

biologically productive as a result of internal wave dynamics (Sherman et al., 1996). Internal waves are literally 

waves under the ocean’s surface that occur at the interface 

between two water layers of differing densities (Brown et al., 

Figure 12. Generalized diagram of the counter-clockwise circulation patterns

in the GoM. 

Source: Pettigrew et al. (2005).
III. Sanctuary Setting 41

1989). They occur when seasonally stratified water is forced 

over abrupt topographic features, such as banks or ledges, 

by diurnal tides. Internal waves disappear as they approach 

shallow water (typically 25 to 40 m in depth) because of 

decreasing depth (Jackson and Apel, 2004). Internal waves 

usually occur in Massachusetts Bay between May and October when the water column is stratified.

Internal waves contribute to the energetics of the upper 

ocean in many ways; in particular, they enhance mixing 

and nutrient availability (Jackson and Apel, 2004). Plankton distribution exhibits strong vertical displacements and 

mixing associated with the passage of internal wave packets (Haury et al., 1979). The ability of internal waves to 

mix stratified water layers during the summer provides a 

mechanism for benthic-pelagic trophic coupling by moving 

phytoplankton downward to benthic 

communities (Witman et al., 1993). This 

mechanism may also serve as vertical 

transport for passively dispersed larvae of 

benthic invertebrates and fish (Witman et 

al., 1993; Meekan et al., 2006).

Strong convergence of internal waves at 

the bottom causes sediment re-suspension (Boczar-Karaiewicz et al., 1991), 

including recently settled invertebrate 

larvae and toxic algae cysts (Scotti and 

Pineda, 2004). The existence of trapped 

cores (pockets of water) between internal 

wave crests also suggests internal waves 

are a prime candidate for concentrating 

and transporting larvae which nourish 

benthic communities (Scotti and Pineda, 

2004). Internal waves, and potentially 

other related transport mechanisms, 

have a significant influence on ecological processes in the sanctuary (Scotti and 

Pineda, 2004).

Internal waves can have additional 

benthic impact by re-suspending sediments. Recent evidence (Butman et al., 

in preparation) has shown that benthic 

currents associated with internal waves 

caused sediment re-suspension within 

Stellwagen Basin at depths between 

50-85 m. Net transport direction was 

offshore and currents were of considerable speed to carry sediments 5-20 km. 

Thus, sediments in shallower portions 

of Massachusetts Bay are frequently 

re-suspended and carried offshore and 

are typically deposited in the deeper 

Stellwagen Basin. Due to weaker current 

flows, sediments re-suspended in Stellwagen Basin do not typically leave the 

basin, but are re-deposited (Butman et 

al., in preparation).

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) can 

detect internal waves by emitting pulses of microwave 

energy, producing a two-dimensional radar backscatter map 

of the roughness of the ocean surface (Apel and Jackson, 

2004). In SAR imagery, internal waves appear as packets 

or groups of waves characterized by alternating bright and 

dark bands and decreasing wavelengths from front to back 

of each packet, indicating direction of propagation. While 

wave packet size is variable, imagery from Massachusetts 

Bay and surrounding waters has shown high density (number 

of packets/km2) internal waves within the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary area (Figure 14).

Connectivity

The GoM connects the New England states (Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, and Maine) and the Canadian provinces 

Figure 13. Generalized diagram of the various water circulation patterns

in the upper layers that exist within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

during stratified conditions. 

Solid lines represent most common patterns; dashed lines represent less common 

patterns. Source: Lermusiaux (2003).
42 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

(New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) 

with 93,239 km2 of ocean along 

19,424 km of shoreline. Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary is integrally connected with the rest of the GoM through 

water circulation. The sanctuary both 

receives water and associated particles (larvae, plankton, etc.) via the 

Maine Coastal Current and disperses 

water and particles to areas to the 

south (Great South Channel) and east 

(Georges Bank). A recent example of 

this connectivity occurred when one 

of the sanctuary’s acoustic recording 

units deployed on the bottom broke 

free and drifted to Georges Bank 

where it was retrieved by the USGS. 

Additionally, this connectivity has 

been shown through the use of telemetered drifter buoys.

NOAA Fisheries Service NEFSC 

has deployed telemetered drifter 

buoys for several years throughout 

the GoM to serve as proxies for the 

transport of American lobster larvae 

which remain in the water column 

as plankton for approximately one 

month. Many of the buoys deployed 

in or near the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary have revealed how complex 

the surface currents are in Massachusetts Bay and how strong the connection is between the sanctuary and 

areas to the east and south, such as 

Georges Bank and outer Cape Cod 

and the Islands (Figure 15). These 

drifter tracks correspond well with 

the generalized circulation depicted 

in Figure 12. The implication of this 

connectivity is that the sanctuary 

serves as both a source (for export) 

and a sink (for import) for larvae of 

most fish and invertebrate species 

throughout the southwestern and 

central GoM.

Figure 14. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) image of internal wave events in

Massachusetts Bay on August 7, 2003. 

Three internal wave packets are obvious as curvilinear features in the sanctuary area north 

of Cape Cod. Image courtesy of European Space Agency, processed by Jose da Silva, Univ. 

of Lisbon. Envisat ASAR, 7 August 2003 2:30 GMT; image precision mode.
III. Sanctuary Setting 43

Figure 15. Selected tracks of telemetered drifter buoys depicting generalized current flow in the vicinity of the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

(a) Track of drifter buoy 65208 deployed on May 2004 off of Isle au Haut, Maine, revealing connectivity between the south-west 

margin of the GoM, the sanctuary and Georges Bank; (b) Track of drifter buoy 65207 deployed on June 27, 2006, off of Boston Harbor 

revealing connectivity between the sanctuary and the interior GoM; and (c) Track of drifter buoy 55202 deployed on June 13, 2005, 

off of Cape Ann, Massachusetts, revealing connectivity between the sanctuary and the islands south of Cape Cod. Courtesy: James 

Manning, NOAA Fisheries Service/NEFSC.
44 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Primary Producers and Decomposers

Phytoplankton are largely pro- or eukaryotic algae that live 

in the upper water column where there is sufficient light to 

support photosynthesis; they serve as the primary producers. However, the TL of some phytoplankton is not straightforward, and some species, e.g., certain dinoflagellates are 

mixotrophic (producers or consumers) depending on environmental conditions. Zooplankton are small protozoans 

or metazoans (e.g., crustaceans and other animals) that feed 

on other plankton and serve as the primary consumers in 

the ecosystem.

Zooplankton are not addressed separately in this document 

because of the extensive treatment that would require, but 

their ecosystem role as primary consumers of phytoplankton and prey for organisms at higher TLs is enormously 

important. Certain species, such as the Calanoid copepod 

Calanus finmarchius is prey both for fish (e.g., sand lance) 

and whales (e.g., North Atlantic right whale) in the sanctuary.

Viruses, another group of microscopic organisms, also are 

not given any treatment here because virus diversity has 

not been addressed in the Northwestern Atlantic (Fuhrman, 

1999). Viruses are known primarily as pathogens and little 

is known of their ecology. The topic is of pragmatic importance due to the likelihood for transport or accidental introduction of exotic pathogens and the complicated density 

dependant functions of disease. The role of virus particles as 

pathogens and gene vectors in nature makes the lack or near 

absence of data on their distribution in the GoM an acute 

problem, but only a general concern for sanctuary management at this time because there are no overt problems.

Prokaryotes

Prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea, the latter group not 

distinguished in this review) are the biochemical specialists of the ecosystem. Each bacterium consists of a simple, 

single cell, lacking a nucleus and chromosomes to organize 

its DNA. Nonetheless, bacteria accomplish many unique 

Marine bacteria, protists (e.g., algae, phytoplankton, protozoans) and fungi are crucially important at many levels 

of ecosystem function. By most accounts vascular plants 

and seaweeds do not occur in the sanctuary, but microscopic organisms are astronomically numerous and make 

up the bulk of the primary producers and decomposers, 

fixing carbon and recycling nutrients through a variety of 

biochemical processes. These microscopic organisms are 

actively engaged in all processes of biologically induced 

energy transfer through all ecosystem pathways involving 

all TLs, biological communities and habitats. While the 

species diversity of this group of organisms is poorly documented, their great importance as a functioning element of 

the sanctuary ecosystem merits their acknowledgement in 

this document.

Investigations of biodiversity are complicated by the paucity 

of knowledge of certain taxonomic groups, particularly 

those in the following three categories (prokaryotes, protists 

and fungi). What one taxonomist considers a species may 

be only a subspecies to another. The greater scientific 

body relies on the expertise of taxonomists in their fields of 

specialization as to what level of phenotypic and genetic 

variation is sufficient to warrant species status. In addition, 

many taxonomic groups such as the marine bacteria and 

fungi have received little attention in relation to their species 

diversity. Instead, one must consider their generic or functional diversity. With such disparities, the study of biodiversity in these groups is just beginning; an annotated technical 

summary follows. Scientific nomenclature not explained in 

the text is described in the glossary of this document.

These organisms are mostly found in or on the sediments 

and plankton of the sanctuary. Plankton consists of microscopic drifting organisms that inhabit the water column. The 

plankton is primarily divided into broad functional (trophic 

level) groups consisting of bacterioplankton, phytoplankton and zooplankton. Bacterioplankton are bacteria and 

archaea which play the role of decomposers and recyclers. 
III. Sanctuary Setting 45

biochemical transformations due to the enormous range 

of their metabolic capabilities. Only a very small amount 

(perhaps less than 1%) of all microbial diversity has been 

studied (Colwell et al., 1995). Thus, it would be impossible 

to include a list of prokaryote species found in the sanctuary. The official list of the described bacteria is contained 

in the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. In 

marine communities, some taxonomic categories are studied considerably more than others.

Margulis and Schwartz (1998) provide a description of 

the major prokaryotic lineages and functional groups and 

describe their intimate relationships with higher organisms. The prokaryotes are involved in virtually every 

metabolic pathway and every link in the marine food web 

(e.g., Cavanaugh, 1994; Dubilier et al., 1999; Hinrichs et 

al., 1999). Bacteria drive and regulate a seemingly infinite 

number of marine processes (e.g., Schlitz and Cohen, 1984; 

Schropp et al., 1987; Hines et al., 1991) and yet almost 

nothing is known of their distribution or diversity. Bacteria 

in the North Atlantic, as everywhere, are the key operators 

of biological processes in marine sediments (Chepurnova et 

al., 1987; Christensen and Rowe, 1984; Lyons et al., 1980; 

Vetriani et al., 1999) and constitute a significant portion of 

the primary producers within the euphotic zone (Ducklow, 

1999). The evolution and species diversity of certain of 

these groups has been considered (Kawasaki et al., 1993), 

while others have been ignored or await description. Rath 

et al. (1998) discuss the biological diversity of marine snow 

communities.

In marine ecosystems, like most others, prokaryotes play a 

significant role as pathogens (Colquhoun et al., 1998; Cook 

and Lynch, 1999; Greger and Goodrich, 1999; Lewis et al., 

1992; Linn and Krieg, 1978; Schropp et al., 1987; Tall et al., 

1999). The ecology, physiology and evolution of bacteria 

are discussed in every issue of the Journal of Fish Diseases, 

yet a synthesis and overview of prokaryote ecology in the 

marine environment is lacking and probably premature 

because of all that is still unknown.

Bacterial communities are governed by distinct temporal cycles (Balch, 1981; Glover et al., 1985b; Keller et al., 

1982, 1999), inherent behavioral variances (Dalton et al., 

1996) and site-specific environmental variables (Cuhel et 

al., 1983; Ducklow et al., 1992; Ducklow et al., 1993; Nold 

and Zwart, 1998). Spatial variances in bacterial community structure are apparent across landscapes (Mullins et al., 

1995; Murray et al., 1999; Zubkov et al., 1998) and across 

ocean strata (Gutvejb et al., 1987; Townsend and Cammen, 

1985). Some researchers have investigated the ecology of 

specific prokaryotes (Balch et al., 1992; Fredrickson et al., 

1999; McHatton, 1999; Rieley et al., 1999), but such studies are rare when weighed against the overall diversity and 

functional importance of the group.

Several studies have considered the genetic diversity 

of marine prokaryotes (Field et al., 1997; Fuhrman and 

Ouverney, 1998; Giovannoni et al., 1996; Zumarraga et 

al., 1999), but these results are difficult to interpret in light 

of the species definition dilemma. The picoplankton or 

ultraplankton (0.2-2 micrometers in size) are given separate status by some. Glover et al., (1985a) and Murphy and 

Haugen (1985) suggest that cyanobacteria (formerly referred 

to as blue-green algae) are the most important segment of 

the bacterioplankton in unproductive sites, since cyanobacteria are known for their resourcefulness in acquiring nitrogen under oligotrophic conditions. Murphy and Haugen 

(1985) cover the vertical distribution and abundance of the 

cyanobacteria. Glover et al. (1985a, 1985b) include them in 

discussion of the picoplankton, as do Murphy and Haugen 

(1985). Genetic work suggests this group is globally intermixed (Mullins et al., 1995).

Davis et al., (1978) showed that marine waters contain 

approximately equal amounts of heterotrophic and autotrophic picoplankton. A heterotroph is an organism that 

requires organic substances to get its carbon for growth and 

development; it is known as a consumer in the food chain. 

An autotroph is an organism capable of synthesizing its own 

food from inorganic substances, using light or chemical 

energy; it is known as a producer in the food chain. These 

general studies are only first insights into the functional 

diversity of marine prokaryotes. No studies have related this 

topic directly to the sanctuary.

Wichels et al. (1998) discuss bacteriophage (a virus that 

infects bacteria) diversity in the North Sea. One would 

expect similar levels of diversity in the sanctuary, but the 

constituent species from that region may be quite different.

Protists

Protists are an extremely diverse group of mostly singlecelled eukaryotes—organisms having nuclear membranes 

and other cell organelles—ranging from slime molds and 

protozoans to phytoplankton and red, brown and green 

algae. The protists are a paraphyletic grade, rather than a 

natural group, and do not have much in common besides a 

relatively simple organization (unicellular, or multicellular 

without highly specialized tissues). Protists were traditionally subdivided into several groups based on similarities to 

higher kingdoms: the animal-like protozoa, the plant-like 

algae, and the fungus-like slime molds. While these groups 

have been replaced by phylogenetic classifications, they are 

still useful as an informal way to characterize this assemblage of organisms.

Several authors have described the macrophytes (large 

aquatic plants) and phytoplankton assemblages of the northeast region. Villalard-Bohnsack (1995) presents an illustrated key to the seaweeds. South and Tittley (1986) developed a checklist of the benthic algae for the whole North 

Atlantic. Bigelow (1924) gives an overall description of the 

offshore plankton from the GoM. A comprehensive discussion is given by Taylor (1957) for the northwestern Atlantic 

and addresses geographic distribution of algal species within that region. Marshall and Cohn (1982b, 1983) discuss 

general patterns of distribution and diversity of the algae. A 

more recent discussion of the topic is given in Silva (1992). 

Vadas and Steneck (1988) outline the geographical zonation 
46 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

of benthic algal species, and Townsend and Cammen (1985) 

showed zonation along vertical strata of the open ocean.

Mathieson (1989) includes some discussion of the distribution and diversity of the Rhodophta (red algae); their taxonomy is unresolved. Taylor (1957) includes most species one 

would encounter in the region. Mathieson (1989) includes 

discussion of the distribution and diversity of the Phaeophyta (brown algae) as well. South and Tittley (1986) include 

some discussion of the distribution of benthic Phaeophytes. 

There is currently no text dedicated to this group, and there 

is no research relating the specific diversity or distribution of 

the Phaeophyta relative to the sanctuary. Mathieson (1989) 

discusses the distribution and diversity of the Chlorophyta 

(green algae). Taylor (1957) covers the green algae in his 

descriptions, and this dated work is still one of the most 

complete. There are no published descriptions or records 

for these macrophytes from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

Cahoon et al. (1993) discussed the productivity of benthic 

micro-algae on Stellwagen Bank, one of the few studies to 

address the habitus of this ocean feature. Protist productivity is at least partially governed by physical oceanographic 

processes, and several authors consider this relationship in 

the region of the sanctuary (Townsend et al., 1987; Franks, 

1990; Townsend, 1991; Kerkhof et al., 1999). A more 

detailed examination is provided by Matta and Marshall 

(1983). Ducklow et al. (1992, 1993) discuss the growth 

of the protists during a plankton bloom, an important food 

web phenomenon.

In addition to physical-spatial variances, seasonal environmental variances play a significant role in growth, productivity (Durbin et al., 1995b; Keller et al., 1982) and patterns 

of diversity (Marshall and Cohn, 1982) of the protists. 

Mathieson (1989) discusses seasonal variance and its relation to reproduction of the protists in the GoM. Glover et al. 

(1985b) cover diurnal variations in the photosynthetic rates. 

Environmental and biological variances at all time scales 

may affect protist diversity.

Diatoms are a major group of eukaryotic algae and one of 

the most common types of phytoplankton. Most diatoms are 

unicellular, although some form chains or simple colonies; a 

characteristic feature of diatom cells is that they are encased 

within a cell wall made of silica. The general distribution of 

diatoms is covered in Marshall (1984). Over 1,000 species 

have been described. Several authors address the diatoms 

in their general discussion of marine algae (Bigelow, 1924; 

Marshall and Cohn, 1982; Sears and Cooper, 1978; Taylor, 

1957). Round et al. (1990) describe the diatom genera and 

their biology, and include the marine groups.

Dinoflagellates are a large group of flagellate algae; most are 

marine plankton. About half of all dinoflagellates are photosynthetic, and these make up the largest group of eukaryotic 

algae aside from the diatoms. The dinoflagellates are most 

famous for their toxic blooms, i.e., “red tides” (Franks and 

Anderson, 1992). The blooms are so deadly they have even 

killed large whales (Geraci et al., 1989). Tomas (1995) is the 

most recent comprehensive text for the diatoms and dinoflagellates. Tomas (1997) covers the marine phytoplankton on 

the whole, including species level descriptions of the most 

common representatives of the major groups.

Other than the general summaries of the microbial communities discussed above, there are virtually no works that 

address the Cryptophyta (unicellular flagellate phytoplankton similar to dinoflagellates) as they relate to Stellwagen 

Bank or the GoM. Genetic variance in the coccolithosphores is discussed by Edvardsen and Medlin (1998), and 

the major groups have been described (Throndsen et al., 

1993). Coccolithopores are species of planktonic singlecelled algae that produce and encase themselves in coccoliths, which are individual plates of calcium carbonate. The 

coccoliths, which are dispersed after death or continuously 

shed by some species, settle to the sea floor and become 

part of the sediments. Coccoliths are the main constituent 

of chalk deposits such as the white cliffs of Dover.

Foraminifera are amoeboid protozoans with reticulating 

pseudopods (fine strands of cytoplasm) that branch and 

merge to form a dynamic net; they typically produce a 

mineral shell or “test.” They can be planktonic or benthic. 

A number of forms retain unicellular algae and conduct 

photosynthesis. These organisms play a critical role in both 

primary production and transport of minerals, energy and 

nutrients to benthic communities. Corliss and Emerson 

(1990) addressed the distribution of benthic foraminifera. 

Settling foraminifera (components of marine snow) have 

been associated with diverse bacterial assemblages (Rath et 

al., 1998) and their diversity is of considerable interest to 

paleontologists. The foraminifera Families and Genera have 

been carefully delineated for marine communities (Hemleben et al., 1989; Sen Gupta, 1999), though new groups are 

regularly being discovered and described.

Stoecker et al. (1989) discuss the distribution of heterotrophic 

protists on Georges Bank and briefly address the Choanoflagellida, Rhizopoda, Actinopoda, Microspora, Ciliophora and 

Sporozoa (groups of motile unicellular or colonial protozoans). This is perhaps the only peer-reviewed study of its kind 

and there is no definitive text in print on the heterotrophic 

protists elsewhere in the GoM or the northwestern Atlantic. 

The Sporozoans are parasites of organisms which are found 

within the sanctuary (Sherburne and Bean, 1979; Lom et 

al., 1980; Bachere and Grizel, 1982). The Ciliophora are of 

special interest both as food for many marine larvae and as 

symbionts with higher taxa (i.e., Dupuy et al., 1999).

Fungi

Cavaliere (1977) provides one of the first descriptions of 

marine fungi (Kohlmeyer and Volkmann-Kohlmeyer, 1991); 

Ho et al. (1991) provide some of the more recent taxonomical revisions. Some taxa have been found in association with 

Foraminifera and marine snow (Kohlmeyer, 1985). Several 

taxa are known to be parasitic (Studies, 1980). There are no 

recent descriptions of marine fungi from the GoM or Stellwagen Bank. In general, marine fungi have been greatly 

ignored by scientists relative to most groups.
47

IV. 

Resource

States

This section documents the status, pressures 

and current protections for sanctuary resources. These resources include seafloor and 

water column habitats, benthic invertebrates, 

fishes, seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals 

and maritime heritage resources. This section 

provides context and validation for the sanctuary action plans.
48 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Context

The nutrient-rich waters of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

sustain an abundant biodiversity largely representative of 

the GoM LME and totaling well over 575 species of marine 

life including over 80 species of fish, 34 species of seabirds 

and 22 species of marine mammals, for example. As a 

comparatively shallow continental shelf area, offering great 

variety among its geological features and topographic relief, 

the sanctuary is a biodiversity haven when compared to the 

open ocean of the North Atlantic. In addition to the array 

of different kinds of species, the sanctuary exhibits diverse 

habitats, biological communities and species assemblages 

and displays a complex tapestry of interwoven environmental processes, all of which are extensively impacted by 

multiple human uses.

Biodiversity in the sanctuary is heavily mediated through 

habitat type and condition. In this document, habitats are 

divided into two principal categories: seafloor (benthic) 

and water column (pelagic) habitats. These habitats are 

composed of multiple types, such as gravel beds and piled 

boulder reefs. Habitat quality and structural complexity are important factors in supporting biodiversity. For 

example, the condition of benthic habitat affects the life 

history processes of recruitment, survivorship and growth 

of the organisms that occupy the seafloor. The condition of 

habitats also influences the community processes of competition, predation and symbiosis. Within water column habitats, water quality can affect biodiversity by prohibiting or 

enabling survival of rare or cosmopolitan species.

Understanding the processes that control the abundance, 

distribution and interaction of species (i.e., the functional 

composition of communities) is a central challenge facing 

management of the sanctuary. The level of difficulty in 

meeting this challenge is heightened by recognition that 

the sanctuary’s resource states are greatly compromised. 

Water quality is threatened by multiple sources of pollution, 

including point, non-point and atmospheric sources and 

marine debris. Population declines and biomass removals, 

degraded seafloor habitats and invasive species compromise the ecological integrity of the sanctuary. Coastal planning and fishery management policies have limited, but not 

prevented, harmful impacts—both incremental and cumulative—on sanctuary resources.

This section is organized within a Pressure-State-Response 

framework that mirrors the approach used in the Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary Condition Report (NMSP, 

2006). “Pressures” are human activities (such as fishing or 

pollutant discharge), which alter the marine environment 

leading to changes in the “state or condition” of sanctuary 

resources (e.g., water quality, ecological integrity, habitat 

complexity). Sanctuary management then “responds” (e.g., 

Action Plans section) to changes in pressures or states with 

policies, programs, and/or regulations intended to prevent, 

eliminate or mitigate pressures and/or environmental damage 

in order to protect and conserve sanctuary resources.

Sanctuary resources described in this section are: seafloor 

habitat, water column habitat, benthic invertebrates, fishes, 

seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammals and maritime heritage resources. Each resource subsection begins with a 

summary of its status based on the best available information followed by the known human pressures that impact the 

status. A summary of the current protection measures that 

are in place affecting the resource in question is presented 

next.
IV. Resource States 49

Seafloor as Habitat

Status

The species composition of seafloor communities in general 

is highly correlated with the grain size of benthic sediments, 

and seafloor substrata represent an important component 

of habitat for many organisms in the sanctuary. Recent 

studies on the continental shelf of the northeastern United 

States, including portions of SBNMS, indicate that substrate 

and water mass characteristics are highly correlated with 

the composition of benthic communities (e.g., Auster et al., 

2001; Skinder, 2002) and 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 grain size in sand and unconsolidated mud sediments in the sanctuary (Grannis and 

Watling, 2004). Epifaunal species, those that live on the 

seafloor, are linked to variation in larger grain sizes at the 

scale of the GoM (Skinder, 2002). Within each habitat type, 

there are many microhabitats formed by the combination 

of habitats and inhabiting organisms. For example, cerianthid anemones that burrow in mud 

provide structure and shelter on the 

seafloor and serve as important habitat for redfish and hake (Figure 16).

Biological communities are formed 

by the interaction of populations 

with habitats in a particular area. 

The interaction of fish with their 

habitat is of particular concern and 

has been well-studied in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. For purposes 

of discussion in this document, the 

ecological role of seafloor habitats is 

largely restricted to our understanding of links to the distribution and 

abundance of fishes. Higher plants 

are virtually absent from and play 

no substantive role in structuring 

seafloor habitats in the sanctuary; instead benthic invertebrates make up the biogenic structure of the seafloor. In the 

absence of vascular plants, benthic microalgal production 

on Stellwagen Bank is important and can be high (Cahoon 

et al., 1993).

Habitat Mediated Interactions

There is an important biogenic component to habitat 

complexity. For instance, many fish species in the sanctuary associate with particular microhabitats formed by other 

living organisms (Auster, 1998). Attached and emergent 

invertebrates such as erect sponges and burrowing anemones provide important habitat structure, while certain megafaunal organisms such as skates produce pits and burrows, 

which also provide structure by adding to the complexity of 

sediment surfaces. Reductions in seafloor habitat complexity increase the mortality of early demersal phase juvenile 

fish, such as Atlantic cod and winter flounder that utilize the 

structure provided by emergent fauna and physical substrata 

for protection from predation (Tupper and Boutilier, 1995; 

Lindholm et al., 1999; Scharf et al., 2006). Modeling studies have demonstrated that such habitat-mediated mortality 

of juvenile fish can have significant population-level effects 

(Lindholm et al., 1998, 2001).

The distribution and abundance of demersal fishes at large 

spatial scales is correlated with temperature and depth, but 

medium to small-scale variation is attributed to considerable extent to habitat attributes (i.e., sediment type, structural complexity, prey type and abundance) on the seafloor 

(Langton et al., 1995). The distribution of a variety of 

demersal fishes in the GoM LME is correlated with various 

structural habitat features such as boulder reefs, distribution 

of sand wave features, density of amphipod tubes, and presence and density of sponges, anemones and other epifauna 

(Auster et al., 1997, 1998, 2003a, 2003b; Auster 2005; 

Auster and Lindholm 2006). The communities of fishes in 

the sanctuary are directly correlated with particular habitats defined by a combination of both geologic and biologic 

attributes (Auster et al., 1998).

The patchiness and spatial arrangement of habitats mediate many of 

the behavioral interactions of fishes. 

Fish exhibit, as many mobile organisms do, a range of behavioral interactions that have negative, neutral, 

or positive consequences in terms 

of growth and survivorship. For 

example, predation has a positive 

consequence for the predator and 

a negative one for the prey. Other 

interactions include competition 

and mutualism. Competition for 

shelter sites can be intense when 

the abundance of individuals is high 

and shelter space is limited, such as 

rock crevices for night-time shelter 

required by cunner. Mutualistic 

relationships within and between 

Figure 16. Example of a microhabitat

formed within a mud habitat by

burrowing anemones. 

In this example, Cerianthid anemones provide 

refuge to juvenile Acadian redfish. Image 

courtesy: Ivar Babb and Peter Auster, NURCUConn.
50 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

fish species are often short term in scope and mediated in 

part by habitat features. For example, the foraging activities of one species can aid in prey capture of other species. 

Flounders are sometimes followed by piscivores such as 

silver hake which gain access to disturbed prey such as 

shrimp and small fish when flounders sift through sediments 

in search of infaunal prey (e.g., Auster et al., 1991, 2003a). 

Such relationships, while lasting only tens of seconds, are 

repeatedly linked to particular habitats and species groups 

and constitute important feeding strategies.

Habitat complexity mediates access to prey and the behavioral trade-offs in minimizing risk of predation. For example, 

Acadian redfish are zooplanktivores and feed in the water 

column above boulder reefs. Height of fishes above the 

reef dictates the rate of water flow that delivers prey and 

distance to shelter is a measure of hunger level and the risk 

of predation individuals would take. In general, smaller fish 

venture less from shelter than larger individuals. Further, 

boulder reef structure also mediates the species composition and abundance on different parts of reefs. For example, 

while Acadian redfish are dominant on the central parts of 

reefs with deep crevices formed by piled boulders, cunner 

increase in abundance on the margins of reefs, possibly due 

to the availability of smaller shelter sites that are better suited to this species than open deep crevices. Cusk generally 

occur in deep crevices on the central parts of reefs while 

ocean pout and Atlantic wolfish occur in burrows along reef 

margins (Auster and Lindholm, 2006).

As the density of a species within a habitat increases there 

is increased competition for resources such as shelter and 

prey. At some stage emigration from the habitat patch and 

a search for new habitats is a choice made by individuals 

who have access only to marginal shelter sites (e.g., with 

increased risk of predation) or access only to areas of reduced 

prey abundance (e.g., with reduced growth). Acadian 

redfish exhibit distribution patterns that are consistent with 

increased migration from boulder reefs, due to competition 

for shelter or prey, as animals grow in size (Auster et al., 

2003b). While young-of-the-year redfish were found only 

in boulder reefs due to habitat selection or extreme predation in other habitats, some older juvenile redfish move to 

habitats composed of dense burrowing anemones. Such 

habitats provide some shelter away from boulder reefs as 

well as access to zooplankton prey.

Habitat Mediated Movement

Mediation of fish movement by different habitat types and 

features is not well understood for species in the GoM. This 

information is needed to understand how key predators 

like Atlantic cod influence the structure and composition 

of biological communities in the sanctuary. The degree of 

localized movement by individuals and their tenure of residency differentiated by habitat type and season are important aspects to be understood, as are the associated factors 

of size and sex. The successful conservation and management of cod and other commercially important species in 

the GoM is highly dependent on this information as well. 

Site residency and fidelity among Atlantic cod stocks is now 

widely documented (Robichaud and Rose, 2004; Wright et 

al., 2006; Neat et al., 2006; Lindholm et al., 2007).

A study was begun in 2001 in the sanctuary that used 

acoustic telemetry technology to quantify cod movement 

over different habitat features of the sanctuary landscape. 

Cod were caught and tagged with coded-acoustic transmitters (each of which emits a unique identification code) then 

released within the overlap of the sanctuary and the Western Gulf of Maine Closed Area (WGoMCA). Movements 

of tagged cod were recorded by an array of four acoustic 

receivers deployed on the seafloor. Data were collected at 

the scale of minutes for several months at a time. Preliminary tracking occurred in the gravel habitat of northeastern Stellwagen Bank in 2001 (Lindholm and Auster, 2003). 

From May 2002 through October 2002 and from September 

2004 through March 2005, cod movement was investigated 

at additional four piled boulder reef sites (Lindholm et al., 

2007). The same piled boulder reefs were used in both periods in order to quantify any influence of seasonality on cod 

movement behavior.

Three broad categories of movement behavior were identified at each of the four piled boulder reefs, across years and 

across seasons: 35% of adult cod (38-94 cm total length) 

showed very high site fidelity to individual boulder reefs 

(greater than 80% of 1-hour time bins); 51% of cod left after 

a couple of days and were never recorded again; the remaining 13% fell somewhere in between those two extremes. 

Several animals were recorded at more than one reef. A 

few animals exhibited behavior that may be evidence of 

homing. The behavior did not differ significantly with fish 

length, among individual reefs, and between summer and 

winter.

These results are strong evidence that some subset of the 

cod population in the sanctuary is “resident” on boulder 

reefs. The results of this study are consistent with the results 

of a review of 100 years of cod tagging studies in the North 

Atlantic. The review revealed that 32% of the tagged cod 

in the northwest Atlantic exhibited the sedentary behavior 

(Robichaud and Rose, 2004). The high site fidelity of many 

cod to individual piled boulder reefs suggests that habitatspecific management measures, such as marine reserves, 

may offer significant protection to cod within the sanctuary. Neat et al. (2006) conclude that marine protected areas 

could be an effective management measure in sustaining 

small resident populations of Atlantic cod.

Habitat and Sound Production

Sound production by fishes can serve a variety of purposes 

including species identity, individual identity, mate location, readiness to spawn, individual size and level of aggressiveness (Lobel, 2002). Over 150 species of fish in the 

northwestern Atlantic and at least 51 from the New England 

region are known to produce sounds (Fish and Mowbray, 

1970; Rountree et al., 2002). Species across a spectrum of 

diversity, like Atlantic cod, haddock, silver hake, longhorn 

sculpin, cusk, fawn cusk-eel, American eel and cunner all 

produce sounds, although the behavioral context for produc-
IV. Resource States 51

ing sounds for these and other species is not always clear. 

However, there are clear relationships between particular 

sounds and spawning events in species like Atlantic cod, 

haddock, cusk, and fawn cusk-eel. Assuming much of 

sound production is behavior-specific, correlations between 

habitat selection and use in terms of spawning or territorial 

defense among demersal fishes is inferred.

Seafloor Habitat Recovery

Context

In May 1998, NOAA Fisheries Service established the 

WGoMCA at the recommendation of the NEFMC for the 

purpose of recovering groundfish stocks, specifically Atlantic cod and haddock. Gear capable of catching groundfish 

was prohibited from this closed area, specifically bottomtending trawl gear, bottom-tending gillnets, and clam and 

scallop dredges. Allowable gear included lobster pots, 

hagfish pots, pelagic longline, pelagic hook and line fishing, 

recreational hook and line, pelagic gillnets, tuna purse seining and midwater trawls. The closure area overlaps 22 % 

(453 km2) of the sanctuary along the eastern boundary; the 

area of overlap has been dubbed the “sliver” (Figure 17).

In May 2004, NOAA Fisheries Service, at the recommendation of the NEFMC, designated the majority of the WGoMCA 

as a “Level 3” habitat closed area for the purpose of protecting EFH. A Level 3 habitat closed area is closed indefinitely 

on a year-round basis to all bottom-tending mobile gear. 

In addition to prohibiting bottom-tending mobile gear, the 

closure prohibits bottom-tending gillnets, clam and scallop 

dredges, and shrimp trawls. Allowable gears in this closure 

are: lobster pots, hagfish pots, pelagic longline, pelagic hook 

and line fishing, recreational hook and line, pelagic gillnets, 

tuna purse seining and midwater trawls except for shrimp. 

For a complete listing of prohibited and allowed gear visit 

URL http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/fishermen/multispecies/gom/CAYearRound.htm#wgomca.

De Facto Reference Area

There is no formally designated undisturbed reference or 

control area in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. Because of 

the compelling need for a control site, the sliver has become 

a de facto reference area which the sanctuary and other 

researchers are using to discern the effects of human versus 

natural disturbance on seafloor habitats and their associated 

biological communities. However, the sliver is far from a 

true control area owing to three shortcomings: (1) several 

extractive activities are still allowed (i.e., fishing gears listed 

above) that alter the area’s ecological integrity, (2) additional resources for enforcement are needed to assure deterrence of unlawful incursions, and (3) deep mud habitat is 

seriously underrepresented (75.5% gravel, 23.5% sand and 

1.0% mud) in the sliver making it difficult to draw definitive 

conclusions about the effects of fishing in this habitat type.

These shortcomings need to be addressed. As a first step, 

the sanctuary formally proposed on July 2, 2003 to the 

NEFMC through its Amendment 13 process that the sliver 

be designated a ‘habitat research area’ under the MFCMA. 

There are several properties of the sliver that make it a suitable choice for a habitat research area, including scientific, 

practical and political rationales:

•	The sliver includes the major seafloor habitat types found

in the GoM — bedrock outcrop, boulder, gravel, mud 

and sand. This habitat mix enhances the exportability and 

extrapolation of research results to diverse areas outside 

the habitat research area.

•	The habitats in the sliver are distributed on both sides of

the closure boundaries, both within the sanctuary (to the 

west) and outside of the sanctuary proper (to the east), 

making comparative habitat studies possible across the 

boundaries.

•	The proximity of the sliver to the ports of Boston, Gloucester, Scituate, Plymouth and Provincetown make it accessible to researchers for day-trips using small and relatively 

inexpensive vessels, which makes research in the sliver 

more cost-effective than at alternative offshore northeast 

continental shelf locations.

•	The sliver has already been closed to commercial bottom

fishing for nine years. From a scientific perspective, this 

greatly enhances study of the ecological processes and 

expedites the timeline on which research results can be 

attained.

Figure 17. Map depicting the WGoMCA (cross-hatched) 

and its overlap with the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Majority of the WGoMCA is a Level 3 habitat closed area (red 

outline) for the purpose of protecting EFH.
52 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

•	The sanctuary has the resources to help support enforcement of the habitat research area in ways that would 

complement regulation under NOAA Fisheries Service 

purview.

In its current capacity as a de facto reference area, the 

sliver is supporting several on-going long-term studies by 

sanctuary staff and sanctuary-supported scientists. Projects include: (1) quantification of fish movement rates 

relative to seafloor habitat type (1998 to the present), (2) 

recovery of seafloor habitats and associated taxa following the cessation of trawling, dredging and bottom gillnet 

fishing (1998 to the present), and (3) species-area relationships of multiple taxa (1999 to the present).

This combined research represents a public investment 

totaling more than $1.9 million over the last five years. 

A comparable level of investment will be made over the 

next several years. The results of these ongoing projects 

in the sliver, and other projects currently in various stages 

of planning and proposal preparation, will contribute to 

advancing ecosystem understanding in the sanctuary and 

by extension the GoM. The NEFMC is in the process of 

revising its omnibus amendment to better protect EFH and 

has not yet acted on the sanctuary proposal.

Pressures

Disturbance in General

Disturbance is defined as any discrete event in time that 

disrupts ecosystem, community, or population structure 

and changes resources, substrate availability or the physical environment (Pickett and White, 1985). Disturbance 

can be caused by many natural processes such as currents, 

predation and iceberg scour (Hall, 1994). Human caused 

disturbance can result from activities such as harbor 

dredging, cable laying and fishing with fixed and mobile 

gear. Disturbance can be gauged by both intensity (as 

a measure of the force of disturbance) and severity (as a 

measure of impact on the biotic community). General 

concepts associated with the types and ecological implications of spatially mediated disturbance are described in 

the accompanying Sidebar.

Table 3 summarizes the effects of the range of agents 

which produce disturbance in marine communities. The 

various forms of disturbance range from small to large 

in spatial scale as well as acute to chronic in periodicity. From an ecological perspective, fishing is the most 

widespread form of direct disturbance in marine systems 

below depths (approximately 85 m) which are affected 

by storms (Watling and Norse, 1998; Auster and Langton, 

1999; National Research Council, 2002).

Activities that have the greatest potential impact on the 

seafloor habitats of the sanctuary are the laying of underwater cables and pipelines, the use of mobile fishing gears, 

removal of forage species and bycatch due to fishing, and 

ocean dumping. The chief distinction between these 

activities is whether they produce chronic (repeated) or 

acute (intermittent) disturbance. Chronic disturbance has 

Types of Spatially Mediated Habitat Disturbance

The spatial extent of disturbed and undisturbed biological 

communities is a concern in designing and interpreting 

research studies (Pickett and White, 1985; Thrush et al., 

1994) and in managing the sanctuary. Single, widely 

spaced disturbances may have little overall effect on habitat 

integrity and benthic communities, and may show reduced 

recovery times as a result of immigration of mobile 

species (e.g., polychaetes, gastropods). In the ecological 

literature, this is a “Type 1” disturbance, where a small 

patch is disturbed but surrounded by a large unimpacted 

area.

In contrast, a “Type 2” disturbance is one where a small 

patch is unimpacted but surrounded by a large disturbed 

area. Recruitment into such patches requires large 

scale transport of larvae from outside source patches, 

or significant reproductive output (and high planktonic 

survival and larval retention) from the small undisturbed 

patches. Making predictions about the outcome of either 

type of disturbance, even where spatial extent is known, is 

difficult since transport of colonizers by either immigration 

or recruitment depends on oceanographic conditions, 

larval period, movement rates of juveniles and adults, time 

of year and distance from source.

Type 1 disturbances have habitat recovery rates that are 

generally faster because they are subject to immigration 

dominated recovery versus the dependence on larval 

recruitment for the recovery of Type 2 disturbances. The 

associated population responses of obligate and facultative 

habitat users to such disturbances are also variable. 

Obligate users are restricted by narrow requirements and 

have no habitat options; facultative users have options 

because of less restrictive requirements. Obligate habitat 

users have a much greater response to habitat disturbance 

than facultative users.

Comparatively, it would be difficult to detect responses 

from populations of facultative habitat users to Type 

1 disturbance because of the large adjacent areas of 

undisturbed habitat. Type 2 disturbances would produce 

large responses in obligate habitat users because a large 

percentage of required habitats would be affected. 

Facultative habitat users would have a measurable response 

only at population levels where habitat mediated processes 

became important.

This discourse on the types of spatially mediated habitat 

disturbance and the respective responses of obligate and 

facultative habitat users is relevant to how the sanctuary 

will eventually have to approach management of fishing 

activities and other impacts to biogenic habitats (structure 

and associated populations). The majority of sanctuary 

area is subjected to chronic disturbance by fishing and the 

sliver is the only relatively unimpacted patch (see sections 

on spatial distribution and density of commercial and 

recreational fishing under Human Uses in this DMP).
IV. Resource States 53

lasting effects because the ecosystem does not recover fully 

before the next disturbance. Fishing impacts have the greatest effect on seafloor habitats of any human activity in the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary for this reason.

The laying of an underwater cable has occurred only once 

in the sanctuary (in 2001) and is an acute impact. The 

results of this impact are discussed below. Ocean dumping of vessel-generated wastes occurs more frequently in the 

sanctuary; however, at current discharge levels and dilution 

rates that activity does not have the lasting effects on physical structure and ecological integrity as does fishing. Much 

of the following discussion of pressures applies primarily to 

or involves fishing activities because of the pervasiveness 

of those activities in the sanctuary and the abundant information available in the scientific literature on the habitat 

disturbance effects of fishing.

Disturbance of Seafloor Habitats in the Sanctuary

Preliminary results of the Seafloor Habitat Recovery and 

Monitoring Project (SHRMP) (see Sidebar) are listed below. 

This project evaluates the relative effects of disturbance due 

to laying the fiber-optic cable, fishing and natural disturbance over a decadal time frame. Samples have been 

collected from 1998-2006. While analyses of the various 

approaches are at different stages, the preliminary results to 

date demonstrate notable patterns and trends:

1. There are significant differences in epifaunal community 

structure between boulder and gravel habitats despite the 

fact that both are composed of hard substrate (Tamsett, in 

preparation).

2. Within boulder and gravel habitat types there are differences in community structure between sites inside and 

outside the sliver indicative of impacts from fishing activities (Tamsett, in preparation).

3. Within mud habitat types there are differences in 

community structure between sites inside and outside the 

sliver indicative of impacts from fishing activities (Grannis, 

2001).

4. Contrasts in the composition of sand habitat communities inside and outside of the sliver are not clearly different, 

suggesting that fishing effects superimposed on background 

patterns of natural disturbance have similar effects on sand 

communities (Grannis, 2001).

5. Community structure is changing across time both inside 

and outside the sliver in all habitats, suggesting a dynamic 

environment where both natural and human caused disturbances (from fishing) mediate the composition and pattern 

shift of seafloor communities (Grannis, 2001; Tamsett, in 

preparation).

6. Analysis of samples from inside and outside the sliver 

along the route of the fiber-optic cable does not demonstrate 

an effect of the acute impact of the cable being laid but does 

suggest a chronic effect from fishing (Grannis, 2001).

7. The trench produced during the cable burial operation 

in 2001 is still visible in 2006 along significant parts of the 

path through the sanctuary based on sidescan sonar records, 

demonstrating that the passage of five years has been insufficient time for sediment transport processes to fill in the 

feature (Auster and Lindholm, unpublished).

Table 3. Comparison of intensity and severity of various sources of physical disturbance to the seafloor (based on

Hall (1994) and Watling and Norse (1998)). 

Intensity is a measure of the force of physical disturbance and severity is a measure of the impact on the benthic community (adapted 

from Auster and Langton (1999)).

Source Intensity Severity

ABIOTIC

Waves Low during long temporal periods but high during 

storm events (to 85 m depth)

Low over long temporal periods since taxa adapted 

to these events but high locally depending on storm 

behavior

Currents Low since bed shear normally lower than critical velocities for large volume and rapid sediment 

movement

Low since benthic stages rarely lost due to currents

BIOTIC

Bioturbation Low since sediment movement rates are small Low since infauna have time to repair tubes and 

burrows

Predation Low on a regional scale but high locally due to 

patchy foraging

Low on a regional scale but high locally due to small 

spatial scales of high mortality

HUMAN

Dredging Low on a regional scale but high locally due to large 

volumes of sediment removal

Low on a regional scale but high locally due to high 

mortality of animals

Land Alteration

(Causing silt-laden 

runoff)

Low since sediment-laden runoff per se does not 

exert a strong physical force

Low on a regional scale but high locally where siltation over coarser sediments causes shifts in associated communities

Fishing High due to region wide fishing effort High due to region wide disturbance of most types 

of habitat
54 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Seafloor Habitat Recovery and Monitoring Project (SHRMP)

The long-term Seafloor Habitat Recovery Monitoring Project (SHRMP) was initiated in 1998, when 

the WGoMCA went into effect, and is ongoing ideally through 2010. The project uses the sliver as a 

relatively unimpacted reference site to quantify the recovery of seafloor habitats and associated biological 

communities previously subject to fishing activities and to understand the dynamics of these habitats and 

communities over time. The study design includes representative sites inside and outside the sliver in mud, 

sand, gravel and boulder habitat types. The study compares and contrasts the effects of natural and fishingrelated disturbance on seafloor habitats and community structure.

In 2001, NOAA permitted installation of a fiber-optic cable across the sanctuary, including the northern 

portion of the sliver. At that time the objectives and hypotheses of SHRMP were modified to include the 

effects of the cable laying (a one-time, acute anthropogenic disturbance). The revised monitoring program 

began in summer 2001 and, pursuant to terms of the permit, will continue through 2010.

Sampling. Eight sites are sampled along the fiber optic cable route, located directly over the cable trench 

and in adjacent areas, both inside and outside of the sliver (Figure 18). A total of eight other sites are 

sampled, half inside and half outside the sliver, to monitor fishing impacts (Figure 18). Four of these sites 

(inside) serve as control sites; the other four (outside) sites serve as impact sites for fishing disturbance.

Primary sampling of the fiber optic cable route, the fished sites and the respective control sites is done using 

underwater imaging systems (still and video) from various underwater vehicles, as well as grab samples for 

fine-grained sediments. Additional sampling is 

conducted using side-scan sonar to understand 

the large scale dynamics of the seafloor 

landscapes. Current meters are deployed 

on the seafloor to characterize the level of 

oceanographic forcing of sediment transport 

processes and the related variation in 

landscape features (e.g., natural disturbance 

by storm driven currents).

Project Objectives. The general objective 

of SHRMP is to compare the distributions 

of microhabitats and associated fauna in 

impacted and unimpacted areas with regard to 

the laying of the fiber optic cable and fishing. 

This objective can be stated as two null 

hypotheses (that an observed difference is due 

to chance alone and not due to a systematic 

cause):

HO(1): There are no differences in the 

relative abundance of each microhabitat type 

in impacted and unimpacted sites, and:

HO(2): There are no differences in faunal 

abundance, density and microhabitat 

associations between impacted and 

unimpacted sites.

The specific objectives of the project are to 

quantify the relative impacts of the laying of 

the fiber optic cable and fishing with respect 

to:

•	fish communities

•	microhabitat structure

•	soft-sediment infaunal communities

•	hard-bottom epifaunal communities

Figure 18. Location of long-term sampling sites for the

Seafloor Habitat Recovery Monitoring Project.

Triangles indicate fiber optic cable monitoring sites; circles 

indicate SHRMP sites: 1a = mud closed, 1b = mud open; 2a = 

sand closed, 2b = sand open; 3a = gravel closed, 3b = gravel 

open; 4a = boulder closed, 4b = boulder open. Cable sites: 5a 

= on cable open, 5b = off cable open; 6a = on cable closed, 6b 

= off cable closed.
IV. Resource States 55

structures on and in the substratum, sharply reducing structural diversity. It also alters bio-geochemical cycles. These 

fishing activities have a number of effects that can alter the 

value of habitats for fishes and change the composition of 

epifaunal and infaunal invertebrate communities as well.

A large number of research studies (e.g., Auster and Langton, 1999) has shown that bottom contact fishing gear 

has the following general effects on the physical structure 

of seafloor habitats: (1) smoothing of bedforms like sand 

waves and ripples; (2) removal of habitat-forming epifaunal species like sponges, bryozoans and corals; and (3) 

removal of “ecosystem engineers” that produce various 

structures based on their activities, such as crabs and fishes 

that produce burrows and depressions. Studies have also 

shown generalized effects on community composition and 

There are also trends in the composition of particular species 

and groups (Tamsett, in preparation):

(a) The abundance of ascidians (primarily the tunicate 

Mogula sp.) has increased significantly inside the sliver over 

time while the brachiopod Terebratulina septentrionalis has 

increased outside. The exact mechanism is not clear from 

these observations but various types of direct and indirect 

interactions, where either differential rates of survivorship 

or competitive interactions mediated by fishing disturbance 

result in such patterns, are hypothesized.

(b) Across the entire area there has been a decline in brittle stars, obviously resulting from some type of area-wide 

effect, such as the possible heightening of predation due to 

increasing demersal fish populations.

(c) Finally, there is a general pattern in species groups that 

provide shelter resources for fishes, such as sponges and 

erect bryozoans, to be more abundant inside the sliver than 

outside (McNaught, unpublished). This type of response 

is a common pattern based on multiple reviews of fishing 

effects studies.

Habitat Disturbance Due to Fishing

The pervasiveness of disturbance by bottom trawling and 

dredging and the effects of that disturbance are extensively 

demonstrated by the recent literature, for example: Auster 

et al., 1996; Auster and Langton, 1999; Ball et al., 1999; 

Caddy, 1973; Churchill, 1989; Collie et al., 1997; Collie, 

1998; Collie et al., 2000; Dayton et al., 1995; Duplisea 

et al., 2002; Engel and Kvitek, 1998; Freese et al., 1999; 

Friedlander et al., 1999; Hall, 1999; Hansson et al., 2000; 

Jennings and Kaiser, 1998; Jennings et al., 2001, 2002; 

Kaiser et al., 1996; Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser and de Groot, 2000; 

Kaiser et al., 2002; Lindegarth et al., 2000; Mayer et al., 

1991; McConnaughey et al., 2000; Messiah et al., 1991; 

Palanques et al., 2001; Pilskahn et al., 1998; Riemann and 

Hoffmann, 1991; Rijnsdorp et al., 1998; Roberts et al., 2000; 

Sanchez et al., 2000; Simpson, 2003; Simpson and Watling, 

2006; Smith et al., 2000; Sparks-McConkey and Watling, 

2001; Thrush et al., 1998, 2001; Tuck et al., 1998; Watling 

et al., 2001; Watling and Norse, 1998; and Widdicombe 

et al., 2004. The majority of these studies were conducted 

in the North Atlantic, and all bear on the kinds of seafloor 

habitat disturbance due to fishing that pertain to the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. Many of these studies were reviewed 

by the NEFMC in its Amendment 13 description of fishing 

effects on the environment (NEFMC, 2003). An example of 

the intensity of bottom trawling on a seafloor habitat in the 

sanctuary is presented in Figure 19.

Effects of Disturbance

The disturbance of the seabed by bottom mobile fishing gear 

(otter trawls and dredges) is sometimes viewed as synonymous with forest clearcutting (Watling and Norse, 1998). 

Structures in marine benthic communities are generally 

much smaller than those in forests but structural complexity 

is no less important to their biodiversity. Use of mobile fishing gear crushes, buries and exposes marine animals and 

Figure 19. Side-scan sonar image of bottom otter trawl

tracks over the mud habitat of Gloucester Basin in the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

The area depicted (100 m swath width) is extensively furrowed 

by trawl doors during successive tows by fishing vessels. A 

trawl door is attached to each side of the mouth of the net to 

keep it open. Recent trawl tracks are colorized to provide 

contrast; earlier tracks are evident in the background. The 

image was made by side-scan sonar towed behind a research 

vessel in 2005; the center stripe indicates the path of the instrument. Source: NOAA/SBNMS.
56 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

ecosystem processes. Increased disturbance from fishing 

can shift stable seafloor communities from those that are 

dominated by slow-growing and long-lived species to those 

dominated by organisms that are fast-growing and shortlived (i.e., opportunistic or weedy). While communities are 

often a mosaic of both types, the large scale impacts of fishing can homogenize communities to those dominated by 

the “weedy” species that gain competitive advantage from 

periodic disturbance.

Fishing activities alter the biological structure of marine 

habitats as well and influence the diversity, biomass and 

productivity of the associated biota (Auster et al., 1996). 

These effects vary according to gear used, habitats fished and 

the magnitude of natural disturbance, but tend to increase 

with depth and the stability and complexity of the substrate. 

The effects are most severe where natural disturbance is 

least prevalent, where storm-wave damage is negligible and 

biological processes, including growth and recruitment, 

tend to be slow. Benthic habitats and the effects of fishing are extensively reviewed in Barnes and Thomas, eds. 

(2005).

Meta-Analysis of Fishing Effects

Empirical studies of fishing effects realistically can not 

be done everywhere under conditions that separate the 

effects of gear type, habitat and community composition. 

However, it is possible to use a wide range of empirical 

studies to conduct a meta-analysis that extracts such information from existing studies. Collie et al. (2000) showed 

that inter-tidal dredging and scallop dredging had a greater 

impact on seafloor communities than did trawling. Further, 

communities in stable gravel, mud and biogenic habitats 

(e.g., sponges, corals) were more affected by fishing than 

communities in unconsolidated sediments like coarse grain 

sand. Rates of recovery after impacts were fastest in less 

stable and complex habitats like sand (e.g., six months to 

one year), while biogenic habitats had the longest recovery, 

on the order of years to decades.

A recent and comprehensive summary of gear effects on 

benthic marine habitats was prepared by the National 

Research Council, which verifies and amplifies earlier 

research findings. This report, entitled “Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat” (NRC, 2002) reiterated four general conclusions regarding the types of habitat 

modifications caused by trawls and dredges:

•	Trawling and dredging reduce habitat complexity.

•	Repeated trawling and dredging result in discernable

changes in benthic communities.

•	Bottom trawling reduces the productivity of benthic habitats.

•	Fauna that live in low natural disturbance regimes are

generally more vulnerable to fishing gear disturbance.

The NRC report also summarized the indirect effects 

of mobile gear fishing on marine ecosystems. It did not 

consider the effects of all gear types, only the two (trawls 

and dredges) that are considered to most affect benthic 

habitats.

A related 2003 study of the collateral impacts of fishing 

methods ranked various types of fishing gear based on severity of impacts to habitats and degree of bycatch (Morgan 

and Chuenpagdee, 2003). The highest impact gears were: 

bottom-tending trawls, bottom-tending gillnets, dredges 

Models of Pattern Shifts in Community State 

Due to Disturbance

The first pattern is the successional model where 

communities change from type A to B to C and so 

forth (Figure 20). There are empirical examples 

of this type of succession in soft bottom benthic 

communities. Succession is based on one community 

of organisms producing a set of local environmental 

conditions (e.g., enriching the sediments with organic 

material) which make the environment unsuitable for 

continued survival and recruitment but are favorable 

for another community of organisms. Disturbance 

can move the succession back in single or multiple 

steps, depending on the type of conditions that prevail 

after the disturbance. The successional stages are 

predictable based on the conditions which result from 

the organisms themselves or from conditions after a 

perturbation.

The second pattern is the lottery model which is less 

predictable and disturbance mediated (Figure 20). 

There are multiple outcomes for community recovery 

after the end of the disturbance. Empirical studies of 

such relationships are generally found in hard substrate 

communities. Shifts in community type are produced 

by competition and disturbance (e.g., predation, 

grazing, storms, fishing gear) that can result in shifts 

toward community types which are often unpredictable 

because they are based on the pool of recruits available 

in the water column at the time that niche space 

becomes available.

Figure 20. Two conceptual models of pattern shifts in

community state due to disturbance. 

(from Auster and Langton, 1999).
IV. Resource States 57

(e.g., scallop and clam) and pelagic gillnets. Medium impact 

gears were: pots and traps, pelagic longlines and bottomtending longlines. Low impact gears were: midwater trawls, 

purse seines, and hook and line.

Successional Shifts in Community State

Disturbance has been widely demonstrated as a mechanism 

which shifts communities (Dayton, 1971; Pickett and White 

1985; Witman, 1985; 1987). Auster and Langton (1999) 

provide an in-depth synthesis of disturbance ecology related 

to seafloor communities and fish habitat. General models 

produced from such work are useful for understanding fishing as an agent of disturbance from an ecological perspective and are discussed below.

Assumptions regarding the role of fishing on the dynamics 

of marine communities generally assert that the cessation or 

reduction of fishing will allow populations and communities 

to recover. That is, recover to a climax community state as 

is the case in long-lived terrestrial plant communities (e.g., 

the succession of old farm fields to mature forest). That does 

not always happen in marine ecosystems.

Succession of communities implies a predictable progression in species composition and abundance. Such knowledge of successional patterns would allow managers to 

predict future community states and directly manage 

patterns of biological diversity. While direct successional 

linkages have been found in some communities, others are 

less predictable. Two generalized models (from Auster and 

Langton, 1999) that depict patterns in shifts in community 

state due to disturbance are illustrated and discussed in the 

Sidebar.

These two models of shifts in community state due to disturbance illustrate the complexities underlying management 

of biological communities in the sanctuary. Changes of 

community structure due to disturbance may or may not 

be predictable based on numerous factors including type of 

habitat and organism. The models portend that the character and structure of present-day communities in the sanctuary very likely have changed and in ways that may not be 

strictly reversible.

Current Protection

Sanctuary regulations (15 C.F.R § Subpart N) prohibit drilling 

into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure 

or material or other matter on the seabed of the sanctuary, 

except as an incidental result of (1) anchoring vessels; (2) 

traditional fishing operations; or (3) installation of navigation 

aids. The exemption for traditional fishing activities reduces 

the effectiveness of these regulations in managing habitat 

disturbance, and thereby protecting ecological integrity and 

managing for biodiversity conservation.

The most effective regulations to date for protecting seafloor 

habitat and communities in the sanctuary are those promulgated by NOAA Fisheries Service under the MFCMA to 

restore groundfish stocks in the GoM and protect EFH. Over 

the past two decades NOAA Fisheries Service, in collaboration with the NEFMC, has promulgated fishing regulations 

that have significantly reduced fishing effort, and, therefore, 

habitat impacts to some degree in the northeast region 

which includes the sanctuary. Examples of these regulations are: reducing fishing days at sea, creating groundfish 

and habitat closed areas (e.g., WGoMCA), increasing net 

mesh size to allow escapement of juvenile fish, reducing 

trawl net roller gear sizes to prevent trawlers from accessing 

high relief habitat, and creating seasonal closures to protect 

migrating or spawning species.

While these regulations help to reduce fishing mortality and 

rebuild fish stocks, with the exception of the WGoMCA and 

roller gear size reduction, their overall effect on protecting 

or recovering seafloor habitats and the biological communities of the sanctuary is less clear. 

Water Column as Habitat

Status

The water column in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

represents important habitat for numerous planktonic and 

nektonic organisms as well as many fishes, turtles, seabirds 

and marine mammals. In addition to the three major water 

masses occurring throughout the GoM, each of which 

provides habitat for a variety of organisms, the interaction of 

moving water masses with the sanctuary’s complex seafloor 

topography creates local zones of upwelling and mixing 

that serve as habitat as well. Additionally, features such 

as thermal fronts and the thermocline (sharp temperature 

gradients between water packets of differing characteristics) and shear zones (separating countervailing currents), 

for example, segment and highly structure the open ocean, 

creating ecotones that serve as unique midwater habitats. An ecotone is a transition area between two adjacent 

ecological communities.

In general, major surface currents flow counterclockwise in 

the vicinity of the sanctuary. Local productivity is seasonal with the overturning and mixing of ocean waters from 

deeper strata during the spring and fall producing a complex 

and rich system of overlapping midwater and benthic habitats. The heightened seasonal productivity supports a large 
58 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

variety of marine mammal and fish species in the water 

column. Many of these predators rely on both water column 

and benthic habitats for foraging. While there is concern 

for impacts to seafloor habitats due to fishing, there is also 

concern for impacts to water column habitats due to pollution and contamination including biological agents like 

harmful algal blooms (HABs) and invasive species. Refer to 

the Sidebar for a description of potential sources of pollution 

and contamination. Refer to Bothner and Butman (2007) for 

a summary of processes influencing the transport and fate of 

contaminated sediments in Massachusetts Bay.

Regular monitoring of key water quality indicators and 

associated seafloor variables is conducted in and around 

the sanctuary to detect and evaluate trends that could favor 

HABs or otherwise threaten environmental functions in the 

sanctuary. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary relies on collaboration with the MWRA for routine water quality monitoring 

and on the occasional assessments of the NOAA National 

Status and Trends (NS&T) Bioeffects (BE) Program and the 

National Benthic Surveillance (NBS) Program to understand 

and characterize the threats to and status of water column 

and related seafloor habitats in the sanctuary. The NBS 

Program is a collaborative effort between NS&T and NOAA 

Fisheries Service. The threat of introduction of water-borne 

invasive species may be under-appreciated and deserving 

fuller understanding as provided below.

Monitoring

In 2001, the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary increased the area 

coverage of water quality monitoring within its boundaries to better determine whether the MWRA sewage outfall, 

which began operating in September 2000, was causing 

increased eutrophication and contaminant loading. To 

leverage resources and obtain compatible information that 

could be integrated into the existing data base for ongoing monitoring work, the sanctuary added four new stations 

to MWRA’s existing five stations within the sanctuary area 

(Libby et al., 2006).

The MWRA’s discharge permit recognizes concerns about 

possible effects of the outfall on the sanctuary and requires 

an annual assessment of those possible effects. The MWRA 

classifies stations as near field and far field for the purpose 

of assessing potential impacts from the sewage outfall; those 

in the sanctuary are included among the far field stations. 

Since 2001, independent contractors have sampled the four 

additional stations in August and October, which are two of 

the six MWRA survey periods each year. Sampling includes 

measurements of water column physical variables (salinity, 

temperature, density structure), nutrients, chlorophyll and 

dissolved oxygen, as well as the numbers and species of 

phytoplankton and zooplankton.

The four sanctuary stations are strategically placed to detect 

nutrient inputs to the sanctuary from the GoM and Merrimack River to the north, as well as from the MWRA outfall 

to the west (Figure 21). The data allow inferences about 

fine scale circulation patterns and water column productivity in the sanctuary. The data are also entered into a threedimensional computer model that has been developed to 

understand how the system might respond to increased and 

decreased levels of nutrients, dilution of outfall and dispersion (Jiang, 2006).

Results to date show no evidence of increased eutrophication or unacceptable contaminant loads in the sanctuary 

relative to the outfall startup (Werme and Hunt, 2006, 2007; 

NOAA 2006). Overall, water quality within the sanctuary 

was excellent during 2005 and there was no indication of 

any effect of the MWRA outfall (Libby et al., 2006). While 

ammonium concentrations rose in the near field sampling 

Potential Sources of Pollution and 

Contamination

Much of the pollution reaching the sanctuary comes 

from non-point sources or from distant point sources. 

Several waste water treatment facilities discharge 

directly into Massachusetts Bay, the largest being the 

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) 

Boston Harbor outfall located 9.5 miles from Boston 

and 12 miles west of the sanctuary border. Air pollution 

from power plants and industrial facilities, some as far 

away as the midwest, and urban smog release a variety 

of chemicals over Massachusetts Bay, some of which are 

accumulated by organisms.

In addition, the sanctuary is heavily traveled by 

commercial and recreational vessels and cruise ships 

that discharge wastes during their voyages. Shipping 

activities may result in a variety of chemical releases 

from discharges, spills and/or collisions, and the 

possibility of importation of invasive species. Other 

sources of contamination include clean material 

disposal at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site 

(historical dumping operations there have included 

hazardous military and industrial wastes and 

dredge spoils) and disturbances during the laying 

of underwater pipes and cables (only one of which 

crosses the sanctuary). Of particular concern are the 

cumulative impacts of multiple activities that could 

contaminate the habitats and resources of the sanctuary 

and increased environmental loading of nutrients and 

pollutants above scientifically established background 

levels.

Nutrient enrichment is one factor in the development 

of harmful algal blooms (HAB). HABs are high 

densities of toxic phytoplankton (Alexandrium sp.) that 

can kill marine life and impair human health. Saxitoxin 

from these organisms was implicated in the death of 

14 humpback whales in 1987. The most recent HAB 

event occurred in 2005 and covered a broad area 

encompassing all of Massachusetts Bay (including 

the sanctuary) and Cape Cod Bay. While no injury 

or mortality of sanctuary resources was observed, the 

highest concentration of Alexandrium cysts was recorded 

in the sediment of the sanctuary.
IV. Resource States 59

stations following start of the outfall diversion, there has 

been no parallel annual increase in the area of Stellwagen 

Bank or Cape Cod Bay (Figure 22 top). Nitrate concentrations (Figure 22 bottom) continue to show an upward 

trend in offshore Massachusetts Bay and in the near field, 

a regional phenomenon that predates the outfall diversion 

and is not well understood.

Other measurements of nitrogen and dissolved phosphate 

also show these long-term trends. Concentrations of total 

dissolved nitrogen (Figure 23 top) and dissolved inorganic 

nitrogen (Figure 23 middle) have consistently been higher 

in samples from the sanctuary than those measured at other 

stations. In contrast, concentrations of total nitrogen have 

been similar in all regions (Figure 23 bottom).

The mean annual chlorophyll levels have not changed in 

response to the outfall discharge (Figure 24). Annual chlorophyll levels were similar in the nearfield, Cape Cod Bay 

and Stellwagen Bank. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen 

and percent saturation have not declined in the Stellwagen 

Basin or in the near field (not shown). Rather than showing 

a decline, levels in 2005 were slightly high compared to the 

baseline years (1992–2000).

No changes in concentrations of sewage tracers or sewagerelated contaminants were observed in the sediment samples 

from stations within the sanctuary and there were no changes 

in community parameters in 2005 (Maciolek et al., 2006). 

The deep-water stations continued to support a distinct 

infaunal community with recognizable differences from 

communities in the nearfield and Cape Cod Bay. Benthic 

community parameters at individual stations showed no 

pattern of change following start-up of the outfall in 2000 

(Figure 25). Overall the numbers of individual organisms 

and species per sample have increased, as has the index of 

species diversity (log series alpha), paralleling results from 

throughout Massachusetts Bay. No consistent pattern has 

been found that relates to outfall operation.

Assessment

In 2004, field samples were taken to assess the status and 

trends of chemical contamination in sediments and resident 

biota and to assess the biological condition of the various habitat types found in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

area (Figure 26). Sampling efforts employed a combination of the NOAA NS&T BE Program and the NBS Program 

protocols. The BE Program assesses sediment contamination, toxicity and benthic community condition. The NBS 

Figure 21. Location of water column stations, 

including the additional Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

stations sampled in August and October 2001-2005.

F32 and F33 sampled in February, March and April; other 

stations sampled in February, March, April, June, August and 

October. Source: MWRA, 2006.

Figure 22. Annual mean ammonium (top) and nitrate

(bottom) concentrations in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary, the nearfield and Cape Cod Bay relative to

the outfall startup. 

Source: MWRA, 2006.
60 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Program also addresses sediment contamination, in addition to contaminant body burdens and histological indicators in resident fish. Data from 2004 were contrasted with 

historical (1983–1994) NOAA data, and the data from the 

MWRA to assess the spatial and temporal trends in chemical contamination in and around the sanctuary. The work 

reported here was done by NCCOS in cooperation with the 

sanctuary and unless indicated otherwise, the following 

account is excerpted from Hartwell et al. (2006).

In an analysis of the spatial distribution of select contaminants 

in sediments, the lowest concentrations were consistently 

found in the Stellwagen Bank sites (Figure 27). Contaminant data from the 2004 sampling effort are consistent with 

historical data. The NS&T NBS long-term sediment monitoring data (1984–1991) showed similar spatial distribution 

patterns. The larger pattern indicates a gradient of contaminant concentration from inshore to offshore. This suggests 

an export of contaminants from Boston Harbor eastward 

toward Stellwagen Bank and southward toward Cape Cod 

Bay via suspended sediments and/or the water column.

The NBS data show similar patterns of spatial distributions 

based on contaminant concentrations in winter flounder 

liver. Overall, tissue contaminant concentrations were 

higher in organisms collected in and around Boston Harbor 

than those from remote sites, with intermediate concentrations in the mid-Bay area between the Harbor and Stellwagen Bank. These observations also suggest that export from 

Boston Harbor is a source of contamination for Massachusetts Bay and possibly for the sanctuary.

The Hartwell et al. (2006) study evaluates and summarizes 

contaminant conditions in the sanctuary area over a period 

of about twenty years. The current (2004) status of chemical 

contaminants in the shallow portions of Stellwagen Bank is 

significantly lower than those of the other regions of Massachusetts Bay including Cape Cod Bay. Boston Harbor is the 

most polluted zone of the Massachusetts Bay/Cape Cod Bay 

system. Sediments in the deep areas in Stellwagen basin are 

accumulating contaminants from a variety of sources.

The temporal assessment revealed no statistically significant 

trends for trace metals and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), while banned but persistent organic contaminants (DDTs and chlordanes [both pesticides]) show very 

slow decreasing trends over the monitoring years. The 

persistence of some organic compounds at relative high 

concentrations in Boston Harbor implies that the Harbor 

may be a continuing source of contaminants to other areas 

of Massachusetts Bay including the sanctuary. However, 

Figure 23. Top: annual mean total dissolved nitrogen

(TDN); Middle: dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN); 

Bottom: total nitrogen (TN) in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary, the nearfield and Cape Cod Bay relative to

the outfall startup. 

Source: MWRA, 2006.

Figure 24. Annual mean chlorophyll in the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary and other regions relative to the

outfall startup. 

Source: MWRA, 2006.
IV. Resource States 61

data in the current study indicates that pollution impacts 

in the sanctuary appear minimal and are largely consistent 

with the finding from MWRA monitoring.

Invasive Species

Invasive species, also commonly referred to as non-indigenous, alien, exotic, introduced, nuisance or bio-invader 

species, are organisms that have moved into an area outside 

of their natural geographic range. Their environmental 

effect can be similar to that of the relatively rare species in a 

biological community that, when triggered by environmental signals, suddenly expands in population and geographic 

distribution with negative consequences (e.g., HABs).

Invasive species are recognized as a serious emerging threat 

to biological diversity (Drake and Mooney, 1989). Impacts 

of invasive species threaten 36% of marine species, yet only 

8% of the conservation studies published on marine systems 

have dealt with this topic (Lawler et al., 2006). Community ecology theory can be used to understand biological 

invasions by applying new concepts to alien species and 

the communities that they invade (Shea and Chesson, 2002) 

(see Sidebar).

Specific Occurrences

First observed in 2003, the sea squirt (tunicate) Didemnum

sp. has invaded gravel habitats on Georges Bank fishing 

grounds and the infestation is persistent and increasing in 

density (USGS, 2006). Within the 88 sq mi study area, the 

colonies doubled at 75 percent of the sites observed in 2005 

and 2006. Preliminary evaluation of the sample data indicates that 50-75 % of the gravel is covered at some study 

sites. Sea-squirt mats smother the gravel habitat and render 

it unusable by the native community; no other species are 

known to prey on or over-grow the mats. The tunicate can 

be spread by mobile bottom fishing gears that break-up the 

colonies and aid in their dispersion. For more information 

visit URL http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/stellwagen/didemnum/. This species was noted as occurring in 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary as early as 2003.

Biological agents such as phytoplankton spores or cysts 

which develop HABs can behave similarly to invasive 

species. Nutrient enrichment is one factor in the development of HABs, but so too are the niche opportunities 

created by the disturbance of their associated biological 

Figure 26. Location of the NOAA NS&T BE sampling

sites (2004) within Massachusetts Bay including the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Sampling was done within six zones indicated by the red lines: 

Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay, Area Between Bays, Cape 

Cod Bay, Stellwagen Basin and Stellwagen Bank. Source: Hartwell et al., 2006.

Figure 25. Benthic community parameters at stations

(FF05, FF04) in or (FF14, FF11) near Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary (1992-2005) relative to the outfall startup. 

Source: MWRA, 2006.
62 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

communities. These communities occupy water column 

and seafloor habitats and support the HAB organism in its 

various life stages. Planktonic and benthic predators as well 

as competitors for seafloor habitat settlement space serve as 

natural controls that limit population. The only HAB event 

recorded in the sanctuary occurred in 2005 and was due to 

the toxic phytoplankton Alexandrium sp. As noted above, 

the highest concentration of Alexandrium cysts in Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay was recorded in the sediment of the sanctuary.

Means of Introduction

While niche opportunities for invasive species may be 

created by human activities that disturb biological communities and their habitats, the primary means by which many 

of these invasive species are introduced in the marine environment is via ballast water from ships. Scientists estimate 

that as many as 3,000 alien species per day are transported 

by ships around the world; however, not all transported 

species survive the trip or exposure to their new environment 

(MITSG, 2004). Other methods of introduction include:

•	Organisms attaching to the hulls of vessels

•	Algae used as packing material for fisheries products

•	Fouling or accumulation of organisms in fishing nets that

are then re-deployed in other areas

•	Mariculture of introduced marine species (e.g., fish, shellfish and seaweed)

•	Natural processes such as ocean currents

The introduction of invasive species is considered to be one 

of the most harmful types of disturbances that can occur 

within any ecological system (Deitz, undated). Once established, these species have the potential to change the structure, pattern and function of a biological community. Some 

of the ecological impacts associated with the introduction 

of invasive species in the marine environment include:

•	Occupying habitat space and competing for food of native

species

•	Altering the gene pools of native organisms through cross

breeding

•	Shifting predator/ prey relationships

•	Spreading disease and/or parasites

These impacts can take time to present themselves. Oftentimes invasive species, although present, remain in low 

abundance until some aspect of their environment changes 

allowing their competitive release against native species. 

These changes could be the result of a change in temperature that allows for an increase in growth rate or reproduction, or a change in the abundance of a native competitor or 

Figure 27. Concentration of contaminants, select metals (Cd [cadmium] and Pb [lead]) and organic compounds

(total PCBs [Polychlorinated Biphenyls] and DDT [pesticide]), in sediments within Massachusetts Bay including the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Source: Hartwell et al., 2006.
IV. Resource States 63

predator that enables the invasive to become 

better established (Deitz, undated).

General Status

A growing number of non-native marine organisms are appearing in the waters of the GoM 

(Table 4). Of these only the tunicate Didemnum lahillei is documented from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. Researchers attribute this 

increase in number of invasive species to two 

regional trends: 1) warming coastal waters 

becoming more hospitable to non-native 

species; and 2) lower biodiversity resulting 

from the urbanization of shore lands and the 

increase in human activity and pollution stressing critical marine habitats (Deitz, undated). 

According to the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology Sea Grant (MITSG) Rapid Assessment Survey (RAS) conducted in August of 2000 

and 2003, a total of 34 introduced organisms, 

several of which were identified for the first 

time in this region, and 37 organisms whose 

native geographic distribution is unknown 

were discovered throughout New England 

coastal waters (MITSG, 2003). For more information visit URL http://www.usm.maine.edu/

gulfofmaine-census/Docs/About/Organisms/

Invasive.htm.

Pressures

Although studies show that water quality in 

and around the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is 

currently at acceptable levels by most standards, the continuing pressures of point- and 

non-point sources of pollution are cause for 

continued concern and constant vigilance. 

Given the sanctuary’s proximity to the populous 

coastal zone in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and southern Maine, as well as being 

“downwind” from the industrial activity of the 

mid-west and northeastern part of the U.S., the 

sanctuary is exposed to pollutants from a variety of anthropogenic sources. These sources 

include direct discharge of waste to coastal 

waters (generally referred to as point sources) 

and indirect contamination (generally referred 

to as non-point sources).

Point source discharges potentially impacting 

the sanctuary include discharges from publicly 

owned treatment works (POTWs), industrial discharges permitted under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, effluents from combined sewer overflows (CSOs) 

and disposal of dredge materials at the MBDS. 

Nonpoint sources of contamination entering 

the sanctuary, such as pesticides, manufacturing chemicals, fertilizer and automobile runoff 

are primarily derived from the rivers of the 

Community Ecology Theory Relating to Biological 

Invasions

Two concepts are relevant to understanding the introduction of 

invasive species in the GoM and the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary: 

community maturity and niche opportunity.

Community Maturity. Community maturity is defined as the 

opportunity an ecosystem has had to accumulate species, and for 

adaptation within the ecosystem to have taken place. It depends on 

the time that the ecosystem has had the current climate, including 

its short-term fluctuations and recurring disturbance events. 

Maturity depends also on the size of the species pool that has 

historically served as a source of species to the ecosystem.

Biological communities that have had less evolutionary time to 

assemble, and less time for their constituent species to adapt to 

the local conditions, are likely to have fewer species with broader 

niches. Species in these communities might also have lower 

competitive abilities than those in communities (such as coral 

reefs) that have had a longer time to evolve under their present 

environmental regime.

The former communities, which characterize those in the GoM, 

tend to be less invasion resistant. The North Atlantic is relatively 

young, the assembly of its biota from the North Pacific is recent, 

i.e., 3.5 Mya (Vermeij, 1991), its nearshore environments have been

frequently glaciated causing localized extinctions at approximately 

20,000 year cycles (Adey and Steneck, 2001) and its species pool 

is comparatively low throughout the region. On the basis of 

community maturity, both the GoM and the sanctuary as a subset 

would seem inherently susceptible to biological invasion.

Niche Opportunity. Niche opportunity is a concept which defines 

conditions that promote invasions in terms of resources, natural 

enemies, the physical environment, interactions between these 

factors, and the manner in which they vary in time and space. 

Niche opportunities vary naturally between biological communities 

but can be greatly increased by disruption of communities, 

i.e., disturbance. Recent niche theory predicts that low niche 

opportunities (high invasion resistance) result from high species 

diversity (Stachowicz et al., 1999; Shea and Chesson, 2006).

The sanctuary would also seem prone to biological invasion because 

of the niche opportunities afforded (together with the sanctuary’s 

location amid extensive commercial shipping traffic that can serve 

as primary vectors for the introduction of exotics from hull bottoms 

and ballast water). The majority of the sanctuary area is chronically 

disturbed by fishing, especially seafloor habitats regularly swept 

by bottom otter trawling. The results of the SHRMP research 

(described in the section on seafloor habitats) indicate the greater 

relative ecological importance of physical disturbance by fishing 

versus natural events such as storms. 

The extensive exploitation of fish populations in the sanctuary has 

caused significant declines in species abundance and in a range of 

diversity metrics that take both species richness and abundance into 

account (Auster, 2000), although recovery to earlier higher levels 

of fish species diversity has recently been documented (Auster et 

al., 2006). Such extensive chronic disturbance and the history of 

lowered species diversity are factors that create niche opportunities 

for biological invasion.
64 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

GoM, especially the Merrimack River, discharges 

from vessel traffic and atmospheric inputs.

While it appears that inputs from point source 

discharges have been decreasing over the past 

decade, it has been difficult to adequately estimate 

the magnitude of the non-point source inputs. A 

major component missing in the present MWRA 

and the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary water monitoring projects is “event-driven” sampling geared 

to wastewater system failures and storm-water 

overflows. While 98% of the effluent in 2002 

underwent secondary treatment, for example, 

there was still part of the waste-stream that was 

released untreated or only partially treated due to 

storm events and temporary inability of the facility 

to handle the overflow.

The most significant types of point and non-point 

source discharge and disposal activities occurring 

in the sanctuary vicinity are discussed in greater 

detail below.

SOURCES

Municipal Waste Discharges

Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay historically 

have received inputs of waste in the form of effluent or sludge from a number of pipes extending 

from municipal wastewater treatment plants along 

the coast of Massachusetts (Figure 28). In the 

past, the total combined flow of this material was 

reported to be 566 million gallons per day (MGD), 

with approximately 500 MGD of that total being 

discharged by the MWRA treatment works at Deer 

and Nut Islands, the plants that served the greater 

Boston Area.

These discharges into Boston Harbor combined 

with CSOs were considered to be the greatest 

point sources of contaminants (metals, PAHs, 

PCBs, nutrients) to the Massachusetts Bay area 

(Menzie-Cura, 1991). However, over the years 

improved treatment and pre-treatment methods 

and technologies have helped to dramatically lessen the quantity of pollutants discharged into the 

Massachusetts Bay/Cape Cod Bay system (MWRA, 

2002).

In a major effort to improve the quality of waste 

water entering into Massachusetts Bay, the MWRA 

constructed a new wastewater treatment facility 

on Deer Island. The facility, completed in 2000, 

provides a more effective, secondary treatment of 

the wastewater and eliminates the discharge of 

sludge into coastal waters. This new plant also 

moved the discharge point, known as the ocean 

outfall, from the entrance of Boston Harbor to the 

waters between 12.7 km and 15.1 km (7.9 mi. 

and 9.4 mi.) east-northeast of Deer Island inside 

Massachusetts Bay.

Table 4. Inventory of known invasive species to the Gulf of Maine

region. 

Of these only the ascidian (tunicate) Didemnum lahillei is documented from 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. Common name is included in parentheses 

if known. Source: Dietz (2005).

Scientific Name and Type of Organism

Chlorophyta (green algae)

Codium fragile (deadman’s fingers, green fleece)

Rhodophyta (red algae)

Bonnemaisonia hamifera

Grateloupia turuturu

Lomentaria clavellosa

Lomentaria orcadensis

Neosiphonia harveyi

Porifera (sponges)

Halichondria bowerbankia (bread-crumb sponge)

Cnidaria (hydroids, anemones, jellyfishes)

Cordylophora caspia (colonial hydroid)

Diadumene lineate (striped anemone)

Sagartia elegans (purple anemone)

Polychaeta (segmented worms)

Janua pagenstecheri (formerly Spirorbis pagenstecheri) (bristleworm)

Gastropoda (snails)

Littorina littorea (common periwinkle)

Bivalvia (clams, oysters, mussels)

Ostrea edulis (European oyster)

Arthropoda (crabs, shrimps)

Praunus flexuosus (mysid shrimp)

Ianiropsis sp. (isopod)

Caprella mutica (skeleton shrimp)

Microdeutopus gryllotalpa (amphipod)

Carcinus maenas (European green crab)

Hemigrapsus sanguineus (Asian shore crab)

Anisolabis maritime (maritime earwig)

Bryozoa (moss animals)

Barentsia benedeni

Bugula neritina

Membranipora membranacea (lacy crust bryozoan)

Ascidiacea (tunicates, sea squirts)

Ascidiella aspersa

Botrylloides violaceus

Botryllus schlosseri (golden star tunicate)

Didemnum lahillei

Diplosoma listerianum

Molgula manhattensis (sea grapes)

Styela canopus (formerly Styela partita)

Styela clava (club tunicate)

Protozoa (single-celled organisms)

Haplosporidium nelsoni (Eastern oyster parasite)

Perkinsus marinus (Eastern oyster parasite)

Bonamia ostreae (European oyster parasite)
IV. Resource States 65

The MWRA is the discharge site of most significance to the 

sanctuary, with the new location being sited approximately 

23.12 km (12.5 nm) from the sanctuary western boundary. The facility discharges 350 million gallons of secondary treated sewage per day. While the new MWRA outfall 

tunnel remains a leading source of contaminants in Massachusetts Bay, the repeated environmental monitoring and 

assessments conducted by the MWRA and NOAA discussed 

above conclude that scientifically determined baselines for 

key indicator variables are not being exceeded in the sanctuary and adjacent areas.

Currently, under the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries 

Act (MOSA) any new discharge of wastewater into areas 

designated as ocean sanctuaries by POTWs and CSOs is 

prohibited along the coast of Massachusetts except for the 

area between Marshfield and Lynn. However, according 

to the MOSA, existing wastewater treatment plants may increase 

their discharge volumes if a case of 

“public necessity and convenience” 

can be made (Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, M.G.L. c. 132A, 12A-16F, 18, 

and 302 CMR 5.00).

Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site

Between the 1940s and the 1970s, 

numerous offshore areas throughout 

Massachusetts Bay were used for 

the disposal of a variety of industrial waste products including canisters, construction debris, derelict 

vessels and radioactive waste. These 

activities were largely unregulated 

and unrecorded. Today, this type 

of disposal activity is not allowed 

within Massachusetts Bay. Currently 

there are only two dredge disposal 

sites active within Massachusetts 

Bay and Cape Cod Bay: the MBDS 

designated in 1993, and the Cape 

Cod Bay Disposal site designated in 

1990. Each of these active sites is 

monitored by the U.S. Army Corps if 

Engineers under their Disposal Area 

Monitoring System (DAMOS).

The MBDS is the disposal site of 

most significance to the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. The MBDS is 

located directly adjacent to the western boundary of the sanctuary and 

encompasses an area two nautical 

miles in diameter, centered at 42° 

25.1’N X 70° 35.0’W (Figure 28). 

This site incorporates the areas of two 

historic disposal sites, the Industrial 

Waste Site (IWS), an area that was 

once authorized for the disposal of toxic, hazardous and 

radioactive materials and the Interim MBDS (also known as 

the Foul Area Disposal Site [FADS]) designated only for the 

disposal of dredged materials. Given the proximity of the 

dumpsite to the sanctuary, there is lingering concern that 

these dumped materials have impacted sanctuary habitats 

and that previously-dumped toxic materials might be leaking. Currently, the MBDS is the most active disposal site 

in DAMOS, receiving dredge materials from many ports, 

including Scituate, Hingham, Boston, Salem and Gloucester.

Since 1982, approximately 8.4 million cubic yards of 

dredged material have been disposed at the current MBDS 

or the original MBDS location, established in 1977 and 

located one nautical mile eastward and one-half nautical 

mile northward of the current MBDS location (USACE, 

2004). Annual disposal volumes for the period 1982-2003 

Figure 28. Location of sewer outfalls, the MWRA outfall, industrial

discharge sites and dumping/disposal sites within Massachusetts Bay. 

Also indicated are the locations of state ocean sanctuaries, the Cape Cod Bay Right Whale 

Critical Habitat Area and the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary as well as the pattern of general 

ocean circulation for the area. Source: MWRA (2004).
66 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

are indicated in Figure 29. While sediments derived from 

dumping, as well as contaminants from the IWS (e.g., toxic 

chemicals, low level radioactive waste), have the potential 

to contaminate the sanctuary (Wiley et al. 1992), both the 

EPA and NOAA concluded in 1993 that MBDS would not 

threaten resources within the sanctuary. Recent assessments 

(Hartwell et al., 2006) support that early assessment.

In areas approved for ocean disposal of dredged material, 

such as the MBDS, those that utilize the site must conform 

to the EPA’s ocean dumping criteria regulations. The site 

can only be used for disposal following an individual 

disposal determination that concludes that ocean disposal is 

an “environmentally appropriate alternative” as compared 

with other disposal alternatives. If there are no economically feasible alternatives to a particular dumping proposal, 

EPA is directed to grant a project-specific waiver unless 

“certain unacceptable environmental harms would result.” 

Currently disposal of contaminated materials, as defined 

by state regulations, is not permitted at the MBDS (USACE, 

2003).

Vessel Discharges

The location of many ports and harbors in Massachusetts 

Bay and Cape Cod Bay, particularly the Port of Boston, 

means that large numbers of vessels regularly travel through 

the sanctuary. On average, over the period 2000-2005, 

there were 2,257 transits per year to/from the Port of Boston 

by large deep drafts ships, the majority of which crossed the 

sanctuary. There are approximately 100 cruise ship departures or ports of call from Boston annually and this number 

is expected to increase; Boston is now considered one of 

the fastest growing high-end cruise markets in the country. 

See the Maritime Transportation section of this document 

for details.

Approximately 800 commercial fishing vessels use Massachusetts Bay as a fishing area or as a transit zone to open 

ocean fishing areas. On average, 327 commercial fishing 

vessels and 105 party and charter boats fished the sanctuary on an annual basis during 1996–2005. The popularity 

of recreational fishing and whale watching in the sanctuary 

accounts for many of the boats frequenting the area, especially during the months of April through October. On average, party and charter fishing boats made 1,967 trips per 

year to the sanctuary during 1996–2005. (See the Commercial and Recreational Fishing sections of this document for 

details.)

Discharges from vessels have the potential to be a significant 

source of pollution to the sanctuary. Appendix A provides 

information on the types of vessel discharges, their production and current status of regulation. Cruise ships serve as 

the example for type and production, but the regulations 

apply generally or as specified. Time taken for representative types of discarded objects to dissolve in seawater is 

provided in Table 5.

Hazardous Material Spills

Accidental discharges and vessel casualties do occur within 

the sanctuary. According to the USCG, a total of four fishing vessels sank within the boundaries of the sanctuary over 

the last three years (2003–2005). These vessel casualties 

resulted in only minor discharges of oil into the marine 

environment and had no significant impact on the sanctuary. Other than these incidents, there have been no spills or 

accidental discharges in or around the sanctuary area over 

the last decade that would have placed sanctuary resources 

at risk (S. Lehmann, NOAA/NOS, personal communication, 

2005).

Transport Pathways

Contaminant levels are a concern due to: (1) the discharge 

from the MWRA outfall, (2) the historic and current discharge 

of municipal sewage from the Boston metropolitan area 

Figure 29. Annual disposal volumes at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for the period 1982–2003. 

Source: USACE (2004).
IV. Resource States 67

and other cities and towns along Massachusetts Bay, (3) the 

historic dumping of toxic material at the Massachusetts Bay 

Disposal Site, and (4) the air deposition of toxic materials 

transported from the west. Knowledge of transport pathways and residence times of contaminants in the Massachusetts Bay/Cape Cod system helps in the evaluation of the 

threats they pose to sanctuary resources.

Boston Harbor, Stellwagen Basin and Cape Cod Bay are 

long-term sinks for fine-grained sediments and associated 

contaminants from all sources in the region. Bottom deposits on the inner shelf of the western shore of Massachusetts 

Bay are gravel, coarse sands and bedrock. Fine sediments 

do not accumulate here because storm currents resuspend 

and displace them. During much of the year, a weak counterclockwise circulation persists in Massachusetts and Cape 

Cod Bays, driven by the southeastward coastal current from 

the GoM. Currents flow southwesterly into the Massachusetts Bay south of Cape Ann, southward along the western 

shore, and easterly out of the Bay north of Race Point at the 

tip of Cape Cod. This flow pattern may reverse in the fall, 

especially near the western shore. The flow-through flushing time for the surface waters in most of Massachusetts Bay 

ranges from 20 to 45 days (USGS, 1998).

Northeasters (storms) generate large waves that enter Massachusetts Bay from the east. The currents associated with 

these waves resuspend the bottom sediments in exposed 

areas along the western shore of Massachusetts Bay. The 

wind-driven currents flow southeastward parallel to the 

coast (with an offshore component near the bottom) and 

carry the suspended sediments toward Cape Cod Bay and 

offshore into Stellwagen Basin. Sediments settle to the sea 

floor along these transport pathways. Currents caused by 

surface waves are the principal cause of sediment resuspension. Cape Cod Bay is sheltered from large waves by 

the arm of Cape Cod, and waves are rarely large enough 

to resuspend sediments at the seabed in the deep areas of 

Stellwagen Basin. Thus once sediments reach Stellwagen 

Basin or Cape Cod Bay, carried either by the mean current 

flow or transported by storm waves, it is unlikely that they 

will be re-suspended and transported away again.

As indicated previously, sampling for this assessment was 

coordinated by NS&T in collaboration with the NOAA 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Data from 2004 were 

contrasted with historical data, and data from the MWRA to 

assess the spatial and temporal trends in chemical contamination in the region as a whole. Both the NOAA and MWRA 

sampling regimes included sampling sites within the following four zones: Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay, Area 

Between Bays and Stellwagen Bank (Figure 26). The lowest 

contaminant concentrations were consistently found in the 

Stellwagen Bank sites (Bothner et al., 1993, 1994; Bothner 

and Butman 2005; NOAA, 2006).

Current Protection

Sanctuary regulations (15 C.F.R § Subpart N) specifically 

prohibit:

1. Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary of 

the sanctuary, any material or other matter except:

•	fish, fish wastes, chumming materials or bait used in or

resulting from traditional fishing operations in the sanctuary;

•	biodegradable effluent incidental to vessel use and generated by marine sanitation devices approved in accordance 

with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [Clean Water 

Act (CWA)];

•	water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g., cooling water, deck wash down and gray water as defined by 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), excluding oily 

wastes from bilge pumping; or

•	engine exhaust.

2. Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary of 

the sanctuary, any material or other matter except those listed above, that subsequently enters the sanctuary and injures 

a sanctuary resource or quality;

3. Lightering in the sanctuary (transferring cargo, usually oil, 

between vessels).

Oil spills or spills of hazardous substances in U.S. waters 

come under regulations that are known as Natural Resource 

Damage Assessments (NRDA). It is possible to apply NRDA 

regulations to any vessel discharge that contains oil and 

petroleum, and/or toxic substances if the discharge causes 

injury and damage to marine resources and living organisms. It is also possible to apply the CWA to discharges of 

petroleum and hazardous substances as well as excessive 

nutrients, and sewage containing pathogens and bacteria 

that could impair water quality. Lastly, the disposal of plastic trash, and other overboard trash by vessels is regulated 

by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 

1987 in the U.S. as well as MARPOL 73/78 Annex V.

Vessel discharges and potential contaminants that could 

be problematic are: black water (vessel sewage), grey 

water (soils, cleaning solvents, metals, pesticides, medical 

waste), bilge water (fuel, oils, cleaning agents, paint, rags), 

ballast water (foreign marine organisms), hazardous materials (chemicals from cleaning and photo processing, paints, 

solvents, inks) and solid waste disposal.

Table 5. Time taken for objects to dissolve at sea.

(Source: 

IMO http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=297 )

Paper bus ticket 2–4 weeks

Cotton cloth 1–5 months

Rope 3–14 months

Woolen cloth 1 year

Painted wood 13 years

Tin can 100 years

Aluminum can 200–500 years

Plastic bottle 450 years
68 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

There are no direct federal regulations for control of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous (NRC, 2000), for 

biologically active agents (hormones, endocrine disrupters), 

or for pathogens, including viruses, parasites and bacteria 

(NRC, 1994). Concern over biologically active agents is 

increasing because of their potential to alter the health of 

organisms, the growing industrial proliferation and public 

use, and the high density of biotechnology companies in the 

Boston metropolitan area that may inadvertently discharge 

these agents. 

Benthic Invertebrates

Status

The sanctuary’s benthic invertebrates include species from 

nearly all GoM invertebrate phyla. These animals live in 

(infauna) or on (epifauna) the seafloor during most of their 

lives, although most species have pelagic larvae. Characterized as “sessile” (sedentary or attached) or “motile” 

(free moving), benthic invertebrates range in size from little 

known microscopic forms (hydroid medusae) to the more 

common larger macroscopic organisms (e.g., scallops). 

Invertebrate communities vary with substrate; while cerianthid anemones may be the most visible in deep-mud basins, 

sand dollars might dominate shallow sand areas.

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary supports a wide variety 

of seafloor substrates including mud, sand, gravel, piled 

boulder reefs and bedrock habitats. The seafloor provides 

a base for attachment by a variety of sessile invertebrates 

including bryozoans (moss animals), ascidians or tunicates 

(sea squirts), sponges, anemones, barnacles and hard-tube 

worms that form dense encrustations. Larger sessile invertebrates, such as sea whips (gorgonians) and sponges, provide 

refuges for many smaller cryptic (camouflaged) invertebrates. Other dominant benthic invertebrates include brittle 

stars, starfish, bivalves, shrimps, crabs and lobsters.

Structure-forming epifaunal invertebrates (such as sponges 

and anemones) provide critical habitat for juvenile fish of 

many species (such as Atlantic cod and Acadian redfish), 

while the greater invertebrate community provides an 

important source of food for these and many other fish 

species in the sanctuary. In the GoM, invertebrates, including sponges, jellyfish, worms, mollusks, echinoderms such 

as starfish, sea urchins and sand dollars, and crustaceans, 

outnumber vertebrates such as fishes, birds, and mammals, 

almost two-to-one (1,669 known invertebrate species versus 

914 vertebrates).

GoM and Northeast Region

The diversity of invertebrate animals in the GoM is only 

generally described in the scientific literature; their many 

types are sorely under-represented in species counts. Many 

of the following citations are the principal works representative of the major taxonomic groups in the Northeast 

region. Although this section is intended to be primarily 

about the macrobenthic invertebrates of the sanctuary (and 

principally those that are structure-forming), the following 

annotated overview strives to recognize the greater crosssection of invertebrate diversity. Scientific nomenclature 

not explained in the text is described in the glossary of this 

document.

The aggregate macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the continental shelf ecosystems of the Northeastern United States 

consists of 44 major taxonomic groups (phyla, classes, 

orders) (Theroux and Wigley, 1998). A striking fact is that 

only five of those groups (belonging to four phyla) account 

for over 80% of both total biomass and number of individuals 

of the macrobenthos. The five dominant groups are Bivalvia, Annelida, Amphipoda, Echinoidea and Holothuridea. 

The macrobenthos of the New England region (a subset of 

the northeastern continental shelf area) is dominated by 

members of only four phyla: Annelida (e.g., segmented 

worms), Mollusca (e.g., shellfish and squid), Arthropoda 

(e.g., crabs and shrimp) and Echinodermata (e.g., starfish 

and sea cucumbers).

Hartman (1964) describes the region’s Porifera (sponges); 

Larson (1976) discusses Cnidarian taxonomy of the northeastern United States. Caims (1991) provides a checklist 

of the cnidaria and ctenophores from North America. 

The region’s species of Hydrozoa (hydroids, jelly fishes) 

are described in Fraser (1944). Bush (1981) discusses the 

Turbellaria (flat worms) in the Northwestern Atlantic. Smith 

(1964) covers the taxonomy of nemerteans (flat worms) 

and nematodes (round worms) in the region. Bryozoans 

(moss animals) are critical sources of benthic structure and 

their taxonomy in the northeastern United States has been 

recently revised (Ryland and Hayward, 1991). Although 

the literature may suggest that the Bryozoa are well studied 

overall, remarkably little is known about the distribution of 

species within the GoM.

Molluscs are ever-present. Cephalopods such as squid are 

nektonic predators with a complex life history (Mauerer and 

Bowman, 1985). Gastropods (snails) and Bivalves (clams, 

mussels) are part of the epifaunal and infaunal benthic 

community (Maney and Ebersole, 1990). Nudibranchs (sea 

slugs) have been well described and many have a unique 

life history (Bleakney, 1996). Hunter and Brown (1964) 

describe the taxonomy of local molluscs. Work by Cook 

and Brinkurst (1973) covers the taxonomy of the Annelida 

(segmented worms) of the northeastern United States.
IV. Resource States 69

Coffin (1979) and Ho (1977, 1978) wrote the classic descriptions of the Copepoda in the region; a more recent analysis 

was done by Dudley and Illg (1991a, b). Tremblay and 

Anderson (1984) provide an annotated list of local species. 

Durbin et al. (1995a,b) discuss the relationship between 

environmental variables and the copepod community 

(notably Calanus finmarchicus). Kahn and Wishner (1995) 

describe the spatial and temporal patterns of this and other 

copepod species on baleen whale feeding grounds. Lynch 

et al. (1998) present a model of the population growth of 

Calanus finmarchicus; Meise-Munns et al. (1990) discuss 

longer-term population trends and the inter-annual variability in availability. Copepods may play an important 

link in the ecology of toxic dinoflagellates (Teegarden and 

Cembella, 1996); the species diversity of the two groups 

may be closely related.

Bowman and Abele (1982) review the Crustacea and their 

species diversity as a whole. Productivity and growth of the 

Decapoda (crustaceans e.g., lobster, crabs) is extensively 

researched because of that taxonomic group’s commercial 

importance. Steneck et al. (1991), Wahle (1995) and Rangeley and Lawton (1999) discuss the geographical distribution 

of the American lobster. Fell (1982) covers the general 

taxonomy of the Echinodermata; Pawson (1997) covers the 

holothurians. Ecinoderms are greatly affected by physical 

disturbance to the benthos of the GoM, according to Collie 

et al. (1997) and Thrush et al. (1998). Smith (1964) covers 

the ascidian (tunicate) taxonomy.

A first-order assessment (presence/absence) of the kinds and 

species of invertebrates in the sanctuary was conducted 

based on the analysis of a 19-year database (1953-1972) 

collected during NOAA Fisheries Service research cruises 

beginning over 50 years ago as described in Theroux and 

Wigley (1998). The analysis was done in 2003 by John 

Crawford of the University of Pennsylvania who served as 

visiting scientist with the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 

that year. The analysis included over 4,000 data records for 

the sanctuary obtained using standardized sampling methods involving four gear types: (1) Campbell grab, (2) 1.0 

meter dredge, (3) scallop dredge, and (4) otter trawl. The 

analysis produced a taxonomic list documenting invertebrate species in the sanctuary, which has been incorporated 

into the sanctuary’s species list (Appendix J).

Importance of Structure-Forming Invertebrates

A great diversity of structure-forming invertebrate species 

lives on or in the seafloor of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Many of these invertebrates create and are the source of 

important biogenic habitats (e.g., anenome forests, sponge 

gardens, hydroid meadows, worm tube beds, burrows and 

other substrate modifications) which promote and sustain 

biodiversity and make a pivotal contribution to ecosystem 

function. Structure-forming macrobenthic invertebrates, 

such as sponges, bryozoans, tunicates and anemones, play 

a particularly important role in the ecology of small, juvenile 

fishes, offering shelter from currents and serving as nurseries 

and refugia from predation, for example.

As explained in the section on seafloor habitats, biogenic 

structures underpin and shape the biological communities 

associated with them; they form the “living landscapes” 

that carpet the sanctuary seafloor. Their three-dimensional 

structure and sessile behavior make these particular invertebrates highly susceptible to damage from mobile fishing 

gear, e.g., trawls and dredges. Below are some examples 

of the invertebrate species that form the living landscapes 

of the sanctuary. The accompanying discussion does not 

include the hundred or so other species of benthic invertebrates, such as echinoderms (e.g., starfish, brittle stars, 

sand dollars, sea cucumbers) and crustaceans (e.g., lobsters, 

crabs, shrimp, isopods) that serve different ecological roles 

(e.g., predators, scavengers) within the benthic communities of the sanctuary. Many of these structure-forming and 

other benthic invertebrate species are colorfully pictured in 

Martinez (2003).

Sponges

Sponges are common throughout the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and serve as important habitat and refugia for a variety 

of organisms (Figure 30). The boring sponge Cliona celata

is known within the sanctuary (Ward, 1995) and grows on 

mollusk shells at depth to 40 m (Gosner, 1971). They attach 

to both living and abandoned shells, contributing to the 

breakdown of shells on the sea floor. Cliona may grow to 

a diameter of 20 cm and can be free-standing (Ruppert and 

Fox, 1988). Gosner reports that the gamma form may be 

a massive free-standing structure (Gosner, 1971). Iophon 

nigricans is an erect sponge that has been collected in the 

sanctuary (McNaught, in preparation) and lives at depths of 

29–740 m (Gosner, 1971).

Cnidarians

Cnidarians are a large and varied phylum including jellies, 

hydroids, corals and anemones. These soft-bodied invertebrates serve as refugia for other organisms and are highly 

vulnerable to damage from fishing gear. Many cnidarians 

such as the hydroids have a polyp (attached) and medusa 

(free floating) stage (Figure 31). Each “flower” of the pinkhearted hydroids (Tubularia corcea) is an animal or polyp 

approximately 3 cm long with the blossom about 1 cm 

across. These hydroids are found in the sanctuary (Ward, 

1995) and serve as habitat for other organisms. Another 

species, the stalked hydroid (Corymorpha pendula) is known 

to extensively carpet the seafloor in some areas of the sanctuary. The branching soft coral (Gersemia rubiformis) is 

known to occur within the sanctuary and grows to 15 cm or 

more in height (Ward, 1995), occurring at depths of 37–91 

m (Gosner, 1971). Gorgonians may take 30 years to reach 

full size (Ruppert and Barnes, 1994).

Sea pens and pansies (Pennatulacea) are found anchored to 

soft bottoms (sand or mud) and are fleshy structures which 

generally have a stalk or pedestal anchored to the substrate 

and secondary polyps at the upper end of the stalk (Barnes, 

1974). Sea pens are common in Georges Basin, the Stellwagen Bank area and Jeffreys Ledge with densities as high 

as 8/m-2 having been measured (Langton et al., 1990). They 
70 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

are found on mud and silt bottoms, at depths of 174–351 m. 

They have been collected as by-catch by fishermen (Langton et al., 1990) and are sometimes damaged by traps (Eno 

et al., 2001). The Pennatulacea encountered by Theroux 

and Wigley (1998) were feather-shaped and stood 10–25 

cm high.

Anemones are a common, abundant class of cnidarian that 

serve many important functions in the sanctuary such as: 

refugia, a food source, and, in turn, a predator on zooplankton and even fish (Figure 32). They are found throughout 

the sanctuary on all bottom types, but are most common 

on sandy substrata and are most abundant at depths of 100 

m or more (Theroux and Wigley, 1998). The colorful and 

abundant northern red anemone Urticina felina is found to 

73 m depth and is 5 cm high by 12 cm wide. The burrowing anemones, Ceriantheopsis americanus and Cerianthus 

borealis, may have tubes extending over 45 cm into the 

water column and 4 cm in diameter. Cerianthus borealis is 

most common in deep muddy basins (130 m to > 400 m) 

with burrowed tube lengths of 45 cm. Behavioral-ecological studies have revealed a close association between Cerianthus sp. and Acadian redfish within the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary (Auster et al. 2003).

Annelid Worms

Worms are an important food source for many bottom-dwelling fishes. They can be important detritivores (decomposers), predators or filter feeders. Some worm species build 

complex three-dimensional structures. The serpulid worm 

(Filograna implexa) is an important member of the seafloor 

community on pebble/cobble substrate in Georges Bank, 

where its abundance is known to be reduced by dredging 

(Collie et al., 1997). This species occurs in the sanctuary 

(McNaught, in preparation) and is found at depths from 

33–55 m (Gosner, 1971). It can grow to a tube length of 5 

cm with groups of tubes joining to form large above-surface 

structures (Ruppert and Fox, 1988). Myxicola infundibulum

is a soft-bodied burrowing worm approximately 3x20 cm in 

size (Gosner, 1971). McNaught et al. (in prep) found them 

in the northern parts of the sanctuary around the submerged 

fiber-optic cable in the sliver (closed area). Depths range 

from the shallow littoral zone to 55 m (Gosner, 1971). 

Trumpet worms (Pectinari goudi) are known in the sanctuary (Ward, 1995). Their delicate tubes are made from sand 

grains and most of the tube is buried.

Figure 30. Representative species of sponges in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

(a) common palmate sponge (Isodictya palmata) sheltering a sculpin; (b) boring sponge (Cliona celata) on left side of image, Halichondria panicea with knobs on right side of image; (c) Iophon nigricans; and (d) miscellaneous sponge species interspersed with hydroids 

(feathery organisms pictured here). Credits: (a-c) NURC-UConn; and (d) Tane Casserley, NOAA Maritime Heritage Program.
IV. Resource States 71

Bryozoans

Bryozoans are sessile colonial animals, commonly referred 

to as “moss animals.” They are most common on shell and 

gravel substrata and are most abundant in shallow water 

(less than 100 m) in Massachusetts Bay (Theroux and Wigley, 

1998). Colonies of spiral tufted bryozoans (Bugulia turrita) 

are found within the sanctuary (Ward, 1995) and are known 

from very shallow depths to more than 27 m. Colonies of 

Bugula spp. tend to be small, less than 2.5 cm in height 

(Gosner, 1971), and are soft, bushy and plant-like in form 

(Ruppert and Fox, 1988; Ruppert and Barnes, 1994). Two 

species of erect bryozoans were reported from the sanctuary 

in the SHRMP study, Caberea ellisii and Idmidronea atlantica. These species were more abundant within the cable 

closed area (sliver), which is protected from the effects of 

fishing that occur outside the closed area.

Molluscs

Molluscs such as clams, mussels and scallops are an important component of the sanctuary ecosystem serving as 

habitat and a food source for many species, while filtering 

plankton and organic particles from the water column. The 

Figure 31. Representative species of cnidarians in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

(a) stalked hydroid (Corymorpha pendula); (b) pink-hearted hydroid (Tubularia corcea); (c) soft coral (Gersemia rubriformis); 

and (d) stalked jelly (Haliclystus auricula). Credits: (a) NURC-UConn; (b) Tane Casserley, NOAA Maritime Heritage Program; 

(c) Bob Michelson; and (d) Jeff Hannigan.
72 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

shells of dead ocean quohog (Arctica islandica) are known 

to provide habitat for juvenile hake (Auster et al. 1991) and 

other fish as well as invertebrate species (Figure 33). Found 

at depths from 11–165 m, shells may be 10 cm in length 

(Gosner, 1971). Ocean quohogs can live to be more than 

100 years old and have been aged in excess of 200 years 

(NMFS, 2000).

Tunicates

The tunicates (sea squirts) fall within the phylum Chordata, 

meaning they are primitive relatives of vertebrates (Figure 

34). Ciana intestinalis and Mogula spp. are reported from the 

littoral zone to depths of about 500 m (Gosner, 1971) and 

are found throughout the sanctuary. Ciana intestinalis forms 

colonies to a height of 12 cm; Mogula spp are smaller, with 

the largest species forming colonies to only 7 cm, and most 

less than 3 cm (Gosner, 1971) (Ruppert and Fox, 1988).

Pressures

Pressures are the same as those for seafloor habitats, principally fishing practices that disturb seafloor communities and 

the laying of cables or pipelines.

Current Protection

Sanctuary regulations (15 C.F.R § Subpart N) prohibit drilling 

into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure 

or material or other matter on the seabed of the sanctuary, 

except as an incidental result of (1) anchoring vessels; (2) 

traditional fishing operations; or (3) installation of navigation aids. The exemption for traditional fishing activities 

Figure 32. Representative species of anemones in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

(a) mud anemone (Cerianthus borealis); (b) northern red anemones (Urticina felina) shown on boulder [These animals catch, kill and 

digest prey as large as fish. They sting prey with nematocysts on their tentacles and draw the stunned prey into the mouth in the center 

of the tentacles.]; (c) shipwrecks can serve as substrate for frilled anemones (Metridium senile); and (d) unidentified frilled anemone 

species. Credits: (a-c) NURC-UConn; and (d) Norman Depres.
IV. Resource States 73

reduces the effectiveness of these regulations in protecting 

ecological integrity including habitat and biodiversity.

Several indices of biodiversity are based on numbers of 

individuals of a species as well as the number of species. 

These measures of diversity are sensitive to the effects of 

traditional fishing. A reduction in biodiversity in the sanctuary does not require that species are entirely removed (i.e., 

local extinction). “Local extinction” is a common scientific 

term in community ecology and conservation biology. It 

is defined as the eradication of any geographically discrete 

population of individuals while others of the same species 

or subspecies survive elsewhere.

The most effective regulations for protecting benthic invertebrates are those promulgated by NOAA Fisheries Service 

under the MSA in order to restore groundfish stocks in the 

GoM and protect EFH. Specifically, over the past two 

decades NOAA Fisheries Service in collaboration with 

the NEFMC has promulgated fishing regulations that have 

significantly reduced fishing effort, and therefore disturbance to invertebrates, in the entire northeast, including 

the sanctuary. Some examples of these regulations are: 

reducing fishing days at sea, creating groundfish and habitat 

closed areas (e.g., WGoMCA), reducing trawl net roller gear 

sizes to prevent bottom trawlers from accessing high relief 

habitat, and creating seasonal closures to protect migrating or spawning species. The protections provided by the 

WGoMCA and the results to date are previously described.

Figure 33. Empty ocean quohog shells (Arctica

islandica) serve as habitat for a variety of fish such as

the blenny shown here. 

(Credit: NURC-UCconn).

Figure 34. Representative species of tunicates in the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

(a) sea grape (Molgula spp.); (b) sea peach (Halocynthia pyriformis); and (c) stalked tunicate (Boltenia ovifera). Credits: (a) Jeff 

Hannigan; (b) Bob Michelson; and (c) Kevin McCarthy.
74 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Fishes

Status

Fish are a vital component of the sanctuary’s biological 

diversity and also one of its strongest links to the human 

population. The groundfish community in the sanctuary, 

made up of fishes such as cod, haddock, whiting (silver 

hake) and various flatfish, has been sought for food from 

the earliest European settlements to the present. The fish 

species found in the sanctuary are generally representative 

of fish assemblages in the GoM region. Of the known 652 

GoM species, over 80 species of fish exist in the sanctuary. 

These known species are listed by common and scientific 

name in Appendix J.

The diverse seafloor topography and nutrient-rich waters in 

the sanctuary result in increased primary productivity and 

large zooplankton populations, which support abundant 

populations of small schooling species such as sand lance, 

herring and mackerel. Many groundfish and larger pelagic 

fish prey upon these schooling species, which also form 

part of the varied diet of marine mammals and seabirds. 

Fish found in the sanctuary range in size from small snake 

blennies to basking sharks. Some fish, such as giant bluefin 

tuna, are annual migrants to the area, while others, such as 

the Acadian redfish, are likely year-round residents.

Fishes are among the species most identified with use of 

and co-dependence on both seafloor and water column 

habitats because of their obvious mobility. Their distribution and abundance in the sanctuary was used to illustrate 

the ecological role of seafloor habitats and was described 

extensively in that section. As juveniles and adults, many 

species become closely associated with benthic habitats and 

communities (e.g., Atlantic cod, haddock), but virtually all 

species spend part of their life in the water column as eggs or 

larvae (as also do many benthic invertebrate species). Many 

species of fish live on the seafloor and feed in the water 

column (e.g., Acadian redfish, sand lance) and many other 

species live entirely in the water column (Atlantic herring, 

bluefin tuna). Out of the wide array of ecological niches 

filled by fishes, and the related sets of selective forces that 

shape their speciation, diverse species have evolved.

Species Diversity

One of the most geographically comprehensive data sets of 

species composition and abundance across the GoM LME 

is for demersal fishes (e.g., cod, haddock). NOAA Fisheries Service has collected a unique time series of data that 

stretches across decades (1963-present). This time series 

has been the basis for two comprehensive analyses of fish 

species diversity in the GoM inclusive of the sanctuary that 

address both temporal trends and spatial patterns.

Trends

The first analysis of these trawl data using a 25-year time 

series (1970–1994) found that the sanctuary had 41 of 48 

Figure 35. Seasonal mean fish species diversity (species richness) across the GoM for the period 1975–2005. 

(Figure excerpted from Auster et al, 2006.)
IV. Resource States 75

resident fish species, 7 of 17 annual migrants, and 6 of 

12 shallow coastal species suggesting that the sanctuary 

supported a significant number of the species represented 

in the GoM LME (Auster, 2002). While the effects of heavy 

exploitation of fish populations in the GoM did not result 

in local extinctions over this period, there were significant 

declines in a range of diversity metrics in the sanctuary that 

take both species richness and abundance into account.

Notably, both Shannon and Simpson indices showed a 

steep decline over time (1970–1994) at the sanctuary scale 

while remaining stable at the regional GoM scale (Auster, 

2002). The author concludes that these declines in diversity suggest that patterns in species richness and evenness 

are conservative properties of fish assemblages at the scale 

of the GoM but not at the scale of the sanctuary and that 

managing fishing at the regional scale does not necessarily 

maintain trends in diversity in the sanctuary. These declines 

in diversity were attributed to extensive fisheries exploitation of dominant species and bycatch mortality of species of 

lower abundance and of little economic value.

The second analysis of the NOAA Fisheries Service trawl 

data using a 30-year time series (1975–2005) showed that 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is in an area of high fish 

species diversity in the GoM (Auster et al., 2006) (Figure 

35). Values for mean species richness at the regional scale 

were variable across the GoM and between spring and fall 

in most of the sample strata, but were consistently high in 

the sanctuary. Overall, slightly lower richness values were 

evident in spring than in fall. This difference is attributed 

to colder temperatures in spring and a reduced number of 

southern migrants that draw from a more diverse species 

pool than do migrants from the north during this season. 

This seasonal difference is also evident in trends among 

several diversity indices for fish species within the sanctuary 

(presented below). 

In order to contrast the uniqueness of the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary with other similar regions in the GoM, six different 

diversity indices within the sanctuary were compared across 

other geographic strata that have similar bathymetric ranges 

(Figure 36). In general, comparison of fish diversity indices 

for the six strata yielded variable results (Figure 37a and b) 

(Auster et al., 2006). Diversity patterns were quite similar 

for some indices, while there was little correlation among 

others. However, fish diversity indices within the sanctuary 

were overall higher than or equal to indices within most of 

the other strata. Figures 35, 36 and 37a and b are based on 

NOAA Fisheries Service sampling strata for the GoM.

Trends among the fish diversity indices within the sanctuary were relatively stable or slightly increasing or decreasing over the 30-year time period examined, demonstrating 

no consistent pattern (Figure 37a and b). This more recent 

analysis (Auster et al., 2006) shows a reversal in the Shannon and Simpson indices, which were in decline in the 

previous study and attributed to extensive fisheries exploitation (Auster 2002). The proximate cause of this change is 

unclear, since most fishery management actions occurred 

beginning around the mid 1990s. 

The lower diversity index values for the Margalef’s, Shannon, Simpson, and taxonomic diversity indices in the spring 

during the 1975–1989 time period all occurred because 

sand lance dominated trawl sample abundance within the 

sanctuary and this species alone comprised more than 50% 

of the total abundance. The high abundance of sand lance 

captured within the sanctuary during spring 1980-1984 

severely depressed the diversity index value of these indices. 

High fish larval abundance within the sanctuary during the 

winter and spring months during 1977–1988 was also driven 

by sand lance (Auster et al., 2006), where their long hatching period (Nov-May) and persistent larval stage maintains a 

dominant presence in the sanctuary area (Reay, 1970).

The diversity indices presented in the foregoing analyses 

are described as follows. Species richness is the simplest 

index and represents the total number of species from each 

sample. Margalef’s index incorporates both species richness 

and the number of individuals in a sample; it is a measure 

of the number of species per individual. The Shannon index 

is a measure of both species richness and the number of 

individuals of each species in a sample; it is most sensitive to changes in the number of rare species in a sample. 

The Simpson index is an estimate of the probability that any 

two individuals drawn from a sample are members of the 

same species; it is most sensitive to changes in number and 

abundance of dominant species in a sample. The other two 

indices are based on the relatedness of species through links 

of a classification tree (i.e. number of links between species 

in a sample based on connections at generic, family, class 

levels, etc.). Taxonomic diversity is based on the average 

number of links between two individuals chosen at random 

from the sample. Taxonomic distinctiveness is based on 

average distances of random pairs of individuals that are 

not the same species. Magurran (2004) and Clarke and 

Warwick (2001) provide overviews of the range of diverFigure 36. Geographic strata of similar bathymetric

profile used to compare diversity indices with the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

(Figure excerpted from Auster et al., 2006.)
76 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Figure 37a. Comparison of fish species diversity (species richness, Margalef’s and Shannon indices) between the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and other similar strata within the GoM. 

(Figure excerpted from Auster et al., 2006.)

sity indices available, their calculation and issues regarding 

interpretation.

Patterns

In general, the greater an area that is sampled the greater 

number of species that are found. An analysis of the rate at 

which fish species increase with increasing area sampled in 

the sanctuary showed that more complex habitats do not 

necessarily harbor greater species diversity overall. Different habitats (i.e., gravel, boulder reef, mud) were found to 

contain some similar and some unique species and that 

particular habitats, like boulder reefs, were not significantly more species diverse than others; however the highest 

slope for both species-area and species-individual curves 

was for mud habitat (Auster et al., 2006). These data were 

collected using an ROV and counts of fish and classification 

of habitats were accomplished using video observations of 

fish communities on the seafloor, much like divers counting 

fish on coral reefs, and allowed sampling within particular 

habitats.
IV. Resource States 77

Figure 37b. Comparison of fish species diversity (Simpson, taxonomic diversity and taxonomic distinctness indices) 

between the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and other similar strata within the GoM. 

(Figure excerpted from Auster et al., 2006.)

The patterns of species diversity identified for both the 

large and small scale studies cited above suggest that habitats within regions and the regions within the larger GoM 

LME contain part of the overall pool of species. That is, the 

number of species coexisting in local communities, such as 

in the sanctuary, must be a result of processes that function 

at both local and regional spatial scales. Any sites within 

the GoM should be expected to have some, but not all of 

the species represented within the LME and that a network 

of sites across the GoM would be needed to contain representative examples of diversity for the entire biogeographic 

province.

These findings support the role that can be attributed to 

the sanctuary as an important biodiversity “coldspot” 

(sensu Kareiva and Marvier, 2003) and as a priority area 

for networked marine ecosystem management in the GoM 

(Crawford and Smith, 2006). A study of marine invertebrate 

communities that occur on shallow rock walls from around 

the world has found similar patterns for epifaunal species 

(Witman et al., 2004), suggesting this is a common attri-
78 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

bute of species distributions in marine ecosystems. (See the 

Biogeographic Context section of this document for background discussion.)

Truncation of Size and Age Structure

The fact that large fish produce many more offspring than 

small fish is well established in the scientific literature (Figure 

38). This is largely because eggs are produced in proportion to a fish’s volume, which is proportional to the cube 

of its length, but also because larger fish devote a greater 

proportion of energy stores to egg production. It is now 

also evident that old fish produce healthier eggs and larvae 

than do young fish (Berkeley et al., 2004a; Marteinsdottir 

and Steinarsson, 1998; Wright and Gibb, 2005). The eggs 

of older fish are invariably of higher quality than the eggs of 

younger fish due to the greater amount of oil stored in the 

yolk sac at parturition (i.e., hatching). This produces larvae 

that grow faster and which are more resistant to starvation 

than larvae from younger females. A doubling of the growth 

rate of larval Atlantic cod for example, due to sufficient 

energy stores in the yolk sac, can produce a 5- to 10-fold 

increase in survival rate (Meekan and Fortier, 1996).

Many species of marine fish are long-lived, with the maximum age of species in a diverse range of families often 

exceeding 100 years (Cailliet et al., 2001). The association 

of longevity with variability in recruitment is also widespread 

among many fish species (Longhurst, 2002). The adaptive 

value of a long life span is that reproductive output is allocated across many years, a bet-hedging strategy that ensures 

some reproductive success despite potentially long periods 

of environmental conditions unfavorable for larval survival 

(e.g., Secor, 2000a). A growing body of evidence indicates 

that a broad age distribution can also reduce recruitment 

variability (Lambert 1990; Marteinsdottir and Thorarinsson 

1998; Secor, 2000b).

Berkeley et al. (2004) offer two mechanisms by which 

reproductive optimization due to broad age distribution 

can occur: (1) there may be age-related differences in the 

time and location of spawning, effectively spreading larval 

production over temporally and spatially variable environmental conditions (Hutchings and Myers, 1993; Lambert, 

1987), and (2) older fish may produce more fit eggs and 

larvae, which can survive under conditions inadequate 

for survival of progeny from younger fish (Hislop, 1988; 

Marteinsdottir and Steinarsson, 1998). Whereas older fish 

are likely to produce larvae of better condition, in larger 

numbers and in more frequent batches than younger fish, 

thereby ensuring population viability, fishing obliterates this 

benefit by selectively removing larger, older individuals.

These findings are important considerations for sanctuary 

management because it is becoming abundantly apparent 

that high numbers of larger, older fish are what ultimately sustain fish populations (Lambert, 1990; Leaman and 

Beamish, 1984; Marteinsdottir and Thorarinsson, 1998; 

Trippel et al., 1997). And larger fish, especially among 

keystone species such as Atlantic cod, are important agents 

in the structuring of biological communities through size 

mediated differences in food habits and rates of predation, 

as well as in competitive outcomes between species of the 

same or similar feeding guilds. Large fish are also the target 

of commercial and recreational fishing activities, which in 

light of current knowledge may be contrary to optimizing 

conservation benefit (Berkeley et al., 2004b; Birkeland and 

Dayton, 2005), depending on the management objective, 

e.g., maintenance of biological communities.

Big Old Fat Females

Research on a variety of fish species clearly indicates the 

great importance of experienced spawners (BOFFs or “big 

old fat females”) to the future of a fish population. Empirical studies indicate that Atlantic cod exhibit a BOFF effect. 

In a paper recently submitted for peer review (Palakovich 

and Kaufman), researchers examined the strength and significance of this effect to stock rebuilding using a dynamic 

model and the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary as the target area. 

Results of this modeling study indicated that first, second 

and third-time spawners were cod ages 1 to 9 years old and 

experienced (BOFF) spawners were ages 10 and 11. BOFF 

spawners contributed about ten times more offspring that 

survived their first year than did younger, less experienced 

spawners. Third-time spawners contributed the greatest 

proportion of recruits but still had much lower per capita 

reproductive output than BOFF year classes. The reproductive value of first and second-time spawners was negligible 

due to both low output and low larval survival.

Current fisheries management practice in New England, 

based upon the paradigm of optimum sustainable yield 

(OSY), favors a population dominated by young breeders. 

Palakovich and Kaufman (in review) conclude that failure 

to protect large, experienced female cod produces a yield 

that may be optimal in a conventional sense but may not 

be sustainable under historic high levels of exploitation. In 

addition, the truncation of the cod size distribution favored 

by current management eliminates large “old growth” cod 

as a functional component of the ecosystem, altering the 

Figure 38. Annual per capita egg production (in

millions of eggs) for cod (Gadus morhua) as a function

of age (and by implication size). 

Fecundity estimated from Bireta and Warwood (1982); mean 

lengths at age estimated from O’Brien (1999). (Figure excerpted from Palakovich and Kaufman, in preparation).
IV. Resource States 79

food web and possibly also 

other aspects of community 

structure. Palakovich and 

Kaufman (in review) conclude 

that if fishery management 

objectives are for cod populations to rebuild and for cod to 

once again become a major 

functional part of the ecosystem, then the BOFF effect 

should be incorporated into 

management models for fishing in the Stellwagen Bank 

area; most likely they should 

apply to the GoM as a whole 

for the sanctuary to appreciate 

major benefits.

Changes in Fish Maximum 

Length

Retrospective time series of 

mean body length of Atlantic 

cod from kelp forests in the 

coastal GoM declined from 

1.0 m 3550 yrs B.P. (before 

present) to 0.3 m at present time, indicating a 3-fold 

decrease in trend due to fishing (Jackson et al., 2001). This 

analysis was conducted on 

data derived from archaeological and historic sources. This 

trend has extended offshore 

to Georges Bank (Sherman, 

1991) and, as explained 

below, to the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary for cod and 

other species as well. In the 

1960s and 70s, the maximum 

length of cod in the sanctuary 

approximated what the mean 

length had been historically in 

the GoM.

A study was conducted in 

2003 that analyzed the 38 

years of NOAA Fisheries 

Service research trawl data 

that was available at the time 

(1963-2000) to assess changes 

in fish maximum length within 

the sanctuary over this period 

(Crawford and Cook, in preparation). The length of the 

largest individuals sampled each year (for example Figure 

39), and by separate analysis the length of the 90 percentile 

point, were regressed over time for each of the 15 species 

studied with comparable findings. Based on the regressions 

of the length of the largest individuals sampled, all of the 

species examined showed decreasing trends in maximum 

length over the 38-year period (Figure 40). For seven of 

these species (white hake, goosefish, winter flounder, silver 

hake, cod, yellowtail flounder, haddock), the decrease was 

significant. Estimated maximum length decreases for the 

seven species ranged from 15% to 49% for this period. 

The maximum length of white hake was reduced by nearly 

half (49%) and Atlantic cod was reduced by 27% over this 

Figure 39. Decrease in maximum length of white hake sampled in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary by NOAA Fisheries Service standardized trawl surveys over the period

1963–2000. 

(Figure excerpted from Crawford and Cooke, in preparation.)

Figure 40. Reduction in maximum length of 15 species of ecologically and

commercially important fish over a 38-year period (1963–2000) within the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary. 

All species showed decreases in maximum length; those signified by the blue bars were statistically significant. The number in parenthesis following fish name was the number of trawl samples 

analyzed for the respective fish species identified (Crawford and Cook, in preparation).
80 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

period, for example. The average decrease for all 15 species 

combined was 20%. While the study did not address the 

cause of the decrease in maximum length, the simplest 

explanation is the consequence of nearly four decades of 

heavy exploitation.

A subsequent analysis of the maximum length of fish caught 

in the sanctuary for a more recent time period (1990-2005) 

offers some cause for optimism for a subset of the species 

originally examined by Crawford and Cooke (i.e., Atlantic 

cod, haddock, white hake, American plaice, winter flounder, witch flounder, and yellowtail flounder). Since the onset 

of fishery management actions in the 1990s, the maximum 

length of some species, particularly cod and haddock, 

appears to be increasing (Figure 41). Other species (particularly the flatfishes) show signs of a reversing trend in maximum size but are still of concern. The data analyzed are 

from the NOAA Fisheries Service research trawl surveys 

conducted within the sanctuary and serve to update the 

results of the analysis by Crawford and Cooke presented 

above.

The finding of the great extent to which the size and (by 

implication) age structure of key commercial and ecologically important fish species has been truncated in the 

sanctuary compounds the likely population consequences 

of the BOFF effect, if it extends to these species as well. 

Related work with haddock suggests that it does (Wright 

and Gibb, 2005). The removal (i.e., absence) of large size 

classes among these key predatory species should also have 

a profound effect on the composition of their associated 

biological communities within the sanctuary due to ontogenetic diet shifts associated with predator morphology and/

or habitat. Size-based diets are a common pattern in the 

Northeast shelf fish community and diet shifts have important implications for trophic dynamics and both sanctuary 

and fisheries management (Garrison and Link, 2000). In the 

case of piscivores (such as cod), the range of available prey 

generally increases with predator size related to increases in 

predator gape width (size of mouth), swimming speed and 

visual acuity (reviewed in Juanes, 1994).

The truncation of old-growth age structure due to fishing 

can also have a profound effect on the genetic make-up 

and expression of traits within exploited fish populations. 

Selective fishing pressure on the larger (older) individuals of 

fishes over recent decades has caused the rapid evolution of 

decreased body size and fecundity of northern cod (Olsen et 

al., 2004). An evolutionary change more troublesome than 

the reduction in body size and fecundity is the reduction 

of genetic diversity within fish species due to the harvesting of old-growth age structure. Marine fish populations 

are vulnerable to the loss of genetic variability, potentially 

leading to reduced adaptability and population persistence 

when the older members of the fish population are removed 

(Hauser et al., 2002).

Management Implications

One of the principal objectives of the sanctuary is to protect 

and restore the ecological integrity of the sanctuary. In order 

to do this, the recent evidence discussed above suggests 

that old-growth age structure and large body-size classes 

be maintained in the population. As previously explained 

(Habitat Mediated Movement section this document), 35% 

of Atlantic cod tagged in the sanctuary demonstrated a high 

degree of site fidelity and a meta-analysis of 100 years of 

cod tagging studies across the North Atlantic showed a high 

rate (32%) of sedentary behavior for the species. These findings suggest that management directed at the sanctuary area 

alone (as opposed to the entire GoM) may be effective in 

meeting the sanctuary’s objectives. 

Figure 41. Change in maximum length of a subset of fish species sampled in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during

1990–2005.
IV. Resource States 81

Old-growth age structure in long-lived fish (such as cod) can 

be maintained by three approaches (Berkeley et al., 2004b): 

(1) lowering catch rates substantially, which can be economically infeasible; (2) implementing slot limits (release of both 

small and large individuals), which may be impractical due 

to capture mortality (e.g., via swimbladder expansion); and 

(3) implementing marine protected areas (MPAs) to ensure 

that at least part of the stock can reach old age and large 

size. The obvious conclusion is the need to minimize what 

has conventionally been seen as an expected and harmless 

side-effect of fishing to maximize density-dependent surplus 

production: age and size truncation (the loss of older age 

classes and large size classes) (Francis et al, 2007).

As indicated below under regulatory provisions, NOAA 

Fisheries Service has instituted regulations that are working to lower catch rates in the GoM region and established 

the WGoMCA in 1998 (although only overlapping 22% of 

the sanctuary area), hence implementing two of the three 

approaches identified that could help restore and maintain 

old-growth size and age structure of fishes in the GoM. The 

data series used to examine old-growth size structure in the 

sanctuary will continue to be extended to include the most 

recent data years available for all 15 species and analyzed 

to evaluate whether and to what degree these management 

actions are effective at restoring the old-growth size (and 

hence age) structure of these ecologically important fish 

species within the sanctuary.

Pressures

Commercial fishing with mobile gear, such as trawls and 

scallop dredges, together with fixed gear, such as bottomtending gill nets and lobster pots, occurs extensively throughout the sanctuary. Commercial fishermen take species from 

four principal categories: groundfish, pelagics, other finfish 

and invertebrates. On average, 327 commercial fishing 

vessels per year fished in the sanctuary during 1996-2005 

(see Commercial Fishing section of this document for 

details). Stressors resulting from commercial fishing include 

alteration of habitat and biological communities, removal 

of biomass, disturbance of feeding whales, entanglement of 

marine mammals, discharges of pollutants and destruction 

of historic resources. Other stressors, i.e., water quality, 

HABs, invasive species, are addressed in previous sections 

of this document.

The sanctuary is also a popular destination for recreational 

fishing boats. Recreational fishing by party, charter and 

private boats in the sanctuary targets primarily groundfish 

but also pelagic species such as tuna, shark and bluefish. 

On average, 69 party and charter boats per year fished in 

the sanctuary during 1996-2005 (see Recreational Fishing 

section of this document). Party boat and charter boat recreational fishing occurs over much of the sanctuary; however, 

the precise amount of private recreational use of the sanctuary has not been quantified. The recreational fishing fleet 

is estimated to take 25% of the Atlantic cod in the GoM 

(NEFMC, 2003). Stressors resulting from recreational fishing activities include targeted removal of large fish, fishing 

at times and places associated with spawning aggregations, 

discard mortality, disturbance of feeding whales, vessel 

strikes to whales, discharge of pollutants and destruction of 

historic resources.

Current Protection

Regulatory Provisions

Fishery resources in the Northeast, including in the sanctuary, are regulated by NOAA Fisheries Service with input from 

the NEFMC, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(MAFMC) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASFMC). Some restrictions on fishing that affect the 

sanctuary have been put in place, including limited access 

programs and effort controls, rolling closures for groundfishing, catch and minimum size limits for individual species, 

and a large, permanent year-round habitat closure in the 

WGoMCA. See Sidebar for related considerations.

The latest approved Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the NEFMC and the MAFMC is currently implemented by Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies 

FMP (2004) (50 CFR Part 648). Other plans exist for the 

following species: Atlantic salmon; Atlantic sea scallop; 

American lobster (50 CFR Part 697); northeast multispecies and monkfish; mackerel, squid and butterfish; surfclam 

and ocean quahog; summer flounder; scup; black sea bass; 

Atlantic bluefish; Atlantic herring; spiny dogfish; Atlantic 

deep-sea red crab; tilefish; and the skate complex.

The Northeast Multispecies FMP establishes the following:

•	Reduction in the number of Days at Sea

•	Minimum size regulations for several major commercial

and recreational species including but not limited to: 

monkfish, Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, witch flounder, 

yellowtail flounder, American plaice and winter flounder

•	Closures of spawning areas over Georges Bank, southern

New England and the GoM

•	New habitat closed areas over Georges Bank, southern

New England and the GoM

•	Increase in the mesh size of mobile trawl gear and gillnets

•	Fish excluder devices and modified gear (raised footrope)

for small mesh exempted fisheries

•	Limits to hook size and number for hook gear

•	Marking requirements for gillnet gear

In addition, federal lobster regulations (50 CFR Part 697) 

limit trap sizes and the number of traps allowed.

Under Amendment 13, the NEFMC and the MAFMC have 

also developed an updated FMP for Atlantic herring in coordination with the ASMFC; they also have developed a fishery management plan for the Arctic surf (or Stimpson) clam, 

for which commercial exploitation has been initiated in the 

Stellwagen Bank area (Amendment 13, 50 CFR part 648).

The northern shrimp FMP was developed by the ASFMC. 

The ASFMC is additionally responsible for striped bass and 

bluefish fisheries; the plan for the latter species is devel-
82 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

oped in cooperation with the MAFMC. The MAFMC is also 

charged with sole responsibility for management plans on 

summer flounder, butterfish, short and long-finned squid, 

surf clam, ocean quahog and mackerel.

Fishing for commercial bluefin tuna is regulated under the 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic 

Tuna (ICCAT), as implemented via the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975. Quotas for bluefin tuna are determined 

by ICCAT. NOAA Fisheries Service allocates this quota by 

categories assigned to the four gear types employed in the 

fishery: hand-line, rod and reel, harpoon and purse seine 

net. The species is also caught incidentally by pelagic 

longline vessels.

Fishing for Atlantic striped bass in the sanctuary is prohibited 

by the general provisions set forth in 50 CFR 697.7(b). This 

section states that it is unlawful for any person to do any of 

the following: (1) fish for striped bass in the US EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone], (2) harvest any striped bass from the 

EEZ, (3) possess any striped bass in or from the EEZ (noted 

exceptions in areas of New York and Rhode Island), and (4) 

retain any striped bass taken in or from the EEZ. Boundaries of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary fall entirely within 

the EEZ, hence this regulation applies to the sanctuary.

Seabirds

Status

Seabirds are defined as birds that spend a large proportion 

of their lives at sea, feeding either entirely or predominantly on marine organisms, and coming ashore for relatively 

short periods for resting or breeding (Schreiber and Burger, 

2001). Most seabirds are assigned to one of three orders: 

the Procellariiformes (e.g., shearwaters, fulmars, petrels and 

albatrosses), the Pelecaniformes (e.g., gannets, pelicans, 

boobies and cormorants) or the Charadriiformes (e.g., gulls, 

terns, auks). Seabirds are usually numerically abundant, 

long lived (15-70 years) and feed at a variety of TLs (i.e., 

predators and scavengers). As such, seabirds can be very 

responsive to changes in their environment.

The broad-ranging movements and longevity of seabirds 

mean that they track environmental changes at spatial 

and temporal scales that are otherwise difficult to monitor 

Related Considerations

Fishing is not currently subject to regulation by the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary pursuant to the sanctuary 

Designation Document (Appendix B). In 1993 when 

the sanctuary was established, NOAA/NOS concluded 

that adequate legal mechanisms existed under the 

MFCMA to provide appropriate management of 

fisheries and that no supplementary fishing regulations 

under the NMSA were necessary (USDOC, 1993). 

In the 15 years since sanctuary designation conditions 

have changed. As of the 4th quarter of 2007, twenty 

one stocks require rebuilding within the New England 

fisheries, the highest number among the nation’s 

fishery management councils; eighteen stocks are 

overfished and overfishing is occurring in eight 

stocks (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/

StatusoFisheries/2007/FourthQuarter/TablesA_B.

pdf). Associated context is provided in Rosenberg et 

al., (2006). Moreover, the condition of resource states 

in the sanctuary is now more fully characterized and is 

much better understood than in 1993, when the first 

management plan for the sanctuary was published by 

NOAA.

Importantly, for those stocks currently experiencing 

overfishing, the MFCMA calls for all overfishing to 

be eliminated by 2010. In terms of an ecosystem 

approach to management, NOAA must also consider 

the significant collateral effects of fishing on sanctuary 

resources that must be accounted for under the 

comprehensive resource protection objectives of the 

NMSA. These include biodiversity loss at the genetic, 

species and community levels; food web changes and 

shifts in community composition that occur through 

depletion of forage species and top level predators; the 

truncation of population size and age structures; and, 

degradation and loss of the sanctuary’s biogenic habitats 

and living landscapes.

The congressionally mandated periodic review of 

sanctuary management plans allows national marine 

sanctuaries to adjust to better protect sanctuary 

resources. NOAA has determined that renewed 

consideration should be given to reduction of ecological 

impacts from fishing activities and mobile fishing 

gear in the sanctuary as described in the Ecosystem 

Alteration Action Plan in this document, for example. 

An explanation of the regulatory coordination tools 

available through the NMSA on fishery management 

issues in national marine sanctuaries is provided in 

Appendix H. 
IV. Resource States 83

(Diamond and Devlin, 2003; Huettmann and Diamond, 

2006). For example, seabird species are useful bioindicators by providing valuable information to define pelagic 

habitat types (Springer et al., 1996) and assess ecosystem health (Furness and Greenwood, 1993). Changes in 

seabird distribution and abundance, as well as breeding 

success, growth rates, survival and diet composition, have 

been closely linked to regional climate variability (e.g., 

North Atlantic oscillations and El Niño/La Niña events) 

and global climate change (Aebischer et al., 1990; Brown, 

1991; Monaghan, 1992; Montevecchi and Myers, 1997; 

Schreiber and Schreiber, 1989;) and changes in prey abundance (Cairns, 1987; Diamond and Devlin, 2003; Hamer 

et al., 1991; Garthe et al., 1996). Seabirds also have the 

potential to function as indicators of pollutants, particularly 

since they rapidly bio-accumulate chemicals that are lipidsoluble such as organo-chlorines (e.g., DDT, PCBs) and 

organo-metals (e.g., methyl mercury) (Chapdelaine et al., 

1987; Furness and Camphuysen, 1997).

The GoM is locally and internationally recognized as an 

important area for seabirds, with seabird densities that are 

considerably higher than adjacent oceanic waters (Powers et 

al., 1980; Powers, 1983; Powers and Brown, 1987; Platt et 

al., 1995). The shallow banks and shelves, including Brown’s 

Bank, Georges Bank, Stellwagen Bank, Cashes Ledge, Cape 

Cod and the Grand Manan region, have long been known 

to support large numbers of seabirds (Powers, 1983; Powers 

and Brown, 1987; Huettmann and Diamond, 2006). In its 

capacity as the U.S. partner of BirdLife International, the 

Massachusetts Audubon Society (Mass Audubon) has designated Stellwagen Bank an Important Bird Area (IBA). An 

IBA is a site that provides essential habitat to one or more 

species of breeding, wintering or migrating birds, and which 

supports high-priority species, large concentrations of birds, 

exceptional bird habitat, and/or has substantial research or 

educational value.

Species Frequenting the GoM

Many of the seabirds observed in the GoM are seasonal 

migrants that have traveled vast distances from remote 

islands in the south Atlantic where they nest (Brown, 1973). 

For example, Wilson’s storm-petrel migrates to the GoM 

during summer from breeding sites in sub-Antarctic islands. 

Sooty shearwaters and greater shearwaters are also summer 

migrants to the GoM from breeding sites on several remote 

south Atlantic islands (Tristan da Cunha and Gough Island) 

and sub-Antarctic islands (Huettmann, 2000). Other birds, 

including some arctic terns and red phalaropes connect the 

GoM with southern and western Africa (Brown, 1979).

Black-legged kittiwakes and great cormorants are winter 

migrants, typically migrating from more northerly regions 

along with some auks, especially razorbills. Other seabirds 

migrate shorter distances (e.g., from Canada) to specific sites 

within the GoM that are considered to be important moulting grounds for immature birds (Huettmann and Diamond, 

2000; Huettmann et al., in press). Non-resident seabirds 

visiting the GoM typically exhibit a spring and fall arrival 

and departure pattern (Powers and Brown, 1987). Atlantic puffins from Maine and Canada are frequently observed 

feeding in the sanctuary during winter months. The majority 

of shearwater species in the region are migrants and breed 

outside the study area (Brown, 1988, 1990).

Seabirds that have established breeding colonies in the 

GoM region include Atlantic puffin, black guillemot, 

common murre, Leach’s storm-petrel, razorbill, common 

eider and several species of cormorant, gull and tern. In 

fact, the islands of Maine provide the only breeding sites in 

the United States for Atlantic puffin and razorbill (one of the 

rarest breeding auks in North America) and provide some of 

the southernmost breeding sites for Leach’s storm-petrel and 

common eider. These breeding sites prompted the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (GoM coastal program) to recognize 

approximately 300 “nationally significant” seabird nesting 

islands in the GoM.

Relationships with the Environment

Many seabirds have distinct utilization patterns associated 

with specific ocean currents and water masses, and the 

boundaries between those features, as well as finer-scale 

oceanographic and bathymetric features that affect prey 

dispersion and availability (Balance et al., 2001; Daunt et 

al., 2003; Schneider, 1990b, 1997). In most regions, oceanographic (e.g., sea surface temperature and chlorophyll 

concentrations) and bathymetric variables show a strong 

across-shelf spatial gradient that is associated with patterns 

of seabird distribution and prey abundance.

Seabird preference for shallow continental shelf waters 

versus deeper oceanic waters, proximity to shore, or to 

some distinct bathymetric feature (e.g., continental shelf 

edge) have been found to explain broad-scale patterns in 

abundance for a wide range of seabird species (Schneider, 

1997; Wynne-Edwards, 1935; Yen et al., 2004a,b). For 

example, Yen et al. (2004a,b) found that seabirds target 

regions of complex and steep topographies where oceanographic conditions lead to elevated productivity (fronts and 

upwelling zones) and increased prey retention.

The razorbills, murres and puffins (Alcidae), terns and some 

gulls (Laridae), fulmars, shearwaters and storm-petrels 

(Procellariiformes), gannets (Sulidae) and cormorants (Phalacrocoraciidae) are key components of the offshore ecosystem, where they form an important group of predators of 

small fish, squid and planktonic crustaceans. The primary 

prey items for most of these seabird species are small fish 

including Atlantic herring, sand lance, hake and mackerel, 

although they will also feed on cephalopods, crustaceans, 

annelids and some plant material (Powers et al., 1980; Hall 

et al., 2000; Diamond and Devlin, 2003).

Stomach content analysis of 156 individuals of nine seabird 

species (five species of Procellariiformes and four gulls, Laridae) collected at sea from the northeastern continental shelf 

showed that all species fed on fish, with sand lance being 

an important prey item for most marine birds throughout 

the year (Powers et al., 1980). Squid were also a major 

prey item for many species, particularly greater shearwaters, 
84 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

while euphausiids (pelagic crustaceans) were an important 

component of the diet of Wilson’s storm-petrel.

Seabird Utilization of the Sanctuary

An estimated 60 species of seabird were recorded within 

the GoM, based on sightings from the Manomet Bird Observatory (MBO) surveys (1980-1988). More than half of these, 

32 species, were identified for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary (34 species were identified in a separate standardized 

survey of the sanctuary as presented below). The seabird 

species utilizing the sanctuary are listed by common and 

scientific name in Appendix J. Species rank based on 

frequency of occurrence was very similar between the 

sanctuary and the broader GoM, with the exception of gulls 

which, respectively, were more frequently and shearwaters, 

less frequently sighted within the sanctuary. In addition, 

there were five separate sightings of the federally endangered roseate tern in the GoM, one of which was recorded 

within the sanctuary. Since the surveys, MBO was renamed 

the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.

Predictive Modeling

The NOAA National Center for Coastal and Ocean Science 

(NCCOS) integrated the MBO seabird survey database 

covering the U.S. portion of the GoM with the PIROP (Integre des Recherches sur les Oiseaux Pelagiques) seabird 

survey database covering the Canadian portion of the GoM 

for predictive modeling purposes (Pittman and Huettmann, 

2006). The combined database provides large sample sizes 

and exceptional spatial and temporal resolution for the GoM 

region and the northeastern U.S. continental shelf. This 

database was used to model and predict temporal patterns 

of seabird distribution and total abundance across a very 

broad spatial scale.

Monthly total abundance data for eight focal seabird species, 

corrected for effort, were compared to examine temporal 

patterns of abundance (Pittman and Huettmann, 2006). For 

this analysis, the GoM region was divided into 5 x 5 minute 

cells. Although the model presented a simplified estimate 

of monthly changes in seabird abundance, the temporal 

patterns of presence and absence for the GoM were clearly 

shown. This was true at the scale of the sanctuary area when 

seasonal summer-winter comparisons were made.

The sanctuary area supported all eight focal species in 

either one or both seasons. The sanctuary supported a higher number of species during winter months than summer 

months. In winter months, the maximum mean number of 

focal species (per cell) using the sanctuary was eight. Highest seabird diversity was recorded over the northern tip of 

Stellwagen Bank and southern Tillies Basin. In summer 

months, the maximum mean number of focal species (per 

cell) using the sanctuary was four, with highest mean number 

of species occurring over the central Stellwagen Bank area 

and Tillies Basin. Non-breeding summer migrants (greater 

shearwater and Wilson’s storm-petrel) were particularly 

prevalent within sanctuary waters.

Table 6. Sightings totaling 5,825 seabirds of 34 species

in nine families recorded in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary during July 1994–August 1995.

Family Common Name Count

Laridae

Great Black-Backed Gull 1,516

Herring Gull 1,431

Black Legged-Kittiwake 276

Common Tern 48

Ring-Billed Gull 11

Pomarine Jaeger 5

Least Tern 4

Laughing Gull 3

Parasitic Jaeger 2

Unidentified Gull 1

Unidentified Jaeger 1

Total 3,298

Hydrobatidae

Wilson’s Storm-Petrel 1,100

Leach’s Storm-Petrel 4

Total 1,104

Sulidae Northern Gannet 510

Total 510

Alcidae

Razorbill 219

Unidentified Large Alcid 30

Dovekie 14

Atlantic Puffin 5

Common Murre 5

Black Guillemot 4

Thick-Billed Murre 1

Total 278

Anatidae

Common Eider 206

White-Winged Scoter 37

Black Scoter 12

Surf Scoter 6

Oldsquaw 2

Total 263

Procellariidae

Greater Shearwater 176

Sooty Shearwater 64

Cory’s Shearwater 6

Manx Shearwater 5

Northern Fulmar 5

Total 256

Phalacrocacidae

Double-Crested Cormorant 54

Great Cormorant 27

Total 81

Gaviidae

Common Loon 21

Red Throated Loon 1

Total 22

Scolopacidae

Unidentified Phalarope 12

Red-Necked Phalarope 1

Total 13

Total 5,825
IV. Resource States 85

Highest numbers were seen in vicinity of the northern and 

southern portions of Stellwagen Bank. Great black-backed 

gulls and herring gulls were most frequently seen.

The family Hydrobatidae (storm-petrels) was present only 

during spring (especially) and summer. Storm-petrels were 

sighted widely over Stellwagen Bank and area in spring, 

with highest numbers in both the northern and southern 

portions; but sightings in summer were entirely in the southern portion of the bank, especially the southwest corner and 

adjacent area.

The family Sulidae (gannets and boobies) was most numerous during fall (especially) and spring, although present in 

Figure 42. Relative seasonal abundance of seabirds

within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary for the calendar

year July 1994–June 1995. 

Data are individual sightings of species from the standardized 

survey grouped by family.

Patterns of prevalence indicated that auks used the sanctuary more in winter than summer. Highest auk prevalence 

was recorded in winter at the southern end of the Stellwagen Bank and northern tip of Cape Cod. Highest prevalence for auks in winter over the southern tip of Stellwagen 

Basin was also predicted in the model. Similar seasonal use 

patterns were found for razorbill, with absence in summer 

and intermediate level prevalence in the southern part of 

the sanctuary in winter. Greater shearwaters were more 

prevalent than auks in both winter and summer seasons, 

with sightings recorded from most cells within the sanctuary 

area. Tillies Basin supported highest prevalence of greater 

shearwaters, particularly in the summer months.

Northern gannets were widespread throughout the sanctuary in winter with highest prevalence in the south and 

central portions of the sanctuary. Northern gannets were 

also recorded in summer, although they were both less 

widespread and less prevalent than in winter. Wilson’s 

storm-petrels were also distributed throughout the sanctuary in summer with highest prevalence over shallow waters 

on central Stellwagen Bank and over deeper waters of Tillies 

Basin. Wilson’s storm-petrels were not recorded within the 

sanctuary during winter months.

Standardized Survey

During July 1994–August 1995, a 14-month long study was 

undertaken by the sanctuary to quantify and map patterns of 

human and wildlife use of the sanctuary, including seabirds 

(D. Wiley and S. Highley, unpublished data). Each month 

data were collected along 10 standardized shipboard survey 

tracklines (strip transects of 400 m width) that crossed the 

sanctuary at 5 km (2.5 nm) intervals providing complete 

coverage of the southern two-thirds of the sanctuary that 

were surveyed. The 1994–1995 survey was repeated in 

2001–2002 with area coverage at this later date including 

the entire sanctuary but excluded seabirds. (Refer to Wiley 

et al., 2003 for details of the methodologies used.)

The distribution of data grouped by seabird family was 

analyzed to portray the grid density and spatial intensity of 

seabird use of the sanctuary. Data were binned into 5 x 5 

minute grid cells for analysis, as done for the GoM region 

model discussed above. The analysis of the standardized 

survey data was done by NCCOS on behalf of the sanctuary during preparation for their larger scale GoM modeling. 

These results do not appear in their published work (Pittman 

and Huettmann, 2006).

Sightings totaling 5,825 seabirds of 34 species in nine 

families were recorded within the sanctuary during July 

1994–August 1995 (Table 6). Their relative seasonal abundance grouped by family is summarized in Figure 42 for the 

calendar year July 1994–June 1995. This figure should be 

referred to in the subsequent descriptions of seasonality. The 

spatial distribution and density over all seasons for selected 

families is presented in a series of grid plots of the sanctuary 

that accompany the following family accounts (Figure 43).

The family Laridae (gulls, terns and jaegers) was numerically 

dominant over the year, being less abundant in the spring. 
86 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Figure 43. Part 1. Spatial distribution and density of seabirds in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Data are individual sightings of species from the standardized survey for the period July 1994 – August 1995 grouped by family and 

aggregated over all seasons. Families included in the figure are: Laridae (gulls, terns and jaegers), Sulidae (gannets and boobies), 

Hydrobatidae (storm-petrels), Alcidae (auks, murres and puffins), Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans), and Procellaridae (shearwaters 

and fulmars). Data were analyzed by ArcView’s ArcMap program.
IV. Resource States 87

Figure 43. Part 2. Spatial distribution and density of seabirds in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Data are individual sightings of species from the standardized survey for the period July 1994–August 1995 grouped by family and 

aggregated over all seasons. Families included in the figure are: Laridae (gulls, terns and jaegers), Sulidae (gannets and boobies), 

Hydrobatidae (storm-petrels), Alcidae (auks, murres and puffins), Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans), and Procellaridae (shearwaters 

and fulmars). Data were analyzed by ArcView’s ArcMap program.
88 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

lower numbers over other seasons. Highest numbers were 

seen widely over and around Stellwagen Bank and Basin.

The family Alcidae (auks, murres and puffins) was present 

only during fall and especially winter. Numbers were seen 

widely over Stellwagen Bank and area in both seasons, but 

areas of greater concentration occurred in both the northern 

(especially) and southern portions of the bank in winter.

The family Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans) was principally sighted during summer, fall (especially) and winter. 

Highest numbers were seen over Stellwagen Basin and the 

western margin of the bank.

Sightings of species in the remaining four families were 

relatively rare during this particular 12-month period. The 

Procellariidae (shearwaters and fulmars) were sighted in 

spring, summer (notably) and fall; they were not sighted in 

the winter. This family is customarily well-represented in 

the sanctuary, which is the case when the entire 14-month 

sampling period is considered (Table 6) rather than just the 

12 months chosen for the seasonal analysis. This variability 

in sightings is discussed below.

The family Phalacrocacidae (cormorants and shags) was 

sighted mostly during fall and especially spring; they were 

not sighted in the winter. The Gaviidae (loons and divers) 

were sighted in spring, summer and especially fall; they 

were not seen in winter. The Scolopacidae (sandpipers and 

phalaropes) were sighted only in summer.

Sources of Variability

Variability in seabird sightings occurs seasonally and interannually within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. Comparison 

of the predictive modeling results over 1980-1988 (9-year 

period) at the scale of the GoM with the standardized survey 

sightings over 1994–1995 (1-year period) at the scale of the 

sanctuary demonstrates general agreement in seasonal presence or absence by species for some major groups. For 

example both analyses indicate that razorbills (auks) use the 

sanctuary more in winter and storm-petrels in summer.

However, the predictive modeling indicates that northern 

gannets are widespread in the sanctuary in winter, especially, and summer, whereas the standardized survey sightings made over a shorter time frame indicate that the family 

Sullidae (gannets and boobies) was most prevalent in fall 

especially and spring. Anecdotal observations from the 

sanctuary tend to support the fall-spring pattern as well. As 

noted above, seabirds are far ranging and environmentally 

facile; oceanographic climate and late or early seasonal 

turnover of sanctuary waters and associated productivity 

changes have the potential to influence seabird abundance 

patterns within relatively short time frames at the geographic 

scale of the sanctuary.

Standardized survey sightings in the sanctuary demonstrate 

that the relative abundance of seabird species can vary as 

much within the same month (August) between subsequent 

years (1994 and 1995) as between different months (August 

and February) in the same year (1995) (Figure 41). Great 

black-backed gulls accounted for the majority (60.1%) of 

the seabirds recorded in August 1994, while Wilson’s stormpetrels made up the majority (76.7%) of the seabird sightings in August 1995. Likewise, while Wilson’ storm-petrels 

made up 76.7% of the sightings in August (summer) 1995, 

Figure 44. Demonstrated high seasonal and inter-annual variability in the relative abundance

of seabird species frequenting the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary based on standardized survey sightings data

for the period July 1994–August 1995.
IV. Resource States 89

razorbills made up 50.7% of the seabirds recorded in February (winter) that same year.

The combined use of predictive modeling and standardized 

surveys allows for the start of a comprehensive assessment 

and understanding of the seabird communities in the sanctuary. Results to-date indicate that while it is certain that a 

characteristic set of seabird species routinely use the sanctuary, and while there are demonstrated spatial patterns of 

seasonal use among the major groups, relative abundance 

among these species varies greatly and seasonal and interannual variability is high.

Pressures

Historically, the main threats to seabirds have been coastal 

development, predation by humans and other animals, 

removal of prey through fisheries activity and pollution of 

the marine environment. Drury (1973, 1974) describes the 

extensive harvesting of seabirds for food and feather in New 

England that resulted in extirpation of many seabird species 

even from remote outer islands by the turn of the 20th centuThe Great Auk

For 17th century European sailors to New England, the great auk (Figure 45) was a common and welcomed sight, 

indicating proximity to land. But by the middle of the 19th century the species had disappeared completely and 

forever (Eckert, 1963). While this once plentiful sea bird cannot return to life, the sad story of its extinction lives 

on as a stark reminder that humans do and have had a significant and sometimes permanent impact on the marine 

ecosystem of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

The only flightless species of North Atlantic bird, the great auk was a noble animal of great speed and strength in the 

water. The largest of the alcids, the great auk was bigger than a goose in size and penguin-like in appearance. They 

were in fact the first birds to be called “penguins” (scientific name: Pinguinus impennis), but their name was changed 

to great auk after scientists determined that they were not related to the birds of similar appearance in southern 

latitudes. One of their closest living relatives today is the razorbill which winters in large numbers in the sanctuary.

The great auk was a powerful and graceful swimmer, capable of diving to great depths in search of food. It made an 

annual migration in vast rafts of individuals swimming along the surface of the sea from summer breeding locations 

on or near Labrador, Newfoundland and points north and east, to winter feeding 

grounds on Stellwagen Bank, Georges Bank, and along the New England and 

Mid-Atlantic states. The birds spent most of their lives in the water—visiting land 

only to lay one egg per pair each year in massive breeding colonies.

But these terrestrial sojourns proved fatal for the great auk. Heavy bodies, small 

wings and flightlessness, the very qualities that adapted the great auks so well to 

their aquatic environment, coupled with the birds’ tendency to group together 

in large numbers, made the animals easy prey for human visitors to the nesting 

colonies. First hunted for use as fish bait and food (fresh meat and eggs and 

salted meat for long voyages), the great auk later became economically popular 

for its oil and its feathers for fashion and for mattresses. The final chapter of 

its existence was closed by collectors searching for specimens for public and 

private museums, but the species was doomed by the time of the inauguration of 

President George Washington.

For generations, sailors and fishermen decimated the flocks, thinking that there 

would always be more. Even in the waning hours of the great auk’s existence, 

scientists claimed there had to be additional stocks in the more northerly areas. 

We know now that they were very wrong. The naming of the sanctuary’s research 

vessel in honor of this icon to local extinction is a constant reminder that the 

public must be ever-vigilant in protecting the resources of the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary.

Figure 45. Illustration of

the great auk. 

Adapted from painting by John 

J. Audubon titled “Pinguinus 

impennis—Great Auk.”

ry. Great auks (Pinguinus impennis) were once frequently 

sighted in the GoM where some populations over-wintered, 

but were hunted to extinction by 1844. Great auk bones 

have been found in Massachusetts (Martha’s Vineyard, East 

Wareham, Marblehead, Eagle Hill and Plum Island) and at 

least ten islands along the Maine coast (Burness and Montevecchi, 1992). Refer to the Sidebar for more information 

about the great auk.

Interactions between fisheries and seabirds have been well 

documented in many regions worldwide, with both increases and declines of seabird populations linked to patterns 

of fishing activity (Tasker et al., 2000; Tasker and Furness, 

2003; Votier et al., 2004). Intense fishing activity can 

impact seabird populations through reduction of prey abundance and perturbation of prey population and community 

structure (Pauly et al., 1998; Tasker et al., 2000). Food web 

changes related to heavy fishing over many years have been 

found to adversely affect seabirds in the GoM (Lotze and 

Milewski, 2004). In addition, mortality related to entanglement with fishing gear has been reported.
90 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Based on NOAA Fisheries Service fishery observer data for 

1994–2003, entanglement currently is not considered a 

major source of seabird mortality in the GoM or the sanctuary (Soczek, 2006). While occurring at a low rate, this study 

found that 88.6% of the overall observed seabird bycatch 

in the New England area was in the gillnet fishery, and 

shearwaters, particularly the greater shearwater, comprised 

78.6% of all identified seabirds. This species is not currently 

classified as globally endangered or threatened (BirdLife 

International, 2004), but the potential for declines in the 

population have prompted its inclusion in the “Moderately 

Abundant Species with Declines or High Threats” category 

of the American Bird Conservancy’s Green List (American 

Bird Conservancy, 2004) and in the “High Concern” category in the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan 

(Kushlan et al., 2002).

Possibly the greatest threat for many seabirds (particularly 

terns and auks) in the GoM is from other seabirds, primarily 

gulls (Drury, 1965). Increases in fishery discards (offal and 

bycatch) and the spread of open landfills during the mid1900s led to increased herring gull and great black-backed 

gull populations. This in turn led to greater pressure on 

other seabirds, particularly terns, through competition for 

prime nesting sites and increased predation by gulls on their 

eggs and chicks (Anderson and Devlin, 1999; Drury, 1965; 

Platt et al., 1995).

Industrial contaminants are also a potential threat to seabird 

populations (Burger and Gochfeld, 2002). Elevated PCBs 

have been found in roseate tern chicks at Bird Island 

(Massachusetts) (Nisbet, 1981) and a wide range of metals 

has been found in common terns at breeding colonies in 

Massachusetts (Bureger et al, 1994). The impact of pollutants on seabirds, including sub-lethal effects, has not been 

adequately assessed for the GoM.

Analyses of changes in seabird populations in the Bay of 

Fundy (northern GoM) since European colonization have 

shown that approximately 50% of marine and coastal bird 

species have been severely affected by human activity with 

several species extirpated and major colonies abandoned 

(Lotze and Milewski, 2004). With the exception of the great 

auk, re-colonization of abandoned breeding colonies has 

taken place for most species, albeit relatively slowly with 

estimated recolonization time considered to take as long as 

45 years for the common murre and 133 years for the northern gannet (Lotze and Milewski, 2002).

Current Protection

Sanctuary regulations (15 C.F.R § Subpart N) prohibit the 

taking of any seabird in or above the sanctuary, except as 

permitted by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 

(MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. or possessing within the sanctuary (regardless of where taken, moved or removed from), 

except as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes, 

any seabird taken in violation of the MBTA.

In addition where applicable, the MBTA, which implements 

conventions with Great Britain, Mexico, Russia and Japan, 

makes it unlawful except as permitted by regulations “to 

pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill... any migratory bird, any 

part, nest or egg” or any product of any such bird protected 

by the Convention (16 U.S.C 703).

Sea Turtles

Status

General Knowledge

Sea turtles are long-lived species that mature late in life 

and move great distances during their lifetimes, migrating 

hundreds or even thousands of kilometers between foraging 

and nesting grounds. They spend their lives at sea but return 

to land to reproduce.

Sea turtles are generally solitary creatures that remain 

submerged for much of the time they are at sea, which 

makes them extremely difficult to study. They rarely interact 

with one another outside of courtship and mating. Adult 

females nest in multiyear cycles, usually 2–4 years. They 

come ashore several times to lay hundreds of eggs during a 

nesting season in tropical waters. After about 50 to 60 days 

of incubation, the hatchlings emerge and head for the open 

ocean to begin life as pelagic drifters. This period is often 

referred to as the “lost years.” In most cases, it is not known 

where the hatchlings go or how long this period lasts. While 

maturing over the course of several decades, sea turtles 

move in and out of a variety of ocean and coastal habitats. 

This open ocean existence often frustrates efforts to study 

and conserve them. Juvenile survival to adulthood is low.

Sea turtles serve important functions in the ecosystems in 

which they are found. For example, seagrass beds where 

green turtles graze regularly are more productive, nutrients 

are cycled more rapidly and the grass blades have higher 

protein content, thus benefiting other species. Some populations of sea turtles, whose feeding areas may be hundreds 

or even thousands of kilometers from their nesting beaches, 

serve an important role in nutrient cycling by transporting 

massive quantities of nutrients from the nutrient-rich feeding 

grounds (in colder waters of the North Atlantic) to typically 

more nutrient-poor coastal and inshore habitats in the vicin-
IV. Resource States 91

ity of the nesting beaches (in tropical 

waters).

Occurrence in the Sanctuary

Seven species of sea turtles occur 

worldwide, four of which have been 

recorded in GoM: Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, loggerhead and green. Only 

the leatherback and Kemp’s ridley are 

seen with any regularity in the GoM. 

Leatherbacks and loggerheads have been the species most 

commonly reported in the sanctuary. Two families of sea 

turtles are represented in the sanctuary: the Dermochelyidae 

is represented solely by the unique Dermochelys coriacea

(leatherback), which lacks the hard shell that characterizes 

the other sea turtles that make-up the family Cheloniidae. 

Three of the species recorded in the GoM are listed as 

endangered, and the fourth as threatened, under the ESA 

(Table 7).

Leatherback turtles have been sighted in the vicinity of the 

sanctuary in the spring and summer, and strandings have 

occurred in Cape Cod Bay spring, summer and fall. The 

predicted seasonality of leatherbacks is in the summer only. 

Loggerhead turtles have been sighted around the sanctuary 

in summer and strandings in Cape Cod Bay have occurred 

year-round. The predicted seasonality of loggerheads 

around the sanctuary is in the summer only. There have 

been no sightings of Kemp’s ridley turtles around the sanctuary, though they have stranded in Cape Cod Bay winter, 

spring and fall. This species is not predicted to occur around 

the sanctuary throughout the year (Department of Navy, 

2005; Shoop and Kenney, 1991). For additional information 

regarding sea turtle species accounts, visit URL http://www.

iucn-mtsg.org/species/

Pressures

Sea turtles are transient visitors to the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary and there is very little documentation of human 

impacts to turtles in the vicinity of the sanctuary. In general, 

major threats to sea turtles in the U.S. include, but are not 

limited to: destruction and alteration of foraging habitats, 

incidental capture in commercial and recreational fisheries, 

entanglement in marine debris and vessel strikes. The NOAA 

Fisheries Service Observer Program documents fishing 

impacts to protected species and is the primary source for 

such information. NOAA Fisheries Service has not recorded 

any sea turtles taken in gillnets or otter trawls fished within 

the sanctuary since 1994 (NOAA Fisheries Service, unpublished data).

Sea turtles die from eating or becoming entangled in nondegradable debris each year, including packing bands, 

balloons, pellets and plastic bags thrown overboard from 

boats or dumped near beaches and swept out to sea. Leatherbacks especially, cannot distinguish between floating 

jellyfish—a main component of their diet—and floating 

plastic bags.

Turtles are affected to an unknown, but potentially significant degree, by entanglement in persistent marine debris, 

including discarded or lost fishing gear including steel and 

monofilament line, synthetic and natural rope, and discarded plastic netting materials. Monofilament line is the principal source of entanglement for sea turtles in U.S. waters.

To effectively address all threats to marine turtles, NOAA 

Fisheries Service and the USFWS have developed recovery 

plans to direct research and management efforts for each 

sea turtle species. More information on threats to marine 

turtles is available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

turtles/.

Current Protection

Sanctuary regulations (15 C.F.R § Subpart N) prohibit the 

taking of any marine reptile in the sanctuary, except as 

permitted by the ESA, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., 

or possessing within the sanctuary (regardless of where 

taken, moved or removed from), except as necessary for 

valid law enforcement purposes, any marine reptile taken in 

violation of the ESA.

Sea turtles are given legal protection in the U.S. and its 

waters under the ESA, which lists the leatherback, Kemp’s 

ridley and green turtle as endangered; the loggerhead is 

listed as threatened. This designation makes it illegal to 

harm, harass or kill any sea turtles, hatchlings or their eggs. 

It is also illegal to import, sell, or transport turtles or their 

products. NOAA Fisheries Service has jurisdiction over sea 

turtles in the water; USFWS has jurisdiction over sea turtles 

when they are on land.

Presently, all sea turtle species are listed in the International 

Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Natural 

Resources Red List as endangered or vulnerable; included 

in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora; and, 

all species are listed in Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory (CMS) Species of Wild 

Animals.

Table 7. Conservation status of sea turtles found in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary and GoM region.

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status

Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempi Endangered

Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered

Loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened

Green Chelonia mydas Endangered
92 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Marine Mammals

Marine mammals are a functional part of the biodiversity 

of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary in a number of important 

ways, including their interdependence on seafloor and water 

column habitats and their predator-prey relationship to key 

forage species. They are a highly visible component of the 

species mix, which merits special consideration because 

of their charismatic attraction and universally protected 

or endangered status. They also are highly attuned to the 

acoustic environment and might be especially prone to 

harassment and behavioral disturbance due to human activity.

The major issues associated with marine mammals in the 

sanctuary are distinctly different from the issues otherwise 

associated with biodiversity conservation, such as biomass 

removal, changes in food webs and community composition, and disturbance or degradation of seafloor habitats 

and landscapes. Instead, marine mammal issues include 

entanglement in commercial fishing gear, vessel strikes from 

shipping, ocean noise, localized prey depletion, and marine 

pollution and contamination. However, the interactions 

with fishing and shipping are the key mortality factors for 

marine mammals (NOAA, 2007).

Of special note, the data set for humpback whales in the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is the longest and most detailed 

study of baleen whales in the world. Matrilineal studies 

show evidence of four generations (1975–2006) of humpback use of, as well as inter-generational site fidelity to, the 

sanctuary as a feeding and nursery area. The newly-established sister sanctuary relationship between the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary and the Sanctuario de Mamiferos Marinos 

de la Republica Dominicana (Dominican Republic humpback whale sanctuary) is the first conservation management 

action worldwide to protect a migratory marine mammal 

species on both ends of its range (between sanctuary feeding/nursery grounds and the largest mating/calving grounds 

for humpback whales in the North Atlantic) by functionally 

linking two important nationally acclaimed marine protected areas.

Status

Cetaceans and Pinnipeds

The marine mammal fauna of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is diverse and has significant ecological, aesthetic and 

economic value. At least 22 species of marine mammals are 

known to occur in the waters over and around the sanctuary—six species of baleen whales (Mysticeti), eleven species 

of toothed whales (Odontoceti), and five species of phocid 

seals (Pinnipedia) (Table 8). For many of these species, the 

biological productivity of sanctuary waters provides primary 

habitat for feeding and other critical activities such as nursing. In fact, the sanctuary is one of the most intensively used 

cetacean habitats in the northeast continental shelf region of 

the United States (Kenney and Win, 1986). 

Both cetaceans and pinnipeds are subject to a variety of 

human-related pressures, ranging from the visible impacts 

of human activities (e.g., vessel strikes, entanglements in 

fishing gear) to ubiquitous threats such as pollution, boat 

traffic, and noise. In some instances, the impacts may be 

difficult to assess but may be particularly significant, especially for marine mammals that live in coastal areas or an 

environment that brings them into close contact with human 

activities.

Cetaceans

Cetaceans are divided between two suborders: the Mysticetes (baleen whales) and the Odontocetes (toothed whales). 

Representatives of both suborders are found in the sanctuary and throughout the GoM. Two morphological features 

distinguish cetaceans: mysticetes have baleen and two 

blowholes, and odontocetes have teeth and a single blowhole.

Baleen Whales

Baleen whales in the sanctuary range in maximum length 

from 6.4 m (26 ft.) for the minke whale to 30 m (100 ft.) 

for the blue whale. They have evolved baleen, instead of 

teeth, to feed upon zooplankton and small schooling fish. 

The plates of baleen form an efficient filtration system that 

separate prey from vast volumes of water taken into the 

mouth. Baleen whales typically forage throughout the water 

column, preying on species (such as sand lance, herring and 

copepods in the sanctuary) that are found from the surface 

to several hundred feet down. Humpback whales also are 

known to feed along the ocean bottom, scouring sand and 

gravel seafloor habitats that shelter sand lance; other species 

might also engage in similar behavior.

Within the sanctuary, the mysticetes are represented by six 

species arranged into two families, the Balaenopteridae 

(rorqual whales) and the Balaenidae (right whales) (Table 8). 

The Baleanopteridae are characterized by their sleek body 

form, generally, and the “rorqual” pleats on the underside 

of the mouth. This family includes the blue, fin, sei, minke 

and humpback whale, with the latter being alone in its own 

genus. The rorquals are ‘gulpers,’ feeding in discrete events, 

taking prey a mouthful at a time. 
IV. Resource States 93

Table 8. Conservation status of 22 species of marine mammals sighted in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

Group Common Name Scientific Name MMPA Status ESA Status

Baleen Whales

(Mysticetes n=6)

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus

Protected under 

the MMPA

Endangered

Fin or Finback whale Balaeneptera physalus Endangered

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliue Endangered

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered

Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis Endangered

Toothed Whales

(Odontocetes n=11)

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus

Protected under 

the MMPA

Endangered

Long-finned Pilot whale Globicephala melaena

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus

White-Beaked Dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris

Harbor Porpoise Phocoena sp.

Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus

Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis

Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba

Grampus (Risso’s) Dolphin Grampus griseus

Killer whale or Orca Orcinus orca

Beluga Delphinus leucas

Seals

(Pinnipeds n=5)

Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina

Protected under 

the MMPA

Gray Seal Halichoerus grypes

Harp Seal Pagophilus groenlandica

Hooded Seal Cystophora cristata 

Ringed Seal Pusa hispida

The Balaenidae includes the North Atlantic right whale, 

characterized by its robust body with no dorsal fin, no ventral 

pleats and very long, narrow baleen. The right whales are 

“skimmers,” grazing through patches of zoolplankton with 

their mouths open and continuously filtering prey as they 

swim. This skimming can be done at the sea surface, along 

the density gradient of mid-depth thermoclines or over the 

seafloor.

Besides the unique filtering system for feeding, most baleen 

whales share a number of broad characteristics in common. 

Most have wide geographic ranges and extensive migrations. 

They lack any known capability for sonar or echolocation. 

They often have a mating system in which both males and 

females are promiscuous. Often, they exhibit a relatively 

short period (less than one year) of maternal care with no 

strong kinship bonds aside from a mother and her new calf. 

They have large bodies requiring massive quantities of small 

prey. Despite these commonalties, the baleen whales of the 

sanctuary exhibit many differences. For more information, 

see species descriptions in Appendix L.

Toothed Whales

Toothed whales observed in the sanctuary are represented 

by four families: Delphinidae (dolphins), Phocoenidae 

(porpoises), the Physeteridae (sperm whales) and Monodontidae (beluga whale). Of the eleven odontocete species that 

have been sighted in the sanctuary, common visitors include 

the white-sided dolphin, long-finned pilot whale and harbor 

porpoise (Table 8). From giants like the sperm whale to the 

diminutive harbor porpoise, sightings of odontocete species 

vary from year to year and may demonstrate cyclical or 

extralimital occurrences in the vicinity of the sanctuary. 

As a rule, the odontocete diet consists of larger prey than that 

taken by the baleen whales. Unlike baleen whales, which 

often engulf large prey patches and ingest thousands or even 

millions of organisms at once, toothed whales usually feed 

by taking one item (such as a single fish) at a time. They 

often swallow their prey whole, and their teeth function to 

grip rather than to chew.

Unlike the baleen whales, the odontocetes usually do not 

make long annual migrations. Their seasonal responses 

tend to be onshore-offshore movements. Toothed whales 

are highly social animals, moving around in groups called 

pods. Different species and different populations within a 

species may vary in how these pods are organized. Some 

pods may be stable relationships between individuals over 

long periods of time; other pods may represent seasonal 

associations surrounding feeding or reproduction. For more 

information, see species descriptions in Appendix L.

Pinnipeds

True seals, or phocids, comprise one of three major families 

of pinnipeds (i.e., seals, sea lions and walrus). The term 

“pinniped” means “wing- or fin-footed” and refers to the 

family’s modified front and hind appendages, which have 

a fin-like appearance. Members of the family Phocidae, 

called true or earless seals because they lack external ear 
94 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

flaps, are represented by five species in the sanctuary (Table 

8). Of the five seal species found with any frequency in the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, two (harp, hooded) are found 

only sporadically. The ringed seal is rare while gray and 

harbor seals can be found year-round, albeit generally in 

single sightings. Each species uses the sanctuary and nearby coast in different ways, but they do share many characteristics. Like toothed whales, pinnipeds have a broad diet 

including a wide variety of fishes, squid and other prey. For 

more information, see species descriptions in Appendix L.

Cetacean Habitat

The southern GoM, particularly the area of the Great South 

Channel, Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge, supports the 

highest densities of baleen whales on the northeast U.S. 

continental shelf (Kenny and Winn, 1986). Additionally, 

critical habitat designation was established for the North 

Atlantic right whale in 1994 inclusive of the southwestern 

portion of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and Cape Cod 

Bay. The GoM (which includes sanctuary waters) is recognized as one of five geographically distinct feeding grounds 

for aggregations of endangered humpback whales in the 

western North Atlantic (Katona and Beard, 1990). 

Cetaceans are capable of traveling large distances relatively 

rapidly, but also show distinctive site fidelity to specific 

feeding grounds and calving areas. Humpback, fin and right 

whales exhibit strong maternal fidelity to specific feeding 

grounds in the southern GoM (Clapham and Seipt, 1991). 

Weinrich found that individual humpback whales which 

visit Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge as calves are more 

likely to return in subsequent years (Weinrich, 1998). 

Hotspot for Prey Abundance

Sand lance are common in the GoM and prefer shallow 

areas of sandy bottom or fine gravel (such as Stellwagen 

Bank) for burrowing and spawning (Robards et al., 1999). 

Herring use the seafloor for spawning (Stevenson and Scott, 

2005). Sand lance and herring represent a vital link in the 

area’s ecology, serving as a major food source for a variety 

of piscivorous species including invertebrates, many other 

fishes, numerous seabirds and a dozen species of marine 

mammals (Robards et al., 1999; Stevenson and Scott, 2005). 

Within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary, sand lance is a noted 

food source for humpback whales (Hain et al., 1995; Overholtz and Nicolas, 1979; Baraff et al 1991; Weinrich et al., 

1997; Weinrich et al., 2000).

Sand lance occur within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary at 

higher levels of abundance than in any other area of the 

southern GoM (Figure 46). The figure also depicts the higher 

herring abundance that occurs in waters from just north of 

Cape Ann south to Cape Cod Bay, including the sanctuary, 

relative to other parts of the southern GoM. Sand lance 

distribution shows close association with sand and gravelly 

sand habitats, while herring distribution does not (Figure 

46).

The distribution and abundance of North Atlantic right 

whales are closely linked to the life history and spatial 

distribution of its main prey, the calanoid copepod Calanus 

finmarchiscus. Calanus early life stages coincide with the 

spring phytoplankton blooms on which they feed, particularly in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, in waters overlapping or adjacent to the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. This 

species of copepod also is prey for the sand lance, which in 

turn is important as prey for piscivorous baleen whales, as 

noted above. 

Comparison of the spatial patterns of North Atlantic right 

whale abundance and Calanus abundance (all life stages 

combined) for both the spring and summer season shows 

a clear geographic shift in whale abundance that broadly 

tracks Calanus abundance hotspots (Figure 47). In spring 

(lower panel), these hotspots were located along the northern slope of Georges Bank, the Great South Channel, Cape 

Cod Bay and the western portion of the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary. In summer (upper panel), Calanus hotspots shifted offshore towards the central, southern GoM. 

The margins of Stellwagen Bank are sites of high horizontal and vertical movement of both water and plankton due 

largely to the bank’s exposure to GoM water circulation 

(Flagg, 1987). The interaction between physical oceanography and bathymetry creates environmental conditions 

that result in the aggregations of large numbers of planktivorous fishes, such as sand lance and Atlantic herring, 

which are key prey for humpback, fin and minke whales, 

as well as dolphins and porpoises. These same environmental conditions support an abundance of Calanus which 

are the primary prey of right whales. These environmental 

variables interact to establish the sanctuary as a hotspot for 

prey abundance. 

Predictors of Cetacean Relative Abundance

Predictive modeling to explain patterns of cetacean relative 

abundance, based on sightings-per-unit-effort (SPUE) and 

on environmental data including bathymetry, substratum 

type, potential prey and oceanography, was used to explain 

spatial patterns of cetacean densities in the southern GoM 

for the period 1997–2005 (Pittman et al., 2006). Analysis 

of the SPUE data was based on 34,589 cetacean observations. Model results were reported for spring and summer, 

which were least variable because the modeling techniques 

performed best for seasons with the highest cetacean abundance. 

Prey availability or habitat indicators of prey availability 

were important predictors of distribution and density for 

important cetacean species which frequent the sanctuary. 

Sand lance abundance was a contributing factor in every 

case. Significant predictors of abundance for humpback, fin 

and minke whales in all cases included proximity to the 

100 m isobath, sand and gravely sand, and mean (average) 

sand lance abundance. The 100 m isobath is the general 

lower depth limit of sand lance distribution and sand and 

gravely sand is preferred habitat for sand lance (Meyer et al., 

1979). Zooplankton abundance (all species combined) and 

abundance of the calanoid copepod Calanus finmarchiscus,

were among the most significant predictors for the North 
IV. Resource States 95

Figure 46. Spatial distribution and density of key prey

species for piscivorous cetaceans in the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary and the southern GoM. 

Sand lance abundance is indicated in the top panel; herring 

abundance is indicated in the bottom panel. The spatial 

extent of sand and gravelly sand habitats is denoted in both 

panels. Data are from the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center research trawl surveys for the period 1975-2000. Figure 

excerpted from Pittman et al., 2006.

Figure 47. Overlay of spatial distribution of North

Atlantic right whale relative abundance (sightings-perunit effort: SPUE) on spatial distribution of Calanus

copepods for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the

southern GoM. 

Circles represent right whale SPUE; color shading represents 

density of copepods. Lower panel indicates spring season 

conditions; upper panel indicates summer season conditions. 

North Atlantic right whale SPUE data are for 1978-2005; copepod data are for 1977-1988. Figure excerpted from Pittman et 

al., 2006.
96 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Atlantic right whale abundance. Other significant predictors of right whale abundance included sand and gravely 

sand, and mean sand lance abundance. The combined 

abundance of sand lance, hake, mackerel and herring were 

among the significant predictors for Atlantic white-sided 

dolphin abundance. 

Results of the predictive modeling also found that the 100 

m isobath was a hotspot for herring, suggesting that humpback and fin whales may switch prey depending on local 

availability. Prey switching by these species has been noted 

between seasons (Macleod et al., 2004) and inter-annually 

(Payne et al., 1986; Weinrich et al., 1997). In winter, there 

was a shift in the SPUE for humpback and fin whales from 

Stellwagen Bank to deeper waters over Tillies Basin and 

Jeffreys Ledge, both areas in or overlapping with the sanctuary and associated with abundant herring (Pittman et al., 

2006). This winter shift may result from decreased availability of sand lance prior to their spawning and decreased 

accessibility because sand lance spend more time buried in 

the sand during winter. A geographically similar but longer 

term shift from Stellwagen Bank to Jeffreys Ledge, and switch 

from sand lance to herring prey, was reported for humpback 

whales between 1988 and 1994 (Weinrich et al., 1997).

Cetacean Occurrence

Southern Gulf of Maine

Using the SPUE database for 1997-2005, Pittman et al. 

(2006) calculated the occurrence and relative abundance of 

cetaceans within the southern GoM. Among baleen whales, 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary was used most heavily by 

humpback and fin whales and to a lesser degree by minke 

whales, all of which are piscivorous and feed on sand lance 

and herring in the sanctuary (Figure 48a). North Atlantic 

right whales and sei whales, both of which feed primarily 

on plankton, also used the sanctuary although occurrence 

was higher for right whales (Figure 48b). The occurrence of 

toothed whales in the sanctuary was highest among Atlantic white-sided dolphins, but included pilot whales as well 

(Figure 48b).

A comparison of the spatial distribution patterns for all baleen 

whales and all dolphins and porpoises in the southern GoM 

showed that both groups have very similar spatial patterns 

of high- and low-use areas (Figures 49 and 50). The baleen 

whales, whether piscivorous or planktivorous, were more 

concentrated than the dolphins and porpoise. They utilized 

a corridor that extended broadly along the steeply sloping 

edges in the southern GoM, indicated broadly by the 100 m 

isobath. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary supported a high 

abundance of cetaceans throughout the year. The waters on 

and around the sanctuary also support high cetacean richness (number of species) (Pittman et al., 2006).

Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary

Direct knowledge of the relative occurrence and spatial/

temporal distribution of cetaceans in the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary was derived from two sources: non-standardized 

data collected aboard whale watching vessels and standardized surveys conducted by the sanctuary. Whale watch 

sightings data were provided by the Provincetown Center 

for Coastal Studies and the Whale Center of New England. 

Whale watching trips targeted high use areas where companies expected to see the largest number of whales, particularly humpbacks. The database is robust in that it consists 

of multiple daily trips occurring from April through October, has been continuous over 25 years (1979–2004), and 

consists of over 255,000 sightings of animals. However, 

effort is not equally distributed throughout the sanctuary. 

Standardized surveys of the entire sanctuary for a 12-month 

period were conducted from July 2001–June 2002 (Wiley et 

al., 2003). This survey provided equal effort in all parts of 

the sanctuary, but was of a limited time span (one year) and 

sample size (528 sightings of 2,124 animals). Use of both 

databases provides a richer understanding of the relative 

occurrence and spatial/temporal distribution of cetaceans 

in the sanctuary. Relative use of the sanctuary by species 

and seasonal trends were based only on the 12-month standardized survey data.

Among baleen whales, the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

was used most heavily by humpback whales, followed by 

minke, fin and right whales (Figure 51). Among humpback 

whales, Robbins (2007) determined that the sanctuary is 

preferentially used by juveniles (nursing) and reproductively 

mature/active (pregnant and lactating) females. The occurrence of toothed whales in the sanctuary was highest for 

white-sided dolphins, followed by harbor porpoise and pilot 

whales (Figure 52). In general, the sanctuary was dominated by baleen whales during the summer period and toothed 

whales during the winter (Figure 53).

A comparison of both databases revealed similar patterns of 

spatial distribution and density (Figure 54). Baleen whales in 

particular tended to cluster on the northwest and southwest 

portions of Stellwagen Bank with a secondary cluster on the 

southeast section of the Bank. A three-dimensional visualization of the spatial distribution of these whales over 25 

years further illustrates this finding (Figure 55). A common 

feature of each of these areas of high use is a substrate 

dominated by sand and gravelly sand, seafloor habitat types 

which support concentrations of sand lance. Standardized 

survey data revealed an additional high use area on the 

southern portion of Jeffreys Ledge (Figure 54). 

Humpback Whale Foraging Behavior

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is leading a multi-institutional tagging project investigating the underwater foraging 

behavior of humpback whales to understand how they use 

habitat and interact with fishing gear and shipping. Tagged 

whales carry a computerized package developed at the 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) that continuously records pitch, role, heading and depth (Johnson and 

Tyack, 2003). Tag-derived data are mapped in four dimensions using GeoZui4D software, allowing scientists to create 

virtual whales that move like the tagged animals. GeoZui4D 

is a software application developed at the University of New 

Hampshire (UNH) for interacting with time-varying geospa-
IV. Resource States 97

Figure 48a. Spatial distribution and relative abundance of key cetacean species in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and

the southern GoM based on interpolation of SPUE for the period 1970–2005. 

Data are aggregated for all seasons. Species depicted include the humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, North Atlantic right 

whale, sei whale, Atlantic white-sided dolphin and pilot whale. Figure adapted from Pittman et al., 2006.
98 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Figure 48b. Spatial distribution and relative abundance of key cetacean species in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and

the southern GoM based on interpolation of SPUE for the period 1970–2005. 

Data are aggregated for all seasons. Species depicted include the humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, North Atlantic right 

whale, sei whale, Atlantic white-sided dolphin and pilot whale. Figure adapted from Pittman et al., 2006.
IV. Resource States 99

Figure 49. Seasonal patterns of interpolated SPUE data for all baleen whale species in spring, summer, fall and

winter and all seasons combined for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the southern GoM (1970–2005). 

Figure excerpted from Pittman et al., 2006.
100 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Figure 50. Seasonal patterns of interpolated SPUE data for all dolphins and porpoises in spring, summer, fall, 

winter and all seasons combined for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the southern GoM (1970–2005). 

Figure excerpted from Pittman et al., 2006.
IV. Resource States 101

Figure 53. Frequency of Cetacean Sightings within Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by month. Data are from standardized

surveys from July 2001–June 2002. 

Adapted from Wiley et al., (2003).

Figure 51. Relative occurrence of fin, humpback, minke

and right whales in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Data are based on standardized surveys from July 2001–June 

2002 (303 sightings of 361 animals). Adapted from Wiley et 

al., (2003).

Figure 52. Relative occurrence of harbor porpoise, 

white-sided dolphins and pilot whales in the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary. 

Data are based on standardized surveys from July 2001–June 

2002 (162 sightings of 1,708 animals). Adapted from Wiley et 

al., (2003).
102 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

tial data (Ware et al., 2006), such as that provided by the 

whale tags. Tag data were also viewed in TrackPlot (Ware et 

al., 2006; Wiley et al., 2005) to provide a static 3-D representation of spatial patterns in whale movement.

Figure 56 illustrates behavior that is typical of the high interrelated use of both seafloor and water column habitats by 

humpback whales feeding in the sanctuary based on the 

tagging results of 15 individuals in July of 2006. Sand lance 

prey fields were simultaneously mapped acoustically in 

areas adjacent and parallel to the whale tracks, confirming 

their presence in large numbers (Figure 57). Acoustics offer 

a minimally invasive technique for collecting continuous 

along-track data on biomass at fine horizontal and vertical 

spatial scales throughout the water column (Simmonds and 

MacLennan, 2005). The whale tracks were mapped over the 

sanctuary’s seafloor multi-beam sonar image, which indicated that the whales were feeding over sand and sandy gravel 

which is sand lance habitat. More extensive treatment of 

this research is provided in Friedlaender et al. and Hazen et 

al. (both in review).

The depth versus time series recorded for the subject whale 

shows how and when it uses the water column, demonstrating pronounced shifts in lengthy bouts of repeated 

dives (Figure 56). During hours of daylight, dusk and early 

evening (1400 hr to 2100 hr) the whale spent its time in 

an alternating series of frequent short duration dives to 

the seafloor followed by extensive time spent in the upper 

water column and at the surface. During the ensuing hours 

of darkness and pre-dawn (2120 hr to 0440 hr) the whale 

spent its time in long duration dives to the seafloor. Bouts of 

predominantly near-surface activity resumed with the return 

of daylight. These findings of diurnal foraging patterns are 

generally supportive of those of Goodyear (1989), who also 

conducted tagging studies of feeding humpback whales 

on Stellwagen Bank during times of high sand lance abundance. Sand lance make daytime migrations into the water 

column where they form schools and feed, returning to the 

seafloor at night (Casey and Myers, 1998), a behavior that 

corresponds to the whale’s diel (24-hr period) use of these 

habitats.

Two types of foraging behavior were characteristic of how 

the whales differentially used water column and seafloor 

habitats. During the “daylight” sequence, whales engaged 

in repeated bubble-net feeding in which individual or 

Figure 54. Comparison of the spatial distribution of baleen whales within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary from

whale watch and standardized survey data. 

Whale watch data (a.) are non-standardized observations made during April through October from 1979-2004 (n = ~255,000). 

Survey data (b.) are based on standardized surveys from July 2001–June 2002 and include animals not identified to species (352 

sightings of 413 animals). Survey data are adapted from Wiley et al., 2003. Whale watch data were collected by the Provincetown 

Center for Coastal Studies and the Whale Center of New England. The two illustrations are Kriged density plots of information from 

both data sets using a 5,000 m search radius analyzed by ESRI ARCGIS.
IV. Resource States 103

multiple animals exhale, encircle and corral sand lance in 

the water column. By diving below the level of schooling 

sand lance, the whales presumably can better detect their 

prey contrasted and profiled against the sky. During the 

“darkness” sequence, whales engaged in repeated bouts of 

bottom feeding where they turn on their side to scour the 

sandy bottom while feeding on sand lance burrowed in the 

seafloor. Each of these characteristic behaviors is illustrated 

in Figure 56.

Results from Friedlaender et al. (in review) suggest that 

surface feeding activities in humpback whales are based 

primarily on visual prey detection and secondarily on the 

presence of prey over a certain threshold level in the water 

column. Hazen et al. (in review), in fact, show that humpback whales on Stellwagen Bank maximize their foraging 

efficiency when surface feeding by preferentially targeting 

dense, vertically oriented patches of sand lance. Hazen et 

al. found that whale surface feeding was significantly affected by prey school shape. Surface feeding occurred more 

often around prey schools with a large area, taller height, 

and shorter length. Longer schools were often associated 

with a thin layer (less than 2.5m tall) in the water column, 

potentially more difficult or less cost-effective to consume. 

Sand lance schools reached up to 4km in length and vertical 

thickness up to 30m. Examples of such schools are shown 

mapped in Figure 57. This visualization of actual data 

depicts the linear transect through a series of prey patches 

in the sanctuary and provides a 2-dimensional portrayal of 

3-dimensional prey aggregations (i.e. length, width, vertical 

thickness). Because the spatial characteristics of prey fields 

is an important determinant of the optimality of humpback 

whale foraging, maintenance of prey patch integrity needs 

to be considered in sanctuary management.

Conservation Status

All marine mammal species are protected under the MMPA; 

five baleen whale species frequenting the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary are listed as endangered under the ESA (i.e., blue, 

fin, humpback, sei and North Atlantic right whale) (Table 

8). The North Atlantic right whale population continues to 

be depleted (NOAA, 2006); the best estimate of the size of 

the population is 300 to 350 animals. Earlier models indicated that this population was likely declining rather than 

remaining static or increasing (Caswell et al., 1999). More 

recent models that estimate survival rate from re-sightings 

data collected during 1980-2004 indicate that the median 

population growth rate is about 1% (Pace et al., 2007). 

However, the models also revealed that this population has 

almost no capacity to absorb additional mortality. Because 

the primary causes of premature mortality among right 

whales are anthropogenic, mainly ship strikes and fishing 

gear entanglements, recovery of the right whale population 

is contingent upon reducing the effects of these activities on 

the species (Pace et al., 2007).

Figure 55. A three-dimensional visualization of the spatial distribution of baleen whales within the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary (1979–2004). 

Data are non-standardized observations from whale watching vessels operating from April through October (n = ~255,000) and 

collected by the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies and the Whale Center of New England.
104 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Pressures

Habitat loss, habitat degradation and competition for prey 

are recognized as key threats to cetaceans worldwide 

(Reeves et al., 2003). Known or potential threats to the 

survival of marine mammals are due to the increasing pressures of human activity in and around the sanctuary and the 

marine mammals’ dependence on resources that are also 

used intensively by humans. Marine mammals are vulnerable to disturbances caused by ship noise, industrial activity and other acoustic inputs to the marine environment, 

collisions with powered vessels and entanglements with 

fishing gear. Other types of human activities (e.g., water 

pollution) occur that may influence living resource quality 

(e.g., reduced availability of prey). High levels of chemical 

contaminants in the tissues of cetaceans may be affecting 

the animals’ immune and reproductive systems (Reeves, 

2003). 

There are undoubtedly more threats than are presently 

recognized, and even the most basic information on cetacean mortality caused by human activity is limited due to 

funding restraints, under-reporting and the lack of directed 

scientific effort. Moreover, the total impact of the various threats cannot be predicted by simply summing their 

effects as though they were independent. For example, the 

immunosuppressive effects of environmental contaminants 

(Lahvis et al., 1995) with range shifts of pathogens caused 

by global warming and ship ballast transport (Harvell et 

al., 1999) could increase the susceptibility of cetaceans to 

emergent diseases. While research is underway to better 

identify emerging threats, cautionary measures should be 

taken to moderate or eliminate the relevant and acknowledged anthropogenic input factors (Reeves, 2003).

Behavioral Disturbance

There are numerous ways in which marine mammals are 

disturbed or potentially disturbed by human activities 

within or around the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. These 

include activities associated with vessels, aircraft flying over 

the sanctuary, fishing activities and underwater noise from 

the high number of vessels passing through and nearby the 

sanctuary.

Figure 56. A time/depth plot of the diving behavior of a tagged humpback whale in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

over a 15-hour period in July of 2006. 

The animal used complex spiral bubble maneuvers in the water column to corral fish (presumed sand lance) during daylight and 

exhibited bottom side-roll behavior at night. Ribbon tracks used to visualize behavior were created using TrackPlot (Ware et al., 

2006). Data are from Wiley et al. (unpublished).
IV. Resource States 105

Whale Watching

Twelve commercial whale-watch companies operate regularly scheduled trips on as many as 22 vessels that make 

multiple trips daily to the sanctuary, from April through 

October, out of six Massachusetts ports. A sampling of tracks 

from whale watch vessels representing all companies and all 

ports were recorded in 2003 during whale watch trips to the 

sanctuary and adjoining areas (Figure 58). With the exception of vessels departing from Newburyport, the northernmost port depicted, virtually all whale watching trips were 

made to the sanctuary and almost all of these were made 

to northern and southern Stellwagen Bank, where whales 

historically are most abundant (Figures 54 and 55). More 

than one million people visit the sanctuary yearly aboard 

these platforms (Hoyt, 2001).

There is growing awareness, however, that cetacean tourism 

can have a downside (Corkeron, 2004). Intensive, persistent and unregulated vessel traffic that focuses on animals 

while they are resting, feeding nursing their young or socializing can disrupt those activities, and possibly cause short 

and long-term problems for targeted populations. Impact 

studies worldwide have shown changes in ventilation rate 

(Baker, 1988), avoidance behavior (Donovan, 1986) and 

changes in habitat use (Corkeron, 1995). The concerns are 

further compounded by the increase in popularity of whale 

watching, not just on commercial vessels, but also privatelyowned recreational vessels. In both cases, instances occur 

where numerous boats surround a single whale or group of 

whales, disturbing the animals and at the same time detracting from the quality of the tourist experience.

Working with the whale watching industry and non-profit 

conservation organizations, NOAA established voluntary 

whale watch guidelines in the Northeast region in 1999 

following a sharp increase in whale watch vessel speeds 

and collisions with three whales, at least one of which was 

fatal (Weinrich, 2005). These guidelines (operational procedures) were first developed in 1984 by an ad hoc committee 

of whale watch naturalists, captains and scientists (Beach 

and Weinrich, 1989). The intent of the guidelines is to avoid 

harassment and possible injury or death to large whales by 

both commercial and recreational vessels. While the guidelines are voluntary and difficult to enforce, NOAA Office 

of Law Enforcement enforces the intent of the guidelines 

through the take and harassment provisions of the ESA and 

MMPA.

One important aspect of the whale watch guidelines is 

a series of recommended vessel speeds within various 

distances from the whales: less than or equal to 13 knots at 

a 1–2 nm distance to whales (zone 3); less than or equal to 

10 knots at a 1–0.5 nm distance to whales (zone 2); and less 

than or equal to 7 knots within 0.5 nm distance to whales 

(zone 1). Details of the approach guidelines can be found 

at the following web address: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/

shipstrike/info/guidetxt.htm or Appendix M). The industry considers these guidelines to be more stringent than 

approach guidelines/regulations in other regions, where 

Figure 57. Visualization showing the NOAA Ship Nancy Foster acoustically mapping sand lance prey fields in the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

The horizontal band is the zone of cavitation caused by the ship’s propellers and is an artifact. Prey fields are evident below this 

zone: yellow = higher density; red = lower density. Visualization portrays actual data. Image: UNH/SBNMS.
106 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

distance restrictions exist but no speed restrictions have 

been established. The industry has used these guidelines 

to argue against the need for additional restrictions such as 

speed regulations in the sanctuary. A recent study conducted in the sanctuary indicates that compliance with the speed 

portion of the guidelines by the commercial whale watch 

fleet was extremely low and that speed exceedances were 

excessively high (Wiley et al., in press).

Observations in this study were made on 46 commercial 

whale watching trips in 2003 and 2004 that occurred in and 

around the sanctuary; all of the principal whale watching 

companies were represented. Results indicate that whale 

watching vessels often ignored speed zone guidelines and 

the degree of non-compliance increased as distance from 

the whale(s) increased (Table 9). The overall level of noncompliance based on distance traveled by the whale watch 

vessels (data from all speed zones combined) was 78%. 

The maximum vessel speed recorded in zone 1 (where the 

level of non-compliance was lowest and boats were closest 

to whales) differed little from the maximum vessel speed 

recorded for the entire whale watch trip (Figure 55). The 

high degree of non-compliance and the magnitude by which 

the recommended speeds in each zone were exceeded indicate that the guidelines cannot be relied upon as a voluntary measure to reduce the risk of behavioral disturbance or 

vessel strike to whales in the sanctuary and that regulation 

should be considered. Such regulation would be aligned 

with NOAA’s Ship Strike Reduction Program. The MMBD 

AP proposes several strategies that address this issue (AP: 

MMBD 1.1).

Ocean Noise

There is growing evidence that noise in the ocean has 

increased dramatically over the past 50 years (Andrew et al., 

2002; MacDonald et al., 2006). As the primary source of 

low frequency ocean noise is commercial shipping (Wenz, 

1962), noise is expected to increase most dramatically in 

areas experiencing increased commercial shipping such 

as access-ways for growing ports. Although pre-industrial 

ambient noise estimates are not available for the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary, growth in the Port of Boston continues to 

be accompanied by increases in large vessel traffic transiting the sanctuary.

Increasing ocean noise is of concern given growing evidence 

that some underwater sound sources can negatively impact 

sensitive marine species (NRC, 2003). For example, some 

marine mammal populations have been documented to 

respond to sources by altering their breathing rates, spending more time underwater before coming up for air, changing the depths or speeds of their dives, shielding their young, 

changing their song note durations and/or swimming away 

from the affected area (Richardson et al., 1995; NRC, 2005). 

In addition, high intensity underwater sounds can cause 

temporary or permanent hearing loss in marine mammals, 

which in a few cases has been associated with animals 

Figure 58. GPS tracks of 36 commercial whale

watching trips from six major whale watching ports

in Massachusetts that were monitored by onboard

observers during the summer and fall of 2003. 

Vessels were from the 12 major companies that operate regular schedules and each company was monitored approximately three times.

Table 9. The level of non-compliance with the speed

portion of the NOAA whale watching guidelines based

on the monitoring of 46 commercial whale watching

trips operating in and around the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary during 2003–2004. 

GPS receivers onboard each vessel provided information on 

the vessel’s track and speed. Non-compliance was registered 

when a vessel’s speed exceeded that specified by the guidelines. For each speed zone, a vessel’s non-compliant level was 

calculated by comparing the distance the vessel traveled out 

of compliance to the total distance traveled in that zone. The 

industry’s non-compliant level was calculated by summing the 

total non-compliant distances for all vessels traveling in a zone 

and comparing that to the total distance traveled by all vessels 

in that zone. 

Zone 

Number

Suggested 

Speed 

(Knots)

Industry 

Non-compliant

Level (%)

Non-Compliant

Range for All 

Trips (%)

1 ≤ 7 62 33–84

2 ≤ 10 93 67–100

3 ≤ 13 92 61–100

Overall 78 33–100

(≤) less than or equal to
IV. Resource States 107

becoming disoriented and stranding (NRC, 2005). Finally, 

but perhaps most importantly for the sanctuary, increasing 

ocean noise may “mask” signals produced by acousticallyactive marine animals to communicate with conspecifics 

(NRC, 2003). Such masking would decrease the distance 

over which signals could be received by conspecifics, thus 

limiting their utility as reproductive, feeding and/or navigation behaviors. Although there has been much less research 

on the impacts of noise on non-mammalian marine animals, 

many fish and marine invertebrates also utilize sound to 

communicate.

Given the importance of sanctuary waters to several vocally-active and endangered marine mammals (e.g., humpback, fin, sei and North Atlantic right whales), conducting 

research and developing a policy framework to minimize 

human-induced underwater noise is a cautionary guiding 

principle in the DMP (AP: MMBD.2))

Tuna Fishing

Tuna fishing consists of a variety of gear types and methods including harpoon, hook and line (trolling or anchored 

chumming) and purse seine. The target species is principally bluefin tuna, which is often attracted to the same 

forage base (sand lance and Atlantic herring) as piscivorous 

marine mammals such as endangered humpback and fin 

whales, minke whales and dolphins and porpoise. To help 

find tuna, fishermen often search directly for the prey and 

sometimes use surface feeding whales and birds as indicators of tuna availability and location. Indirectly, commercial whale watch boats are used as proxies in the search for 

feeding whales. As a result, there is a high co-occurrence 

of baleen whales where tuna fishing occurs in the sanctuary (Figure 60), and the potential for interaction and disturbance is correspondingly high (Figure 61). The frequency of 

hooked whales trailing tuna fishing tackle in 2007 prompted 

calls from so many whale watch patrons, that it clogged the 

whale disentanglement hotline jeopardizing its effectiveness 

(S. Landry, PCCS, pers. comm., 2007).

Other Activities

Additional activities that impact whale behaviors include 

watercraft approaching whales too closely, vessels disrupting critical feeding behaviors (such as transiting through 

bubble clouds or bubble nets) and potential disturbance 

by aircraft, specifically fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and 

airships. (APs: MMBD 1.2, 1.3 and MMBD.3)

Vessel Strikes

Research indicates that approximately 10% of the vessel/

whale collisions recorded world-wide were reported from 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary area (including Cape Cod 

Bay and Boston Harbor) and that the sanctuary area is a 

“hot spot” for vessel strikes along the eastern U.S. seaboard 

(calculated from Jenson and Silber, 2003) (Figure 62). Data 

indicate that about 39% of the reported strikes result in 

Figure 59. Comparison of a vessel’s maximum recorded trip speed and its maximum recorded zone 1 speed for 46 

commercial whale watching trips representing 12 companies operating in and around the Stellwagen Sanctuary in

2003 and 2004. 

In general, all vessels attained speeds well above the 7 knots (horizontal black line in figure) specified by the guidelines for zone 

1 and reached near maximum trip speeds in zone 1. This indicates that operators were not following speed guidelines meant 

to safeguard whales. Speed data were derived from GPS devices and collected by unannounced and inconspicuous observers. 

Speed zones around whales were identified by those observers using military grade binoculars with a digital compass and laser 

rangefinder to position whales. ESRI ARCGIS was used to create speed zones around the whales for purposes of calculation.
108 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

mortality or serious injury (Anon, 2004). Species struck 

include four endangered species (humpback, fin, sei and 

North Atlantic right) and one protected species (minke). 

Vessel types involved in the strikes of these whales include 

large commercial ships, commercial whale watch vessels 

and private recreational-type boats. Historical records 

demonstrate that the most numerous, per capita, oceangoing strikes recorded among large-whale species accrue 

to the North Atlantic right whale (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 

2006). 

Vessel Speed

Jenson and Silber (2003) documented 27 reported vessel/

whale collisions that occurred in the greater Stellwagen 

Bank area over a 22-year period (1980-2002) with a general increase in strikes occurring between 1984 and 2001. 

The annual mean cruising speed of commercial whale 

watch vessels in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary over the 

related 25-year period (1980-2004) increased from 11 kts 

Figure 60. Co-occurrence of baleen whales and tuna

fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during July

2001–June 2002. 

Whale distribution is represented as a Kriged density plot of 

sightings data from the standardized survey using a 5,000 m 

search radius and analyzed by ESRI ARCGIS. Dots indicate 

locations where bluefin tuna were caught based on Fishing Vessel Trips Reports (VTR) for the same period. Source: 

NOAA Fisheries Service VTR data selected for the sanctuary 

area. The VTR database is discussed in the Human Uses 

section under Commercial Fishing – data types and sources.

Figure 61. Photograph of a hooked humpback whale

in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary trailing tuna

fishing tackle. 

Credit: Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies.

Figure 62. Approximate location of ship strikes to

baleen whales along the eastern seaboard of the

U.S. including the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary from

1979–2002. 

Note high occurrence in and around the sanctuary where 

indicated by arrow. Positions inferred from Jensen and Silber 

(2003).
IV. Resource States 109

to 28 kts, with maximum speeds 

doubling from 20 kts to 40 kts; the 

higher speeds began in 1998 (Figure 

63). The annual rate of strikes by 

these whale watch vessels during 

1998-2004 (5/7 = 0.714) was 3.2 

times greater than during 1980-1997 

(4/18 = 0.222). [Note: There were 

no reported strikes in 2005 or 

2006, which lowers the rate during 

1998-2006 (5/9 = 0.556). However, 

that rate is still 2.5 times greater 

than during 1980-1997 when vessel 

speeds were lower.]

Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) 

calculate that the greatest rate of 

change in the probability of a lethal 

injury to a large whale (any species) 

due to vessel strike occurs between 

vessel speeds of 8.6 kts and 15 kts; 

the probability drops below 50% 

at 11.8 kts and approaches 100% 

above 15 kts. The increased vessel 

speed by commercial whale watch 

vessels operating in the sanctuary places whales at greater risk of 

being struck and raises the probability of lethal injury. Increase in size 

and speed of vessels generally has 

resulted in a corresponding increase 

in the number of vessel strikes 

(e.g., Laist et al., 2001; Taggart and 

Vanderlaan, 2003; Pace and Silber, 

2005).

To further characterize speed of 

commercial vessels transiting the 

sanctuary, records from the USCG 

Automatic Identification System 

(AIS) were analyzed for the months 

of April and May 2006. The AIS data 

were collected as part of a collaborative effort between the Stellwagen 

Bank sanctuary and the USCG (see 

below). One hundred and fifty-six 

AIS-tracked vessels transited the 

sanctuary during these two months. 

Tug and tows, cargo ships and tankers made up 86% of the total traffic volume (Figure 64). Cargo ships 

were recorded to be transporting 

a wide variety of container types, 

while the majority of tanker traffic specialized in mineral resource 

and chemical transport. The highest 

average speeds recorded (all greater 

than 15 kts) were reported for a 

single large passenger ferry, motorized pleasure craft and law enforceFigure 63. Historical trends (1980–2004) in the cruising speed (annual

minimum, maximum and mean) of commercial whale watch vessels operating

within and around the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Reported strikes of whales due to collision with the whale watch boats are also indicated 

in the year that they occurred. Data for 1980-2002 were gathered by naturalists on whale 

watch cruises and provided by the Whale Center of New England; data for 2003-2004 

were gathered by data loggers integrated with GPS receivers during the sanctuary study 

of industry compliance with NOAA whale watch guidelines (Wiley et al., in press).

Figure 64. Maximum and average speed in knots for all (156) tracked

commercial vessels transiting the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during the

months of April and May 2006 using the USCG’s AIS. 

The number of vessels of each type tracked within this time frame is indicated along the 

bottom axis.
110 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

ment vessels; these and cruise ships, cargo and 

LNG carriers all showed maximum speeds greater 

than 20 kts. 

Vessel Traffic

Collisions with large commercial ships constitute 

the majority of human-caused North Atlantic right 

whale mortalities (see Sidebar). NOAA Fisheries 

Service and the USCG established the Mandatory Ship Reporting System (MSRS) in July 1999 to 

reduce this threat (Figure 65). Under this system, 

all commercial ships, 300 gross tons or greater, are 

required to report to a shore-based station when 

entering into critical habitat areas (i.e., Great 

South Channel). Analysis of relative ship traffic 

density (kilometers of ship track per square kilometer) representing MSRS data from the first three 

years (1999-2002) of the northeast Mandatory Ship 

Reporting System indicates that five major highuse corridors of vessel traffic pass directly through 

the sanctuary (Ward-Geiger et al., 2005).

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is working in partnership with the USCG to adapt the AIS, originally 

developed for tracking vessels in real time to reduce 

the risk of vessel collisions, as a means to analyze 

vessel traffic patterns across the sanctuary. The AIS 

is a national shipboard broadcast system operating 

in the VHF maritime band. Compliance is mandatory for all vessels 300 gross tons or more, vessels 

carrying 150 or more passengers, and some other 

types of commercial shipping such as tug and tow 

(http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/enav/ais/default.

htm). Together with the USCG, the sanctuary has 

established a network of receivers on Cape Ann, 

Scituate and Cape Cod that provides complete 

coverage of the sanctuary and adjoining area.

The AIS data portrayed in Figure 66 indicate that 

the sanctuary, because of its proximity to the Port 

of Boston, receives more commercial shipping 

traffic than any other location within U.S. jurisdiction in the GoM. These data are for the months 

of April and May 2006. While the overall traffic 

pattern displayed is similar to that indicated by 

the MSRS data, the AIS data have the advantage of 

being automatic and thus free of voluntary reporting bias, of representing all vessel tracks and not 

just one-way traffic upon entering critical habitat 

areas, and of documenting the entire vessel path 

actually traveled, not just the straight line distance 

inferred from initial point of reporting and arrival 

at destination. Vessel reports include information 

about vessel type and behavior, such as speed and 

course, and cargo carried.

The main Boston shipping channel transects historic whale high-use areas across southern Stellwagen Bank. All cetacean species that frequent the 

sanctuary and surrounding waters exhibit spaceON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION—the North 

Atlantic Right Whale

The North Atlantic Ocean has been home to the North 

Atlantic right whale (Eubalena glacialis) for eons. The Basques 

began hunting North Atlantic right whales in Europe in 

1150, taxed by royal decree, and continued for nearly 600 

years. By the 1500s, the Basques had exterminated the right 

whale population on the eastern side of the North Atlantic 

Ocean. In the latter part of the 16th century, Basque whalers 

expanded their hunting grounds westward to North America, 

particularly to the waters off southern Labrador. 

Eventually, New England shore-based whalers dominated 

the local industry, seeking oil and baleen for energy and 

commercial products. Their catches of right whales peaked in 

the early 1700s, but Yankee whalers continued to pursue this 

species whenever opportunity afforded. The last animals to 

be taken intentionally were a mother and calf off Madiera in 

1967, although the species had been afforded protection from 

hunting since an international agreement signed in 1935. 

This species had been the “right” whale to take because of its 

proximity to coasts and its high oil content making the whale 

positively buoyant so that it floated when killed. 

Despite seven decades of protection from whaling, the North 

Atlantic right whale population has not rebounded. Today 

only a remnant of the population survives, no more than 350 

whales clustered in calving and feeding grounds along the 

eastern seaboard of North America. Only occasional right 

whale sightings in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or in the waters 

between Iceland, Greenland and Norway give echoes of their 

once substantially greater range.

A critical factor in the right whale’s population decline is 

human-induced mortality. Right whales are frequently struck 

and killed by ships or become fatally entangled in fishing gear, 

because their migratory routes overlap with major fishing 

areas and heavily trafficked shipping lanes along the east 

coasts of the United States and Canada. They are also more 

frequently killed and entangled because they spend most 

of their time at the surface, feed at the surface and travel 

slowly compared to other whales. In addition, the whales 

are not reproducing consistently or fast enough to increase 

their numbers—perhaps because of disease, pollutants, poor 

food supplies or genetic insufficiencies. Right whales reach 

reproductive maturity at a late age relative to other whales (>9 

yrs), produce one calf every 3-6 yrs (a lower frequency than 

other whales) and only 50% of the calves survive the first year.

An area consisting of Cape Cod Bay and the southernmost 

portion of the sanctuary was designated a right whale critical 

habitat in 1994 because of its significance as a feeding area 

for right whales, which are resident primarily from January 

through early May. More than half the total population has 

been sighted in the area since studies began of right whales 

in the 1980s. Results of ongoing acoustic monitoring of the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary indicate that this species frequents 

the sanctuary to a greater extent than previously understood.
IV. Resource States 111

use patterns with areas intensively utilized by boat traffic for 

fishing, commercial shipping, military shipping and recreational activity. The MMVS AP proposes several strategies 

to address these issues including re-routing shipping lanes 

(AP: MMVS.1) and instituting voluntary speed restrictions 

for vessels other than large commercial ships to mitigate 

vessel strikes to marine mammals (AP: MMVS.2).

Entanglement

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and adjoining area is a hot 

spot for fishing gear entanglements with whales and has the 

highest number of reported incidents in the GoM (Figure 

67). The area in and around the sanctuary has the highest 

use (combination of spatial extent and density) of fixed gear 

vessels (gillnet, lobster and other trap/pot fisheries) anywhere 

along the eastern seaboard of the United States (Figure 68). 

Relative to other areas, entanglement reports in the sanctuary area are more frequent, which could reflect an increased 

rate of entanglement, increased observer effort, or both.

Analysis of scars on humpbacks and right whales in the GoM 

region indicate that between 50% and 70% of the animals 

have been entangled at least once in their lives and between 

10% and 30% are entangled each year (Robbins and Mattila, 

2004). Chronically entangled whales lose blubber reserves 

making them more likely to sink when they die, thus it is 

believed that gear-induced mortality is underestimated more 

than ship kills. A study of the morbidity and mortality of 

chronically entangled North Atlantic right whales indicates 

that gear entanglement is a major animal welfare issue as 

well as being an obvious conservation concern (Moore et 

al., 2000).

Co-occurrence between various marine mammal species 

and types of fishing gears capable of entangling them are 

of priority concern in the sanctuary. Such co-occurrence 

varies on a spatial and temporal basis and Wiley et al. 

(2003) calculated a Relative Interaction Potential (RIP) index 

to identify hotspots of potential whale entanglement in the 

sanctuary (Figure 69). This risk analysis predicts that the 

Figure 66. Ship tracks in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary and western GoM for the months of April

and May 2006 derived from the USCG AIS. 

The data consist of more than 36 million position records 

generated along vessel paths at several second intervals from 

a total of 916 ships. Yellow represents the April tracks overlain by the May tracks in red.

Figure 65. Mandatory ship reporting system (MSRS) 

data from 1999–2002 showing tracks of large

commercial vessels traversing the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary. 

Tracks depict only incoming traffic and represent only the 

straight line projected path of ships as they enter the MSRS 

zone, hence the straight lines. Only half of the actual traffic is 

illustrated, because vessels leaving the port are not required 

to report upon their departure. Tracks going north-south are 

ships or tugs in tow that are transiting through the Cape Cod 

Canal. The Boston Transportation Separation Scheme (TSS) 

(outlined in purple) is a voluntary shipping lane established 

by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) (data courtesy of NOAA Fisheries Service).
112 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

highest possibility of entanglement within the sanctuary 

should occur around the southwest and northwest corners 

of Stellwagen Bank. 

The risk of whale entanglement in the sanctuary increases in 

areas where whales and fixed fishing gear co-occur, as indicated by the shading with the darkest area representing the 

top quartile of risk (Figure 69). For the study period of July 

2001–June 2002, all three sightings (100%) of entangled 

whales occurred within or in the immediate vicinity of topquartile cells. For the period 2000–2002, 85% (11 of 13) 

of entangled whales were found within or in the immediate 

vicinity of top-quartile cells. Although the locations where 

entangled whales were sighted are not necessarily the sites 

of entanglement, the high frequency of entanglements in 

areas of the sanctuary predicted to be high risk is a compelling correlation. 

Tagging data indicate that humpback whales can be 

extremely active at or within a few meters of the seafloor for 

many hours (Figure 70) and that bottom feeding is an important strategy (Wiley et al., 2005). Therefore, fishing gear 

anywhere in the water column presents an entanglement 

risk to the animals. In 95% of flat-bottomed dives in the four 

humpback whales tracked in this study, the animals exhibited a characteristic “side-roll” behavior along the seafloor 

(Figure 70). Side rolls involved the animal rolling laterally 

more than 40 degrees from dorsal and holding that position for a consistent duration, usually more than 10 seconds 

and less than a minute. The consistency of the behavior is 

evident from the bimodal distribution of body orientation 

measurements. 

Side-roll behavior is presumed mouth-open feeding during 

which whales turn on their side to scour the sandy bottom 

and engulf sand lance burrowed in or located along the 

seafloor. This behavior indicates that the likelihood of 

entanglement by open mouth and protruding appendages 

(flippers and tail) would be elevated during bottom feeding 

bouts in areas with co-occurrence of fixed fishing gear strung 

across the ocean bottom. In a study of 30 cases of entangled 

humpback whales (Johnson et al., 2005), the most common 

Figure 67. Sighting locations of whales reported

entangled in fishing gear in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary and GoM between 1985 and 2006. 

Note: entangled whales can tow gear for long distances and 

the location of reported sightings might or might not be the 

original site of entanglement. Source: Provincetown Center 

for Coastal Studies.

Figure 68. Distribution and density of number of

active fixed gear fishing vessels (gillnet, lobster, 

and other trap/pot fisheries) from Virginia to Maine

during 2004. 

While not pictured here, few fixed gear fisheries occur in 

the Virginia to Florida area. Graphic based on VTRs and 

federal lobster permit data analyzed by 10 x 10 minute grid 

cell. Analysis does not include state-only permitted vessels. 

Source: Industrial Economics, Inc./NOAA Fisheries Service, 

NERO.
IV. Resource States 113

point of gear attachment was the tail (53%) and the mouth 

(43%) which seems to affirm this inference. 

The immediate effects of entanglement include mortality 

by drowning as well as serious and minor injuries such as 

lacerations. Long-term effects can include deteriorating 

health and susceptibility to disease, crippling deformation 

and impaired body function, and decreased competitive 

and reproductive ability. Marine mammal species reported in the sanctuary that are most susceptible to entanglement include baleen whales, harbor porpoises, white-sided 

dolphins and harbor seals. 

Most cetacean bycatch in the sanctuary (and the GoM) is 

associated with the sink gillnet fishery, although entanglements have also been documented in lobster pots, purse 

seine and bottom trawl gear (Smith et al., 1993; Johnson 

et al, 2005). Derelict fishing gear (i.e., “ghost nets”) is also 

suspected to cause entanglement. The incidental catch of 

harbor porpoise and Atlantic white-sided dolphin has been 

documented for gillnet fisheries in the GoM (Gilbert and 

Wynne, 1987; Waring et al., 1990; Smith et al., 1993). 

Reducing incidental mortality in fisheries through time/area 

closures, gear modification, and disentanglement rescue 

and release efforts are management solutions to address 

entanglement problems.

Reduced Forage Base

Atlantic herring accounted for the greatest volume by 

species landed from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 

1996–2005 (refer to subsection on commercial fishing in 

the Status of Human Uses section of this document for data 

source and details). Sand lance are not commercially fished 

within the sanctuary (refer to subsection EA.3 Action Plans 

in this document for expanded discussion of sand lance 

as prey). For the years 1996–2005, a total of 70.1 million 

pounds (31,799 mt) or an average 7.0 million pounds 

(3,180 mt) of herring per year were removed from the sanctuary by commercial fishing (Table 10). Herring removal in 

this amount by fishing reduces the forage base available to 

marine mammals, fish and seabirds in the sanctuary, could 

cause local prey depletion, and thereby could be a factor 

determining the local abundance of whales, dolphins and 

other wildlife in the sanctuary. What is meant by the term 

“local depletion” is explained in the accompanying Sidebar.

The spatial distribution of commercial herring fishing in the 

sanctuary, based on pounds caught and landed by all gear 

types during 1996–2005, is presented in Figure 71. Landings were greatest from around Jeffreys Ledge and parts of 

Stellwagen Bank. A variety of gear types, consisting of midwater pair trawl, mid-water otter trawl and purse seine, was 

used in the early years (1996–2001), but thereafter commercial herring fishing in the sanctuary was dominated by pairtrawling (Figure 72). 

According to recent stock assessments, herring are currently 

not overfished and no overfishing is occurring (http://www.

nefmc.org/herring/index.html). Fishery management plans 

(FMPs) require that annual harvest levels are specified consistent with scientific advice. However, scientific models used 

in these stock assessments have suggested that total herring 

biomass may be overestimated and fishing mortality underestimated. In addition, abundance surveys in the inshore 

GoM are indicating a declining trend, thereby adding to 

the scientific uncertainty associated with these population 

analyses. The inclusion of biological interactions and their 

impacts in stock assessments and multispecies models is an 

important step in predicting sustainable yields and developing realistic estimates of biological reference points for key 

prey species (ICES, 1989; Overholtz et al., 1991; Hollowed 

et al., 2000). This has not been done in the herring FMP. 

Lacking these considerations, an over-optimistic picture of 

sustainable yield may result, and important trophic links 

may be severed if a prey resource is overfished (Overrholtz 

and Link, 2007).

The fishery for herring harvests the same size groups that 

predators (whales, dolphins) consume and is in effect in 

Figure 69. Relative Interaction Potential (RIP) 

index showing the potential for interaction between

baleen whales and fixed fishing gear in the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary, by 5-minute square area. 

The index was calculated by multiplying the total number 

of fixed gear surface buoys within a 5-minute square by the 

total number of whales sighted in that square. Data were 

collected from July 2001 through June 2002 for calculation 

of the index. Yellow symbols depict where entangled baleen 

whales were sighted during 2000-2002. (Source: adapted 

from Wiley et al., 2003)
114 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

competition with them (Overholtz et al., 2000); fishermen 

fishing for pelagic prey species (such as herring) adopt the 

same foraging strategy as natural predators (Bertrand et al.,

2007). Modeling simulation of the relationship between 

minke whale abundance and herring fisheries catch in the 

North Atlantic ecosystem shows interactions that are mainly 

linear and inverse (Schweder et al., 2000). Of consequence 

in discussing the issue of fishery induced prey depletion, 

is the fact that baleen whales (humpback, fin and minke) 

require a minimum threshold level of prey density to successfully forage (Piatt and Methven, 1992) and that humpback 

whales depend on the spatial characteristics and density of 

the prey school to maximize their feeding efficiency when 

surface feeding (Friedlaender et al., in review). 

Prey patchiness tends to increase with mean prey density, 

so depletion of prey stocks by fishing may rapidly reduce 

numbers of suitable prey aggregations. Marine mammals are 

typically aggregated prey patch foragers. Thus local changes in prey abundance may be more important than changes 

across the entire stock range, i.e., GoM. Management to 

Figure 70. Three-dimensional ribbon track of a tagged humpback whale showing extensive interdependent use of

seafloor and water column during foraging along the bottom. 

Twists in the ribbon correspond to side rolls by the animal. Also shown is the bimodal distribution of body orientation (0,0: 

normal dorsal superior swimming position; 100,30: body rolled ~100° and pitched down ~30°) and a visualization of the body roll 

and pitch used during suspected bottom feeding. Ribbon tracks were developed by Colin Ware (University of New Hampshire). 

(Adapted from Wiley et al., 2005).

LOCAL DEPLETION

The scientific meaning of the term “local depletion” 

derives from the fact that the assumption of unit 

stocks (regionally interbreeding populations that 

are reproductively closed) is being rethought in the 

scientific literature based on new findings. In modern 

parlance, a stock is actually a “metapopulation” 

comprising local populations linked by larval 

dispersal, rather than the older and often false 

assumption of a larger, spatially discrete and 

reproductively isolated population. Recent genetic 

and otolith microchemical studies indicate that 

marine stocks have complex spatial structures at 

much smaller scales than previously assumed. The 

important implication of these findings is that a 

decline in fish abundance in one area may not be 

replenished quickly or inevitably from another area. 

This creates the possibility for localized overfishing 

and local depletion (Francis et al, 2007).
IV. Resource States 115

avoid depletion of the prey fields composed of herring and 

sand lance by fisheries in local areas of critically important 

foraging habitat for marine mammals, such as the sanctuary, 

may be needed. Also the sanctuary is a hotspot for prey 

abundance (see Figure 46 and associated text). An important characteristic of pelagic forage fish hot spots is their 

persistence, allowing predators to predict their locations 

and concentrate search efforts to enable optimal foraging 

(Gende and Sigler, 2006). Fishing down prey aggregations 

in SBNMS diminishes the reliability and functional utility of 

this important attribute of the sanctuary.

While reductions in prey abundance might not always be 

sufficient to directly cause a predator species population 

to decline per se, they can cause shifts in predator species 

distribution which affects local predator abundance. Local 

changes in humpback whale abundance and distribution in 

the western North Atlantic have been correlated with variation in prey availability (Payne et al., 1986; Weinrich et al., 

1997). A negative relationship was shown between the 

relative abundance of herring and sand lance in the GoM 

and humpback whale movement from the GoM to eastern 

Canada when prey densities dropped (Stevick et al., 2006). 

This study also found that humpback whales exhibited high 

levels of site fidelity to specific feeding grounds and that the 

duration of stay at, and tendency to return to, each feeding 

ground was related to relative prey density. Since activities 

that remove biomass (i.e. reduce prey density) simultaneously disrupt prey patch configuration, extraction can have 

a cumulative negative impact on predators. These impacts 

would be greatest during periods of natural prey decline, 

during which additional removal by fishing would hasten 

the decrease of prey and cause whales and other predators 

to leave the sanctuary earlier than would have occurred 

under conditions of non-extraction. 

The ease and impacts of such departures by endangered 

whales from the sanctuary to other parts of the GoM might 

not be trivial. Recent investigation (Robbins 2007) has determined that despite inter-annual variation, the sanctuary is a 

site of persistent humpback whale aggregation, thus animals 

are reticent to leave the area even when faced with reduced 

prey. Robbins (2007) also determined that the sanctuary is 

preferentially used by juveniles and reproductively mature/

active females. These classes typically play important roles 

in large mammal population dynamics because of their 

sensitivity to environment and/or population density (juveniles) and importance to population growth (adult females). 

Thus, the preferential and persistent use of the sanctuary 

by the most important segments of this endangered whale 

population indicate that management actions specific to the 

sanctuary could benefit the population as a whole (Robbins 

2007). Assuring an adequate prey base is a key component 

of such management, as the growth requirement of juveniles and the increased nutritional cost of lactation would 

require high rates of prey consumption.

While less data exist for other species, similar conditions 

might exist. For example, Agler et al. (1993) found that fin 

Figure 71. Spatial distribution of commercial

herring fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

during 1996–2005. 

Area of circle is proportional to pounds of herring caught and 

landed from that location. Source: NOAA Fisheries Service 

VTR data selected for the sanctuary area.

Table 10. Herring landings (millions of pounds) from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by gear type (1996–2005).

Gear Type 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total % 

Total

Pair Trawl, 

Midwater

95 4,060 8,083 3,098 1,060 1,676 7,383 1,881 3,407 13,057 43,800 62.5

Otter Trawl, 

Midwater

2,627 2,761 4,162 2,064 0 1,406 430 0 0 3,971 17,421 24.9

Purse Seine 2,680 1,274 710 3,682 60 0 0 80 0 0 8,486 12.1

Other * 358 3 4 8 0 0 0 2 4 0 378 0.5

Total 5,760 8,098 12,958 8,852 1,120 3,082 7,813 1,963 3,411 17,028 70,085 100.0

* Other includes: otter trawl, bottom, fish; gill net, sink; hand line/rod & reel; otter trawl, shrimp; and mixed gear.
116 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

whales in the southern GoM had higher reproductive rates 

than those in the northern areas. These results are similar 

to those reported for humpbacks (Robbins 2007) and might 

result from a similar preference for adult females to use the 

sanctuary. Thus, increased prey availability at the scale of 

the sanctuary could have a population level impact on that 

endangered species as well.

It is unclear whether herring fishery management adequately 

accounts for the energetic requirements of species that rely 

on herring such as large whales (i.e., humpback, fin, minke), 

pinnipeds, seabirds, and piscivorous fish (i.e., bluefin tuna, 

cod, bluefish, striped bass), but such knowledge is consequential to ecosystem-based management of the sanctuary. 

One recent study suggests that stock assessment models for 

herring in the GoM seriously underestimate the amount 

of herring needed to sustain not only the fishery but also 

the biota that relies on healthy herring populations (Read 

and Brownstein, 2003). The following illustration implies 

no defined need for whales and dolphins to remain within 

the sanctuary, nor is there any such expectation. However, 

there is the expectation that whales will be able to feed 

optimally and realize net benefit without competition from 

fishing while in the sanctuary.

The herring landings from the sanctuary reported above can 

be converted to an equivalent number of marine mammals 

that could be supported in the sanctuary, if the herring were 

not extracted by fishing. This illustration uses a measure 

of consumption of herring by whale and dolphin species 

for representative terms of residency in the GoM based on 

Read and Brownstein (2003). The average landings of 3,180 

mt of herring per year from the sanctuary are equivalent to 

the annual forage required to support approximately: 219 

fin whales or 253 humpback whales or 499 minke whales 

or 2,978 Atlantic white-sided dolphins, for example. The 

results derived from these calculations are exclusive to each 

of the four species of marine mammals considered and 

only allow general inference. In actuality, a mix of marine 

mammal species and multiple piscivorous sea birds and 

fishes would consume the herring if they were not caught 

(Overholtz and Link, 2006).

Herring and sand lance are keystone prey species that 

constitute a major segment of the forage base of the sanctuary. The species affected by the removal of herring by fishing include those (e.g., whales, cod, blue fin tuna) central 

to supporting tourism and recreation in the sanctuary, 

which are activities that generate direct sales far greater in 

value than the ex-vessel landings of the herring per se. For 

example, annual direct sales value for commercial whale 

watching in the sanctuary was approximately $24 million in 

2000 (Hoyt, 2001); ex-vessel value for herring landings from 

the sanctuary that year was $64 thousand (fishing Vessel 

Trip Report [VTR] data, NOAA Fisheries Service); ex-vessel 

value for herring landings from the sanctuary for the decade 

(1996–2005) was $5.4 million (Table 15, Commercial Fishing section of this document). The total volume of herring 

removed annually by commercial fishing in the sanctuary (and accompanying disruption of prey fields) may be 

sufficient to reduce the amount of prey available to attract 

and sustain a broad array of sanctuary fish and wildlife and 

to diminish the economic and social activities ultimately 

dependent on them.

Pollution and Chemical Contaminants

The environment of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary provides 

feeding and nursery areas for humpback, fin, sei, minke and 

North Atlantic right whales, the latter being the most critically-endangered of all large cetacean species. Cetaceans 

are key predators of small fish and zooplankton and they 

exhibit low fecundity relative to many other marine animals. 

Figure 72. Herring landings in pounds by fishing gear type and year from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during

1996–2005. 

Source: NOAA Fisheries Service VTR data selected for the sanctuary area.
IV. Resource States 117

These biological characteristics, coupled with their sensitive 

dependence on specific prey types, mean that cetaceans 

also function as important bioindicators of the health and 

productivity of marine ecosystems (Reijnders et al., 1999; 

Greene et al., 2003).

Pollution in the form of dredge spoils, ocean dumping and 

disposal, and noise, as well as chemical contaminants may 

affect the health and survival of baleen whales (Perry et 

al., 1999; Reeves et al., 2000; Rolland et al., 2005). Sand 

lance is a key species within the sanctuary and serves as 

the primary prey of humpback whales and other baleen 

whales in the sanctuary. The populations of key species, 

such as sand lance, are highly variable, and fluctuate widely 

from year to year, with concomitant effects on consumers, 

such as whales. Although contaminant concentrations have 

not been determined for prey species (e.g., sand lance) to 

date, predator-prey relationships are important pathways 

to consider when evaluating possible adverse effects of 

contaminants on the health of marine mammals. 

In addition to point-source pollution that may affect food 

webs (e.g., chemicals from discharge sites and dumping), 

the atmospheric transport of contaminants represents a 

global danger (Reeves, 2003). Exceptionally high levels of 

chemical contaminants in the tissues of cetaceans may be 

affecting the animals’ immune and reproductive systems 

(Reeves, 2003). For example, Weisbrod et al., (2001) found 

elevated levels of organochlorine in pilot whales and Atlantic 

white-sided dolphins from the southern GoM, with the later 

considered to have bioaccumulated hazardous concentrations of polycholorinated biphenals (PCBs) and chlorinated 

pesticides. In addition, a wider range of PCBs and pesticides 

have been detected in baleen whale species, including the 

endangered right whale, although concentrations were not 

considered hazardous (Weisbrod et al., 2000). 

Cetacean exposure to marine biotoxins associated with 

harmful algal blooms (HABs) has been documented in the 

GoM (Doucette et al., 2006). The dinoflagellate genus 

Alexandrium, which produces paralytic shellfish poisoning 

(PSP), blooms at the time of right whale abundance. The 

trophic transfer of marine toxins has been hypothesized to 

be a contributing factor to the poor recovery of the North 

Atlantic right whale, although neither chronic nor sublethal 

effects are known for cetaceans (Durbin et al., 2002). Similarly in 1987, 14 humpback whales washed ashore dead and 

decomposed along Cape Cod Bay and Nantucket Sound. 

The cause of this unprecedented stranding of large baleen 

whales was attributed to a naturally occurring neurotoxin 

called saxotoxin or STX (Geraci et al., 1989). Additionally, 

marine debris pollution (e.g., from ingestion of plastic bags) 

and its impact on marine animal populations is a global 

problem, which is extremely difficult to evaluate (Laist et 

al., 1999).

Current Protection

The protection of marine mammals in the sanctuary is 

provided through the following laws, regulations, and 

guidelines:

•	National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) of 1972 (16

U.S.C. § 1432 et seq.)

•	SBNMS Regulations (15 CFR § Subpart N)

•	Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972

•	Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

•	NOAA Voluntary Whale Watch Guidelines

Sanctuary regulations prohibit the taking or possessing (regardless of where taken, moved or removed from), 

except as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes, of 

any marine reptile, marine mammal or seabird in or above 

the sanctuary, except as permitted by the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, as amended, (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq., the Endangered Species Act, as amended, (ESA), 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

as amended, (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. All marine 

mammals while in or transiting the sanctuary are sanctuary 

resources. Five species of baleen whales are endangered 

(Table 8).

The MMPA and ESA prohibit the “taking” of a marine 

mammal (i.e., “harass, hunt, capture or kill”) without authorization. The relevant definition of the term “harassment” 

means any “negligent or intentional act which results in 

the disturbing or molesting of marine mammals” causing 

by disruption of “behavioral patterns, including, but not 

limited to migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, 

sheltering” {16 U.S.C. 1362(13)}. All marine mammals are 

federally “protected” by the MMPA and most large whales 

are further listed as “threatened or endangered” under the 

ESA.

Behavioral Disturbance

NOAA regional whale watch guidelines are intended to 

prevent harassment and possible injury or death to large 

whales by both commercial and recreational vessels 

(Appendix M). The North Atlantic right whale is protected by separate State and Federal regulations that prohibit 

approach within 500 yards (457 m) of this species (50 CRF 

222.32). Any vessel finding itself within the 500-yard buffer 

zone created by a surfacing right whale must depart immediately at a safe slow speed. The only vessels allowed to 

remain within 500 yards of a right whale are vessels with 

appropriate research permits, commercial fishing vessels in 

the act of hauling back or towing gear, or any vessel given 

prior approval by NOAA Fisheries Service to investigate a 

potential entanglement. Except for the North Atlantic right 

whale, no federal rule regulates how vessels behave around 

whales in the northeast region.

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary has no overflight restrictions 

governing airplane activity. To date, guidelines or legislation 

regarding sound (acoustic) energy and the need to manage 

it appropriately do not exist. NOAA Fisheries Service 

published a notice of intent on 11 January, 2005, in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 1871) to prepare an EIS to analyze 

the potential impacts of applying new criteria in guidelines 

to determine what constitutes a “take” of a marine mammal 

under the MMPA and ESA as a result of exposure to anthropogenic noise in the marine environment.
118 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Vessel Strike

NOAA issues ship speed advisories 

using NOAA-based communications to help reduce ship strikes to 

North Atlantic right whales. The 

NOAA National Weather Service 

issues right whale advisories and 

speed advisories on NOAA weather 

radio when aggregations are sighted. Advisories are voluntary and 

apply to areas where right whales 

sightings have been confirmed; they 

indicate that neither navigational 

nor human safety is to be jeopardized as a result of reduced speeds 

or other maneuvers to reduce the 

risk of striking a whale. Speed advisories have also been integrated 

into many NOAA publications. 

Ships reporting into the Mandatory Ship Reporting System receive 

an automated message indicating 

precautionary measures to be taken 

to avoid hitting whales, including 

speed advisories (Ward-Geiger et 

al., 2005).

Current efforts to reduce occurrence 

of North Atlantic right whale deaths 

and serious injury from ship strikes 

have not been sufficient to recover 

the species. NOAA is proposing 

regulatory measures, as part of 

the NOAA Ship Strike Reduction 

Program, designed to significantly 

reduce the likelihood and severity 

of collisions with right whales while 

also minimizing adverse impacts on ship operations. NOAA 

rulemaking proposed vessel speed restrictions of 10, 12 or 

14 knots or less in areas and during time periods where 

right whales are predicted to be most prevalent; sightings 

outside these times and areas could also trigger management actions under some alternatives (FR 7-26-06). These 

regulations, pursuant to rulemaking authority under MMPA 

section 112(a) (16 U.S.C. 1382(a)) and ESA 11(f) (16 U.S.C. 

1540(f)), are also consistent with the purpose of the ESA “to 

provide a program for the conservation of [...] endangered 

species” and “the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered 

species [...] and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance 

of the purposes of [the ESA].”

On December 12, 2006, the International Maritime Organization approved a proposal submitted by the USCG on 

behalf of NOAA to narrow and move the Boston area Traffic 

Separation System (TSS) (i.e., the shipping lanes that cross 

the sanctuary to and from the Port of Boston) 12 degrees 

to the north (Figure 73). The proposal was developed by 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary in collaboration with NOAA 

Fisheries Service, NOAA General Counsel (International) 

and the USCG. The lane shift greatly reduces the risk of 

vessels striking whales—by up to 81% for all whales (humpback, fin, minke, northern right) and by up to 58% for the 

critically endangered right whale—while minimally impacting shipping interests. The conservation benefit is realized 

by moving the TSS away from areas of historical high use by 

whales over prime feeding habitat. This action is strategy 

AP:MMVS.1 recommended in this document. 

Entanglement

Besides MMPA and ESA mandates, a number of existing 

regulations and plans designed to reduce the risk of marine 

mammal entanglement in the Northeast apply to, but are not 

specific to, the sanctuary. Regulations that are most applicable to marine mammal entanglement within the sanctuary 

are those pertaining to trap/pot fisheries and gillnet fisheries. 

Examples are:

•	Federal lobster trap limits

•	Lobster trap gear identification

Figure 73. Realignment of the shipping lanes (TSS) into the Port of Boston

by the International Maritime Organization to reduce the risk of ship strikes

to baleen whales in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Analysis based on non-standard whale sightings (n=~255,000) from commercial whale 

watching vessels from 1979-2004 overlain with right whales sightings (circles) from 

the Right Whale Consortium database (n=5,675). Kriged density plots of whale watch 

derived sightings were produced using a 5,000 m search radius analyzed using ESRI 

ARCGIS; whale watch data were collected by the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies and the Whale Center of New England.
IV. Resource States 119

•	Lobster trap maximum size

•	Trap/pot gear restrictions

•	Lobster trap gear configuration

•	Special restrictions on critical habitat areas

•	Reconfiguration of anchored gillnet gear

•	Multispecies sink gillnet regulations (aimed at rebuilding

overfished groundfish stocks)

•	Seasonal and rolling closure areas

•	Gear stowage requirements

The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (NOAA, 

2007) addresses broad-based gear modifications and special 

management areas to reduce serious injury and mortality of 

right, humpback and minke whales due to incidental interactions with commercial fisheries.

Reduced Forage Base

Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management 

Plan was developed by the NEFMC and submitted to NOAA 

Fisheries Service on May 3, 2006. Notice of the final rule 

implementing Amendment 1 was published on March 12, 

2007 (72 FR 11252). Of significance to the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary is how the commercial herring fishery impacts the 

forage base of the sanctuary, particularly in regard to Area 

1A which entirely overlaps the sanctuary (Figure 74). 

Relative to the 2005/2006 total allowable catches (TACs) of 

herring, the 2007 fishery specifications reduced the Area 1A 

TAC by 10,000 mt (17%), modified the seasonal split of the 

Area 1A TAC, and increased the Area 3 TAC by 5,000 mt. 

Domestic annual harvest for the fishery was set at 145,000 

mt, domestic annual processing was set at 141,000 mt, and 

there was no specification for either total allowable level of 

foreign fishing or total joint venture processing. The 2007 

fishery specifications provided the opportunity for total 

U.S. fishery landings to increase about 35% above recent 

(1995–2005) levels. 

However, when implementing multi-year specifications for 

2007–2009, NOAA Fisheries Service determined that the 

2008 and 2009 specifications should include an additional 

reduction in the Area 1A TAC with a corresponding increase 

in the Area 3 TAC. As a result, the Area 1A TAC was reduced 

another 5,000 mt to 45,000 mt, and the Area 3 TAC was 

increased another 5,000 mt to 60,000 mt. All other specifications remain the same for 2008 and 2009. In addition, 

the research set-aside program became effective in 2008, 

and 3% of each management area TAC has been set-aside 

to support herring-related research. The information in this 

and the previous paragraph is from the NEFMC “Herring 

Fishery Specifications for the 2007–2009 Fishing Years.”

From the perspective of the sanctuary, the key component 

of the actions taken is the 10,000 mt (17%) reduction in 

2007 and additional 5,000 mt reduction specified for 2008 

and 2009 in Area 1A TAC. This reduction is three to five 

times the total average annual landings (3,180 mt) of herring 

caught in the sanctuary over 1996–2005 and is more than 

the highest single year landings in the sanctuary to date 

(7,726 mt) made in 2005. 

While the numeric level of reduction seems appropriately 

scaled to address the concern of diminished prey base in 

the sanctuary, that concern would only be fully addressed if 

the TAC were harvested entirely outside of the sanctuary (for 

reasons explained in the previous subsection on Reduced 

Forage Base and subsequently under Action Plan Objective 

EA.3). Thresholds for prey density as well as the shape and 

spatial integrity of prey fields are determinants of the optimality of humpback whale foraging in the sanctuary; both 

of these conditions are degraded by herring fishing. And 

the calculations underlying the determination of the TAC do 

not include empirical estimates of herring consumption by 

whales or other key predators in the sanctuary.

Figure 74. Location of the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary relative to Area 1A in the herring fishery

management plan.
120 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Maritime Heritage Resources

National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) regulations 

define “historical resource” as any resource possessing 

historical, cultural, archaeological, or paleontological significance, including sites, contextual information, structures, 

districts and objects significantly associated with or representative of earlier people, culture, maritime heritage, and 

human activities and events. Historical resources include 

“submerged cultural resources” and also include “historical 

properties,” as defined in the National Historic Preservation 

Act. 

The term “historical resource” as used in the NMSP regulations also encompasses prehistoric archaeological sites; 

therefore, the NMSP’s Maritime Heritage Program prefers 

the term “maritime heritage resource.” “Maritime heritage 

resource” is defined as any shipwreck or other site or object 

that is of archaeological, historical, or cultural significance 

found in, on or under the submerged lands, including sunken State craft.

Maritime heritage resources in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary require management as mandated by the NMSA 

and sanctuary regulations. In addition, there is a limited 

relationship of maritime heritage resources to biodiversity 

conservation consisting of the role that shipwreck structures 

serve as substrate for epibenthic organisms and shelter for 

fishes and invertebrates that warrants consideration. 

Status

Uncounted prehistoric and historic archaeological sites lie 

within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. The sanctuary’s position at the mouth of Massachusetts Bay places it astride the 

historic shipping routes and fishing grounds for such historic 

ports as Gloucester, Salem, Boston, Plymouth and Provincetown. These ports have been centers of maritime activity in 

New England for nearly 400 years. As a result of man’s long 

association with the sea, the sanctuary contains a broad 

cross-section of this nation’s maritime heritage. The only 

archaeological resources identified to date in the sanctuary 

are shipwrecks

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary has been actively pursuing maritime heritage research since 2000. The sanctuary 

has relied heavily on a partnership with NOAA’s Undersea Research Center—University of Connecticut (NURCUConn) to access appropriate tools, including side scan 

sonar, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and skilled pilots, 

to investigate maritime heritage resources. The sanctuary 

has also benefited greatly from the generosity of independent researchers, such as John Fish and Arnold Carr of the 

American Underwater Search and Survey, who have provided locations or information about sanctuary maritime heritage resources.

The sanctuary’s research has been focused along two paths: 

locating maritime heritage resources and characterizing 

those resources. Prior to 2000, the sanctuary was unaware 

of the precise location of any such sites within its boundaries. Since 2000, the sanctuary has conducted nine research 

cruises that utilized side scan sonar to survey the seafloor 

and identify potential maritime heritage resources. These 

surveys have mapped 85 square kilometers (32.8 square 

miles) of the sanctuary’s seafloor, or approximately four 

percent of the sanctuary’s total area.

As potential maritime heritage resources were located, the 

sanctuary began to characterize the resource utilizing the 

appropriate technology. Maritime heritage resources shallower than 130 feet were investigated by researchers utilizing SCUBA (Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus). Divers recorded diagnostic features with still and 

video photography, measurements and scaled drawings. 

Sites monitored repeatedly were examined for changes in 

each vessel’s structure and artifact assemblages. Maritime 

heritage resources beyond recreational diving limits were 

investigated with an ROV carrying lights and digital still and 

video cameras. The ROV’s cameras recorded diagnostic 

features, and its scaling lasers provided dimensions of these 

features. The large size of several of the sanctuary’s shipwrecks, notably the Portland and Frank A. Palmer/Louise B. 

Crary, and the time-consuming delays to avoid entangling 

fishing gear on these sites, have caused site characterization 

to be ongoing. 

Beginning in 2003, the sanctuary instituted a monitoring 

program for the steamship Portland and Frank A. Palmer/

Louise B. Crary. Each year since, the sanctuary researchers 

have returned to the sites with an ROV to monitor artifacts 

and structures for change. At both shipwreck sites, researchers have noted changes to artifact assemblages and deterioration of wooden structure. The sanctuary also periodically 

revisits other maritime heritage resources to document site 

changes. The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary has adopted a policy of in situ preservation as its preferred preservation method 

for maritime heritage resources. This policy is recognized 

by the international community through the United Nations 

Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 

Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage’s objectives and general principles.

Maritime heritage resources begin to deteriorate shortly 

after submersion in a saltwater environment. The physical 
IV. Resource States 121

and chemical oceanographic aspects of the ocean, such as 

waves, currents, salinity, and pH erode and corrode cultural material, while biological and biochemical activities of 

organisms, such as wood boring mollusks and bacteria, 

contribute to the natural deterioration of archaeological 

sites. The specific environment in which an archaeological 

site is located greatly influences how rapidly the site will 

deteriorate. The sanctuary’s low energy deep muddy basins 

preserve an archaeological site much longer than the much 

more dynamic top of Stellwagen Bank. Additionally, the 

composition of submerged artifacts greatly affects how long 

the item will remain in the archeological record. In general, 

organic material, such as wood and fabric, does not last as 

long as iron, brass or ceramics. 

Archaeological sites reach equilibrium with the environment after a period of deterioration. Corrosion products 

enclose ironwork, insulating it from rapid oxidation. Likewise, anoxic sediment covers hull remains greatly reducing 

biological and biochemical consumption. Archaeological 

sites can last for thousands of years, as evidenced by classical Greek shipwrecks found in the Mediterranean Sea. Even 

though these ancient shipwrecks have deteriorated significantly since their deposition, the sites maintain archaeological integrity and can be invaluable gateways to learn about 

past human activities. Disturbance by human impact can 

upset this natural equilibrium and accelerate disintegration.

Prehistoric Resources

Ancient geologic and glacial processes once exposed the 

sanctuary’s seafloor to the sun, allowing it to support flora 

and fauna that may have been utilized by the Paleo-Indian 

peoples (Barber, 1979). Around 12,000 years ago, groups 

of migratory humans, known as Paleo-Indians, inhabited 

southern New England. The retreat of the Laurentide ice 

sheet 21,000 to 16,000 years ago allowed these people 

access to Stellwagen Bank, which rose above the surrounding ocean as a result of lower sea levels and the rebound 

of the Earth’s crust after the retreat of the heavy ice sheets 

(Funk, 1978; Barber, 1979). 

Although no archaeological evidence of Paleo-Indian inhabitation has been found on Stellwagen Bank, sea level models 

suggest that the bank remained accessible to the Paleo-Indians for approximately 1,000 years. During this time, people 

likely utilized the bank to hunt for land mammals, as a base 

for fishing and hunting marine mammals, and for gathering 

shellfish and vegetation (Barber, 1979). The possibility of 

finding Paleo-Indian cultural remains on Stellwagen Bank 

is supported by the recovery of mastodon skeletal remains 

by local fishermen (Carr, 1990). Further geologic study, 

site modeling, and sampling will be necessary to determine 

the potential for locating prehistoric cultural remains in the 

sanctuary. 

Native Americans developed complex societies in New 

England during the approximately 12,000 years of human 

habitation prior to the arrival of Europeans. At the time of 

European contact Penobscot, Abenaki, Pequot, Massachusett, Narragansett, Wampanoag and Confederated River 

tribes inhabited the region surrounding Massachusetts Bay. 

These coastal tribes utilized the marine environment as their 

ancestors had, but it is unlikely that they ventured into the 

sanctuary’s waters considering the wealth of resources close 

to shore. 

Rising sea levels covered the bank within several millennia of its exposure, displacing any Native Americans living 

within the area to the edges of Massachusetts Bay, but not 

diminishing their usage of marine resources. The arrival 

of Europeans in the New World dramatically amplified the 

quantity of maritime traffic on Massachusetts Bay.

Historic Resources

As a result of four centuries of historic vessel traffic through 

the sanctuary, several hundred historic vessel losses are 

recorded in the sanctuary’s vicinity. Primary causes of 

vessel loss (shipwrecks) in the sanctuary fall into four broad 

classes: (1) acts of war—naval engagements, piracy, law 

enforcement; (2) natural forces—storms (gales/hurricanes); 

(3) human error—seamanship, fire, collision; and (4) abandonment—for the reasons stated above, plus vessel condition and economic reasons (Fish, 1989). The sanctuary’s 

minimum depth of 20 m (65 ft.) means that no vessel was 

lost in the sanctuary as a result of grounding or stranding. 

Vessels reported lost to either of these two causes are not 

considered to lie within the sanctuary.

The ambiguity of location given for most maritime disasters, and particularly for sanctuary shipwrecks, generally 

precludes establishing statements about impacts to specific 

resources. Ambiguity exists over the reported locations of 

shipwrecks, particularly the types of vessel losses at sea. A 

presumed nearest landfall is assigned when the shipwreck 

does not occur at a recognized landmark, i.e., on shore, on 

rocks, near a buoy marker or lightship. References such as 

off-Provincetown, off-Cape Ann, off-Massachusetts Coast, 

or off-New England, or “left port never to be heard of again,” 

are frequently the only description of shipwreck locations 

that may be in the sanctuary. Additionally, for most colonial 

writers, places of loss were far less important to record than 

the persons and property that were lost. 

Government data collection has been primarily aimed at 

identifying and locating man-made and natural objects that 

are hazards to navigation. These locations within the sanctuary are approximated and not verified, because they do not 

pose a hazard to navigation. Further, reliable location information is often in private hands (sport divers, researchers, 

fishermen), for whom personal interests generally preclude 

making the information public.

Most available published sources of shipwreck information 

concentrate on “romance of the sea” and/or major calamities and disasters; their audience is typically popular and 

not scholarly. Many of these works are laundry lists of shipwrecks, often published without sources. Further, many 

works reflect a certain selective presentation of facts, such 

as including only larger vessels or those carrying “valuable” 

cargo. Thus, precise statements of historic vessel losses in 

the sanctuary are not possible.
122 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Vessels

Since the sanctuary began investigating its maritime heritage 

resources in 2000, archaeologists have located 18 historic 

shipwreck sites and identified four of these shipwrecks by 

name. Historical records indicate that several hundred 

more vessels sank within the sanctuary or its vicinity. Past 

research expeditions have used remote sensing technology, 

such as side scan sonar and ROVs, to locate and identify 

shipwreck sites. Archaeologists have also used SCUBA to 

investigate shallower shipwreck sites, such as the 5-masted 

coal schooner Paul Palmer that caught fire and sank off 

Provincetown in 1913. 

In 2002, a team of NOAA scientists confirmed that a shipwreck in the sanctuary was the side paddle wheel steamship 

Portland. The wooden hulled steamship, built in 1889 by 

the New England Shipbuilding Company of Bath, Maine, 

for the Portland Steam Packet Company, ran between Portland, Maine, and Boston, Massachusetts, from 1890 to 1898 

(Figure 75). At 85.6 m (281 ft.) long, the steamship was 

one of the largest and best-appointed vessels afloat in New 

England during the 1890s. The steamship sank with all 

hands on November 27, 1898 during a fierce storm, thereafter known as the “Portland Gale.” Historians believe that 

nearly 200 people lost their lives. 

Remains of the Portland include its upright and intact wooden hull, which has survived from the main deck level down 

to the keel (Figure 76). Machinery assemblages such as the 

boilers, paddle flanges and shaft, steam engine, walking 

beam and wooden A-frame are articulated and in their original positions. Smaller cultural artifacts such as plates and 

cups lie scattered inside and outside the hull (Figure 77). 

The Portland’s hull is draped with fishing nets and provides 

substrate for sponges and anemones. In 2005, the Portland

was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Another visually spectacular shipwreck site is the wrecks 

of the 83.5-m (274 ft.) long 4-masted schooner Frank A. 

Palmer (Figure 78) and 81.4-m (267 ft.) long 5-masted 

schooner Louise B. Crary (Figure 79), which sit upright on 

the seafloor connected at their bows after colliding (Figure 

80). Both vessels were built at the turn of the century in 

Bath, Maine, for the coal trade between the Chesapeake Bay 

and New England. While enroute to Boston, Massachusetts, 

from Hampton Roads, Virginia, with coal cargos, the Frank 

A. Palmer and Louise B. Crary collided on December 17, 

1902. Eleven of the twenty-one sailors onboard the schooners perished during the accident or while awaiting rescue 

in a lifeboat. Both schooners are intact from keel to main 

deck and have portions of their masts still standing. Surveys 

have encountered cultural artifacts within the remains of 

the Frank A. Palmer captain’s cabin (Figure 81). In 2006, 

the Frank A. Palmer and Louise B. Crary were listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

In addition to the Frank A. Palmer and Louise B. Crary, 

archaeologists have located and investigated several other 

collier sites with varying degrees of preservation. Similar in 

size to the Frank A. Palmer, the shipwreck of the 5-masted 

schooner Paul Palmer exemplifies the differences in site 

preservation as a result of the wrecking event and the environment in which the shipwreck lies (Figure 82). While 

Figure 76. The steamship Portland’s location in the

sanctuary was confirmed by NOAA scientists in 2002. 

Depicted here is a side scan sonar image of the Portland

showing it sitting upright on its keel with boiler uptakes and 

walking beam engine projecting above the main deck. Courtesy: Klein Sonar Associates, Inc.

Figure 75. Historic photograph of the steamship

Portland from 1891. The Portland sank with all

hands during the Portland Gale in November 1898.

Courtesy: LARC.
IV. Resource States 123

sailing south from Maine to the Chesapeake in ballast, 

the schooner’s forecastle caught fire off Highland Light in 

1913. Flames quickly engulfed the schooner, thwarting 

efforts to extinguish the flames with the schooner’s pumps. 

The vessel’s crew escaped the fire by boarding a tug that 

approached the schooner to help fight the blaze. Burned to 

the waterline, the schooner sank on top of Stellwagen Bank. 

In 2007, the Paul Palmer was listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places.

Today, the Paul Palmer’s remains consist of its wooden hull, 

intact to the turn of the bilge, keelsons, a pile of anchor 

chain and the schooner’s windlass (Figure 83). Ship fittings, 

such as bitts, a davit, anchors and rigging components, lie 

throughout the site. While the fire likely destroyed much 

of the vessel’s hull, the dynamic environment on top of 

Figure 77. Fragile teacups and dishware in the galley

survived the Portland’s plummet to seafloor in 1898. 

The shipwreck is listed on the National Register of Historical 

Places and is the best preserved of any New England “night 

boat” found to date. Source: NOAA/SBNMS, NURC-UConn, 

and the Science Channel.

Stellwagen Bank caused the schooner’s structure to degrade 

faster than the more static environment in which the Frank 

A. Palmer rests. The schooner’s degradation has also been 

hastened by impacts from commercial fishing. Evidence of 

these impacts is graphically demonstrated by a trawl net that 

has become wrapped around the shipwreck’s windlass. The 

sanctuary has documented recent impacts in the form of 

broken timbers and displaced anchors.

Other collier sites represent much smaller vessels more typical of the sailing vessels that plied the East Coast during the 

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The archaeological preservation of these smaller collier shipwrecks varies 

Figure 78. Historical photograph of the 4-masted

coal schooner Frank A Palmer. 

The Maine built Frank A. Palmer was the longest 4-masted 

schooner ever built. Courtesy: Maine Maritime Museum.

Figure 79. Historical photograph of the 5-masted

coal schooner Louise B Crary. 

In 1902, the Louise B. Crary’s mate miscalculated his tack 

causing his vessel to strike the Frank A. Palmer’s bow. Courtesy: Maine Maritime Museum.

Figure 80. In 2002, NOAA scientists confirmed the

location of the schooners Frank A. Palmer and Louise

B. Crary in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Depicted is a side-scan sonar image of the two intact vessels, 

connected at their bows, in the same orientation in which 

they sank. Source: NOAA/SBNMS and NURC-UConn. 
124 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

widely. One 32 m (100 ft.) long vessel is nearly intact up 

to its deck level. Features of the site include copper-alloy 

sheathed hull planking, wooden hanging knees, and a 

variety of ship fittings and artifacts (Figure 84). In contrast, 

the hull remains of another collier are only represented by 

eroded frames protruding centimeters from a pile of coal 

35 m (114.8 ft.) long. Very few ship fittings and no smaller 

artifacts were found on this site (Figure 85). Both vessels 

were likely two-masted schooners that carried a variety of 

cargos, but happened to be loaded with coal when they 

sank. While both vessels lie in water of similar depth, the 

more intact vessel lies in an area that is less frequently fished 

by bottom trawl gear. 

The granite industry is another coastal trade represented by 

a sanctuary shipwreck. In the remains of this sailing vessel, 

the cargo of granite slabs vary in size, ranging from blocks 

measuring 2 m long by .5 m wide, to others stretching over 

3 m long. Approximately 40 slabs were contained within 

the vessel’s hold (Figure 86). The most common slab shape 

measures 3 m long by 2 m wide with a manhole bored into 

its center. Blocks of this variety were used to cover sewer 

basins that captured the drainage from street gutters. The 

uniform shape of the manholes suggests that they were 

bored using a large diameter drill, a technology first used in 

the second half of the 19th century. 

After colliers, the second most common variety of shipwreck 

located thus far in the sanctuary is 20th century commercial 

fishing vessels. Of these, wooden-hulled eastern-rig draggers represent the majority. Constructed from the 1920s 

through the 1970s, these side trawlers exemplify the transition from hook and line fishing to engine-powered trawling 

(Figure 87). Several of the eastern-rig dragger shipwrecks in 

the sanctuary are remarkably intact, with extant pilot houses 

and masts. Others are much more fragmentary as a result of 

damage incurred from the impact of nets and trawl doors of 

successive generations of fishing vessels.

Aircraft

At least one aircraft crash site is believed to be located within the sanctuary. Divers reported finding a P-38 Lightning 

on the western edge of Stellwagen Bank. Fishermen also 

report recovering military aircraft parts from a site north of 

Stellwagen Bank (B. Lee, pers. comm., 2004).

Pressures

Sanctuary shipwreck sites below the zone of storm wave 

disturbance (~85 m) generally reside in a depositional enviFigure 81. The Frank A. Palmer’s stern cabin contains

the remains of the captain’s sink and toilet. 

The Frank A. Palmer and Louise B. Crary are listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places and are the best preserved 

examples of New England coal schooners in the archaeological record located thus far. Source: NOAA/SBNMS and 

NURC-UConn.

Figure 82. Historical postcard of the 5-masted

coal schooner Paul Palmer offloading coal in New

Hampshire. 

The Paul Palmer caught fire and sank off Cape Cod in 1913 

while en-route to Virginia. Courtesy: LARC. 

Figure 83. The Paul Palmer rests on top of

Stellwagen Bank with its wooden frames and hull

planking protruding up from the sand. 

Substantial information can be learned about the role coal 

schooners played in the growth of New England by examining Paul Palmer’s archaeological remains. Source: NOAA/

SBNMS.
IV. Resource States 125

ronment of little natural disturbance. Consequently, the 

chief impacts to archaeological sites in this realm result 

from fishing activities. The sanctuary’s maritime heritage 

resources have been adversely impacted by fishing activities 

and are highly susceptible to future damage due largely to 

two factors: structural materials and fishing impacts. Every 

maritime heritage resource located to date is a shipwreck 

with a wooden hull, and much of the sanctuary’s seafloor is 

regularly accessed by a variety of fishing gears. While the 

sanctuary’s cold deep water helps preserve the shipwreck’s 

organic structure, wooden hulls slowly degrade over time 

becoming very fragile. The ongoing characterization of the 

sanctuary’s maritime heritage resources continues to reveal 

the results of past damaging interactions between historic 

shipwrecks and fishing gear. Other potential anthropogenic 

pressures on maritime heritage resources include SCUBA 

diving and remote sensing. 

Fishing

Interactions between fishing gear (mobile and fixed gear as 

well as hook and line) and many of the sanctuary’s maritime heritage resources have resulted in the degradation of 

the shipwrecks’ archaeological integrity, reduction of their 

historical/archaeological significance, and diminishment of 

their aesthetic qualities. Currently, reference material mainly focuses on the impacts of fishing on marine habitats and 

the environment (Dorsey and Pederson, 1998; Smith et al., 

2003; Tudela, 2004). Marine archaeological literature has 

not yet adequately addressed fishing impacts to maritime 

heritage resources. 

Many recreational and commercial fishermen intentionally 

target shipwrecks due to the higher density of fish typically 

found around structures that rise above the surrounding 

seafloor. By targeting these non-renewable resources, irreparable damage is done. A single impact from fishing gear 

can cause extensive damage, compromising the information 

contained within the archaeological site.

While some fishing gear impacts a site momentarily and 

then continues along without getting hung up, other gear 

may become tangled on the shipwreck, and then ultimately 

abandoned. The lost gear provides direct evidence of the 

interaction between fishing and maritime heritage resources. 

Eleven of the eighteen archaeological sites located within 

the sanctuary exhibit entangled fishing gear. The discardFigure 84. Artifacts, such as the brass hand bell and

ceramic dishes seen here, are well preserved on this

wooden hulled shipwreck with a coal cargo. 

The sanctuary is studying this vessel to discover its identity 

and learn about life onboard a merchant sailing vessel in the 

New England coasting trade. Source: NOAA/SBNMS and 

NURC-UConn.

Figure 85. The coal cargo depicted in this

photograph covers the remains of a shipwreck. 

Bottom trawling has destroyed the vessel’s structure above 

the sediment and removed all the durable artifacts, such as 

anchors and iron fittings. Source: NOAA/SBNMS and NURCUConn.

Figure 86. This shipwreck’s granite block cargo was

destined for use in the construction of sidewalks and

sewer systems. 

Granite transportation supported a large fleet of sailing vessels 

during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Source: NOAA/

SBNMS and NURC-UConn.
126 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

ed gear presents a serious safety and operations hazard to 

SCUBA divers and remote sensing equipment, such as side 

scan sonars, ROVs and Autonomous Underwater Vehicles 

(AUVs). The nets, lines and cables from lost gear close off 

completely or limit the site’s accessibility to archaeologists, recreational SCUBA divers and the interested public. 

Discarded nets and line also present an entanglement 

hazard to marine life.

Mobile Gear Impacts 

Mobile fishing gear (otter trawls, beam trawls, shellfish 

dredges) has had the greatest impact on maritime heritage 

resources. Mobile fishing gear components have been 

found on eleven historic shipwrecks. These towed nets or 

dredges, often weighing hundreds of pounds, roll or are 

dragged across the seafloor. When the net encounters a 

wooden shipwreck rising above the seafloor, it interacts with 

the shipwreck in one of three ways:

1) The gear breaks apart the shipwreck’s structure;

2) The gear rolls over the shipwreck, damaging fragile structure; or

3) The gear catches on the shipwreck, stopping the vessel. 

If the gear can be pulled free it usually results in partial 

destruction of the shipwreck. Oftentimes, pieces of the net 

are left behind. Less frequently, the gear is so entangled 

with the shipwreck’s structure that entire nets and even trawl 

doors are lost.

Considerable damage to the shipwreck’s structure results in 

all three situations. In addition, trawl nets often remove artifacts from the site. Fishermen frequently snag and recover 

anchors, windlasses, pumps and other assorted ship fittings. 

The removal of this material is particularly harmful to the 

site’s archaeological integrity. In many cases, fishermen 

using mobile gear seek to avoid shipwrecks; however, some 

fishermen choose to tow their nets as close as possible to 

the shipwreck to catch fish inhabiting the shipwreck. This 

behavior has the potential to damage or destroy artifacts 

surrounding the shipwreck, damage the shipwreck through 

contact with the trawl doors, and potentially damage or 

entangle the main shipwreck structure. 

Two examples of negative mobile fishing gear impacts are 

found on the steamship Portland and the schooner Paul 

Palmer. The Portland has a complete otter trawl net, including rollers and a trawl door, wrapped around its bow and 

starboard side. The wire tow rope has cut deeply into the 

steamship’s stempost, while one of the trawl doors lies on 

the main deck (Figure 88). The net is tangled with and 

extends nearly the length of the starboard side forward of 

the boiler uptakes. More wire rope is draped across the top 

of the boiler uptakes. The trawl net has damaged portions 

of the wreck and greatly hampers the sanctuary’s ability to 

Figure 87. Many

Eastern rig

draggers similar

to the one

pictured here

sank within the

Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary and are

being documented

by sanctuary

archaeologists. 

This style of fishing 

trawler, common to 

the waters of Massachusetts Bay in the 

20th Century, is a transitional design bridging the gap between 

earlier wooden sailing schooners and 

modern-day steel 

trawlers. Source: 

NOAA/SBNMS.
IV. Resource States 127

archaeologically investigate the shipwreck. The net and its 

wire tow rope present a severe entanglement risk for the 

ROV vehicle used to study the site. 

The schooner Paul Palmer also had a trawl net wrapped 

around its bow. The net and rollers were entangled with the 

site’s windlass and chain pile, and likely altered the orientation of the windlass when it was snagged (Figure 89). The 

net posed an entanglement hazard for SCUBA divers and 

marine life. NOAA divers removed the net in September 

2006.

Fixed Gear Impacts

Fixed fishing gear (gillnets and lobster 

trawls) has also negatively impacted 

sanctuary maritime heritage resources. 

Fixed fishing gear components have 

been found on six historic shipwrecks. 

The initial placement of the gear may 

damage a resource if the gillnet anchor 

or lobster pot falls directly on a maritime heritage resource or its associated 

artifacts; however, the greatest damage 

results when fishermen attempt to recover their gear. If the gear has not already 

become entangled in the shipwreck’s 

structure, pulling the gear to the surface 

can ensnare it. Once gear is firmly entangled, a fisherman will likely use the full 

power of his or her net or pot hauler and 

boat to free the gear. The high tension 

exerted on the lines easily snaps fragile 

wooden structure.

Entangled fixed gear continues to degrade 

the shipwreck by blocking access to the 

resource. SCUBA divers cannot safely 

approach the gillnet, for example, and 

researchers are unable to document the 

resource and share the information with 

the public. The Frank A. Palmer and 

Louise B. Crary have been negatively 

impacted by gillnets that are entangled 

on the shipwrecks. The Louise B. Crary’s

bow is enshrouded with a gillnet that 

covers the forecastle and forward deck 

house (Figure 90). The net prevents the 

archaeological examination of this area. 

A gill net also stretches between the two 

schooners preventing the archaeological 

examination of the collision point. 

Hook and Line Impacts

Hook and line gear has been found on 

four historic shipwrecks. Hook and line 

bottom fishermen often target wrecks to 

catch the fish inhabiting the shipwrecks’ 

structure. Boats often anchor to maintain position, risking anchor damage 

to the shipwreck and any surrounding 

debris fields. Heavy lead jigs, weighing up to two pounds 

are repeatedly raised and lowered to attract fish (Figure 91). 

When a jig comes into contact with a maritime heritage 

resource, it has the potential to break fragile artifacts made 

from glass or ceramics. Frequently, fishermen snag their 

tackle on the shipwreck’s structure. Attempts to free the line 

may damage the resource. If the jig is firmly stuck, the fisherman will break or cut the line, which may then fall across 

the shipwreck. Lost fishing line limits access to a shipwreck 

Figure 88. Wire rope associated with a trawl net cuts into the steamship

Portland’s bow. 

The negative impacts of commercial fishing activities are well documented on the 

wreck of the Portland. Source: NOAA/SBNMS and NURC-UConn.

Figure 89. This large trawl net was once wrapped around the schooner

Paul Palmer’s windlass, where it was a hazard to SCUBA divers and marine

life. 

In 2006, NOAA divers removed the net to facilitate the documentation of the schooner’s windlass. Courtesy: Tane Casserley, NOAA Maritime Heritage Program.
128 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

in much the same way a trawl net or a gillnet limits access to 

a shipwreck. Additionally, single strands of fishing line are 

difficult to see underwater, making entanglement of an ROV 

or a SCUBA diver a possibility. 

An example of the impact of lost fishing line on a shipwreck 

is found on the Frank A. Palmer. A 2004 archaeological 

investigation of the site encountered no lost fishing lines 

crossing the aft deckhouse space. Returning to the same 

area in 2005, researchers found several 

fishing lines crossing the area (Figure 92). 

The lines prevented the researchers from 

maneuvering their ROV into the area to 

investigate the artifacts contained within 

the cabin. Additionally, an unseen fishing line entangled and fouled a ROV 

thruster, preventing its operation and 

forcing termination of the dive. 

Diving

While SCUBA diving will not necessarily damage a shipwreck, certain diving 

practices and activities have the potential to impact the sanctuary’s historical 

integrity (Edney, 2006). In comparison 

to the rocky shorelines and near shore 

waters of Massachusetts, the sanctuary 

has been visited by considerably fewer 

SCUBA divers. However, many divers 

have communicated their interest in visiting the sanctuary’s shipwrecks. When 

SCUBA diving is conducted in the sanctuary, the dive location is usually near or 

on a maritime heritage resource. 

The techniques and practices, both above 

and underwater, associated with SCUBA 

diving on a shipwreck may negatively 

impact the site and its historic resources 

if not done with care and resource preservation in mind. To access sites, boats 

carrying divers may drag their anchor 

across the seafloor and through the debris 

field of the archaeological site. The 

anchor may catch on the structure of the 

maritime heritage resource. Anchors or 

down weights dropped from a boat can 

plummet directly onto a fragile wooden 

hull and/or the associated artifacts, causing damage. Repetitive anchoring on, 

or securing a down line to, a maritime 

heritage resource can increase its rate of 

structural deterioration and reduce the 

site’s archeological and historical significance. 

Once underwater, divers’ actions can 

be low-impact, such as observing the 

shipwrecks and their marine life or 

photographing, videotaping the site. But 

high-impact actions, such as souvenir 

collecting, remove artifacts and reduce the archaeological 

significance of the sites. Divers who remove tightly secured 

artifacts often damage or destroy larger areas of the sites. 

While prohibited by sanctuary regulations, artifact collecting still occurs in National Marine Sanctuaries (Craft, Ferguson, Jernigan, King, Parrott, Stocks, and Wilson v. NOAA, 6 

O.R.W. 150 United States Department of Commerce, 1990; 

Craft, Ferguson, Jernigan, King, Parrott, Stocks, and Wilson 

Figure 90. Gillnets cover the schooner Louise B. Crary’s bow. 

The fishing gear entangled in this shipwreck prevents archaeologists from documenting most of the wreck’s bow area and main deck space. Source: NOAA/

SBNMS, NURC-UConn and the Science Channel.

Figure 91. Jigs are evidence of hook and line fishing activity on the

schooner Paul Palmer. 

Lost fishing gear poses a hazard to divers and degrades the archaeological integrity 

of the shipwreck. Source: NOAA/SBNMS.
IV. Resource States 129

v NPS, NOAA, and National Marine Fisheries, 34 F.d 918. 

United States Court of Appeals, 1994). 

Artifacts lose their provenance once removed from a site 

and are no longer able to provide as much information 

about their history. Additionally, artifacts recovered from the 

marine environment deteriorate if not properly conserved 

and thus lose their ability to educate the general public. 

Artifact collecting also deprives future SCUBA divers of the 

excitement of exploring an “untouched” shipwreck.

Remote Sensing

Remote sensing allows individuals to use technology to 

explore the underwater environment without personally 

entering the water. Technologies vary from side scan sonar 

to ROVs and AUVs. Most remote sensing technologies are 

not designed to physically interact with maritime heritage 

resources and can do damage if unintentional contact is 

made. 

Towed sensors, such as side scan sonars, drop cameras and 

magnetometers, can cause damage by striking or becoming 

entangled in a maritime heritage resource. Damage to the 

resource is then exacerbated when a remote sensing operator attempts to free an entangled piece of expensive marine 

technology. Remotely operated vehicles are designed to 

operate in proximity to maritime heritage resources and are 

capable of interacting with the resources using manipulator arms. Remotely operated vehicle operators can remove 

or disturb archaeological resources in a manner similar to 

divers. 

Entanglement risks for ROVs are especially great in the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary due to derelict fishing gear 

that entangles many of the shipwreck structures. Freeing 

an ensnared ROV will likely damage a 

maritime heritage resource. Submersibles, manned underwater vehicles, pose 

the same hazards to maritime heritage 

resources as ROVs.

Current Protection

The sanctuary’s mandate to protect and 

manage maritime heritage resources 

arises from various federal regulations 

and laws. The sanctuary boundary 

encompasses an 842-square mile area of 

seafloor outside of the territorial sea of 

Massachusetts Bay and does not overlap 

with the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The protection of maritime heritage 

resources is provided through the following laws and regulations:

•	Antiquities Act of 1906

•	Historic Sites Act of 1935

•	Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960

•	National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16

U.S.C. § 470 et seq.)

•	Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (section 4(f))

•	Presidential Order 11593 of 1971

•	National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Section 101(b)

(4))

•	National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) of 1972 (16

U.S.C. § 1432 et seq.)

•	Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Regulations

of 1992 (15 C.F.R § Subpart N)

The NMSA mandates that the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program manage maritime heritage resources in a fashion 

that protects the resources while facilitating compatible 

public and private use of the resources. National Marine 

Sanctuary Program regulations incorporate all laws and 

regulations of the Federal Archaeology Program, such as 

the National Historic Preservation Act. These regulations 

require that a heritage resource inventory and management 

program be developed for each site, that federal activities 

that may affect historic and cultural resources be undertaken 

in such a way as to prevent harm to historic resources, and 

that the Sanctuary Program nominate potentially eligible 

sites to the National Register of Historic Places.

The Sanctuary Program must also ensure mitigation of any 

federally-funded activity that might threaten historical and 

cultural resources under its control to facilitate the protection of these resources. The Sanctuary Program is required 

by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

an opportunity to comment on all sanctuary actions affecting historic resources in the sanctuary.

Figure 92. Braided and monofilament fishing line is caught around the

Frank A. Palmer’s steering wheel. 

Fishing line stretched across the schooner’s stern prevents the complete documentation of this area, which would provide important information about the vessel’s 

crew. Source: NOAA/SBNMS and NURC-UConn.
130 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Current sanctuary regulations prohibit moving, removing or 

injuring, or attempting to move, remove or injure a sanctuary historical resource except as an incidental result of traditional fishing operations. These regulations also prohibit 

drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of 

the sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning any 

structure, material or other matter on the seabed of the sanctuary, except as an incidental result of an anchoring vessel, 

traditional fishing operations; or the installation of navigational aids. Lastly, sanctuary regulations prohibit possessing 

within the sanctuary (regardless of where taken, moved or 

removed from), except as necessary for valid law enforcement purposes, any historic resource.
131

This section characterizes the primary uses 

occurring within or near the sanctuary, including some that are ancillary or prohibited by 

sanctuary regulation. It presents information on type and level of use and associated 

economic value, when known. The primary 

uses include commercial and recreational 

fishing, whale watching and marine transportation.

V. 

Status of

Human Use
132 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Context

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary attracts extensive commercial, recreational, scientific and educational activities and 

is heavily utilized throughout all seasons. The many ports, 

large and small, that rim Massachusetts Bay offer direct 

access. Located in the backyard of an estimated 4.8 million 

people living in the greater Boston metropolitan area, the 

sanctuary is exposed to the environmental stresses of human 

population and development, including waste disposal and 

discharge and creeping industrialization along its western boundary. This section characterizes or describes the 

primary uses occurring within or near the sanctuary, including some that are ancillary or prohibited by sanctuary regulation.

A characterization or status of current uses—who, what, 

where, when and how the resource is affected—is pivotal 

to understand and evaluate the pressures which are applied 

to sanctuary resources. Some of the questions the sanctuary 

must address are: what do we know about the pattern and 

scale of these uses, how are they altering habitat structure 

and the organization of marine communities, and are the 

impacts chronic or acute? Ultimately, can we and how do 

we improve our ability to make human uses compatible with 

resource protection? Answering these questions requires a 

substantially improved understanding of the spatial distribution and intensity of major uses in the sanctuary.

The Sanctuary Program is mandated by Congress to facilitate 

uses that are compatible with the primary goal of resource 

protection. The term “compatible” is articulated as the standard for acceptable use in the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act, but the Act does not define or provide the criteria to 

apply that standard. The resource protection goals articulated in the Act include comprehensive conservation and 

management to maintain the natural biological communities and to protect, restore and enhance natural habitats, 

populations and ecological processes. The previous section 

on Resource States presents cases where uses impact and 

pressure sanctuary resources.

When available, information on the types and levels of 

human use of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the associated economic value is presented in this section. In those 

cases, discussion of economic value is limited to direct 

sales value of the products or services provided. The total 

economic impact of these uses has not been determined 

as part of this management plan review process. While 

other uses occur and are briefly described, the primary uses 

addressed include commercial and recreational fishing, 

whale watching and marine transportation.

Commercial Fishing

History in the GoM

Commercial fishing was once the most economically important activity directly dependent on the natural resources 

of the GoM including Stellwagen Bank. The discovery of 

vast codfish grounds in the northwest Atlantic in the late 

1400s by explorer John Cabot was a significant driving force 

behind the colonization of the New England seaboard. It 

was cod fishing that brought the first settlers to Gloucester, 
V. Status of Human Use 133

Marblehead, Salem, Weymouth and Scituate, Massachusetts 

(McFarland, 1911). In the decade between 1765 and 1775, 

the business of cod fishing actively involved 20 towns, 605 

vessels, 1,475 fishermen and 9,600 others in curing, packaging and shipping (McFarland, 1911).

As the consumption of seafood increased and markets 

expanded, so too did the pressure to extend fishing efforts to 

offshore locations. The technology of fishing gear advanced 

rapidly with the mechanization of equipment during the 

19th century. Primitive nets evolved into purse seines, otter 

trawls, gill nets and trap and pound nets. The major advance 

in the fishing industry during this time was the development 

and use of diesel-propelled fishing vessels, which replaced 

steam-driven and sail craft. Fishing gear itself became 

mechanized, greatly enhancing success. Ice replaced salt 

as the principal means of preservation and offered consumers a fresh product.

Navigation capabilities and the power and productivity of 

fishing improved with the introduction of electronic equipment, such as ship-to-shore telephones, LORAN and Global 

Positioning System (GPS) plotters, direction finders, depth 

indicators, the enhanced efficiency of record keeping “fish 

finders”, radar and automatic steering devices. The introduction of synthetics, now used in most fishing gear and 

equipment, increased durability and cost effectiveness and 

further improved fishing methods.

The collective effect of these early innovations was an 

increase in fresh fish landings from shorter trips. As the 

demand for fish grew, Boston became the primary fishing 

port because of its position as the New England marketing 

and transportation center. Gloucester businesses, suffering from this change of venue and competition from less 

expensive imports from Norway, Canada and Iceland, 

prevailed by improving fish processing techniques (notably 

“quick-freeze”) and shipping. These industry advancements enabled the introduction of formally underutilized 

species to both fresh and frozen fish markets in the eastern 

and midwestern parts of the country.

Large foreign trawlers began fishing on Georges Bank in 

1961, primarily on non-traditional fish species, such as hake, 

herring and squid. By 1973, approximately 300 vessels from 

16 countries were also targeting more traditional domestic 

species, notably haddock. New England fisheries began to 

feel the pressure from these foreign vessels. Because there 

was no effective management of fisheries outside the existing U.S. 12-mile contiguous zone, the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) of 1976 was 

passed to extend U.S. management jurisdiction out to 200 

nautical miles. This action reduced the level of foreign 

fishing in the GoM, and for a while revitalized both New 

England and U.S. fisheries (MacIssac and Hotz, 1982).

Just as Gloucester is considered America’s oldest seaport, 

Stellwagen Bank (formerly Middle Bank) is listed among the 

most historic fishing grounds in the GoM, harkening back to 

early colonial times. Today, the sanctuary area remains one 

of several areas of concentrated commercial fishing effort 

in the GoM, in addition to Jeffreys Ledge, Cashes Ledge, 

Tillies Bank, Brown Bank and the more expansive Georges Bank. Due to this effort, many of the principal GoM 

groundfish stocks are overfished and rebuilding is proving 

difficult (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/

crd/crd0513/). Several species among these stocks have 

been added to the Species of Concern List for the Endangered Species Act (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/

concern/). The Northwest Atlantic, most of which is outside 

of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and therefore 

not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, has become one of the most 

overfished regions of the world (Essington et al., 2006).

Current Trends and Status in the Sanctuary

Data Types and Sources

Commercial fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is 

characterized through the use of two primary types of data 

from different sources: standardized surveys and mandatory 

Fishing Vessel Trip Reports (VTR). These data types and 

sources are described and compared below. The data were 

gathered and/or analyzed to document and typify the spatial 

distribution, landings value (ex-vessel, dockside sales paid 

to fishermen) and volume, and species composition representative of commercial fisheries in the sanctuary. Ex-vessel 

or landings value is the price paid to the fishermen upon 

direct sale of the fish landed.

Standardized Surveys

During July 2001–June 2002, a year-long study was undertaken to quantify and map patterns of human and marine 

mammal use of the sanctuary (Wiley et al., 2003). Each 

month, sightings data were collected along 15 standardized 

shipboard survey tracklines that crossed the sanctuary at 

5 km (2.5 nm) intervals providing 100 percent coverage. 

The density and distribution of the data were analyzed 

with ArcView’s Spatial Analyst program to develop a “user 

geography” of the sanctuary based on spatial patterns and 

intensity of use. The 2001–2002 survey was the repeat of 

a nearly identical year-long study undertaken in the sanctuary by Wiley during May 1994–August 1995, which allows 

comparison over the two time periods. The 1994–1995 

survey covered only the southern two-thirds of the sanctuary prior to creation of the Western GoM Closure Area in 

1998. Refer to Wiley et al. (2003) for details on the methodologies used.

The standardized survey data, together with the Vessel Trip 

Report data for the July 2001–June 2002 period, were used 

for the analyses of spatial distribution and density of fishing in the sanctuary. This base period was chosen based 

on analysis of the comparability of these data sources as 

explained below.

Fishing Vessel Trip Reports (VTR)

Since April 1994, fishing vessel trip reporting has been 

phased in for all NOAA Fisheries Service northeast permitted species as mandated by their corresponding Fishery 

Management Plans (FMP). In their Vessel Trip Reports (VTR), 

fishermen are required to report the location of catches using 
134 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

latitude and longitude or LORAN lines. The data series for 

the sanctuary analyses begins with the year 1996, as there 

was only partial coverage in 1994 and fleet adjustments to 

the requirements during 1995. The only NOAA Fisheries 

Service northeast permitted species that do not have VTR 

reporting requirements inherent in the FMP are Lobster and 

Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog (SC/OQ).

The SC/OQ FMP requires vessel owners or operators to 

maintain an accurate daily fishing log for each trip on forms 

provided by the NOAA Fisheries Service Regional Administrator. The logbook data indicate that these species were 

not fished in the sanctuary during 1996-2005. Many lobster 

vessels have federal permits that require them to report all 

catches to the VTR system. The Highly Migratory Species 

Division of NOAA Fisheries Service manages albacore, 

bluefin tuna, dorado, sharks, swordfish and tropical tuna. 

These species do not have VTR reporting requirements in 

their FMPs, but catches of these species under other federal 

permits also result in some reporting to the VTR system. As 

noted below, adjustments are made that consider underrepresentation of lobster and bluefin tuna landings in the 

VTR data for the sanctuary.

The VTR database was integrated with vessel number and 

home port-of-registry information to better describe fleet 

characteristics. This integration provided information 

about the state from which each vessel hailed as well as 

the respective port(s) which received each vessel’s landings. 

The integrated VTR database was also used to determine the 

ex-vessel value and volume of landings from the sanctuary 

as well as the related attributes involving species and gear.

Comparability of Data Sources

The distribution of the 2001-2002 standardized survey and 

2001-2002 VTR data for the same period exhibit consistent spatial patterns when comparable categories of fishing 

activity are mapped and analyzed using identical methodologies. For example, Figure 93 compares the distribution 

and density of two categories of mobile gear fishing in the 

sanctuary, trawling and scallop dredging, using data from 

the standardized surveys and the VTR information. Similarly, Figure 94 presents comparisons of the distribution and 

density of fixed gear fishing in the sanctuary, e.g., lobster 

traps, sink gillnets and longlines, using data from the two 

sources. 

Qualitatively, there is a high degree of correlation between 

the results from the two data set analyses. Given this corroboration, the 2001-2002 timeframe is the period chosen to 

typify the spatial distribution and density of fishing in the 

Figure 93. Spatial density patterns based on fishing trips for two types of bottom mobile gear (otter trawls and

dredges combined) in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary are compared using standardized survey data (a) and Vessel

Trip Report (VTR) data (b) over the same time period (July 2001–June 2002). 

The patterns are Kriged density plots of information from both data sets using a 5,000 m search radius and analyzed by ESRI 

ARCGIS. VTR gear codes: DRC, DRS, OTF, OTM, PTM.
V. Status of Human Use 135

sanctuary. By this standard, the VTR 

data are considered a reliable estimator of commercial fishing activity at the 

spatial scale of the sanctuary. A related 

but independent analysis of commercial fishing in the sanctuary area also 

concluded that the VTR data, once 

aggregated and processed via GIS, was 

a good predictor of broad categories of 

fishing activities and the locales at sea 

where the activities occurred (Martin 

and Hall-Arbor, 2006).

Conversion to 2005 Constant Dollars

To normalize dollar value for comparison of fishery landings over the decade 

1996–2005, ex-vessel revenues (direct 

sales) were converted to 2005 constant 

dollars using the Boston Consumer 

Price Index (CPI-U). Inflation exerts an 

effect on the value of a dollar and, in most cases, a dollar 

today can’t buy the same amount of goods or services it did 

in the past. To account for such price changes, it is appropriate to analyze financial data that have been “deflated” to 

produce a more consistent time series. Accordingly, financial data can be adjusted for inflation using the CPI prepared 

by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI-U tracks 

changes in the prices paid by urban consumers based on a 

Table 11. Principal gear types fished in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

during 1996–2005. 

The respective Vessel Trip Report (VTR) gear codes are included in parentheses.

Trawls Hook and Line

Otter Trawl, Bottom, Fish (OTF) Longline/Tub Trawl, Bottom (LLB)

Otter Trawl, Midwater (OTM) Longline, Pelagic (LLP)

Otter Trawl, Bottom, Scallop (OTC) Hand Line/Rod & Reel (HND)

Otter Trawl, Shrimp (OTS) Pots and Traps

Pair Trawl, Midwater (PTM) Pot, Crab (PTC)

Purse Seine (PUR) Pot, Fish (Sea Bass, etc.) (PTF)

Gillnets Pot, Barrels (Hag) (PTH)

Gillnet, Sink (GNS) Pot, Lobster (PTL)

Dredges Other

Dredge, Ocean Quahog/Surf Clam (DRC) Harpoon (HRP)

Dredge, Scallop (DRS)

( ) = Vessel Trip Report Gear Codes

Figure 94. Spatial density patterns based on fishing trips using fixed gear (e.g., lobster traps, sink gillnets and

longlines) in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary are compared using standardized survey data (a) and Vessel Trip

Report (VTR) data (b) over the same time period (July 2001–June 2002). 

Survey data calculations were based on sightings of surface buoys. The patterns are Kriged density plots of information from both 

data sets using a 5,000m search radius and analyzed by ESRI ARCGIS. VTR gear codes: GNS, LLB, PTC, PTH, PTL. 
136 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

U.S. city average for a representative 

lot of goods and services through an 

annual survey of retailers, landlords 

and consumers.

Description of Fishing Gear

As will be shown, the majority of fish 

and invertebrates caught in the sanctuary are captured by two types of fixed 

(stationary) fishing gear, lobster traps 

and sink gillnets, and by two types of 

mobile fishing gear, otter trawls and 

scallop dredges. The Sidebar presents detailed descriptions and information on these principal gear types 

as excerpted from Wiley et al., 2003. 

The most important gear types used 

in the sanctuary during 1996-2005 

based on volume of landings (greater 

than 1,000 lbs/yr) and their respective 

VTR gear codes are listed in Table 11. 

A more detailed description of these 

fishing gears is provided in MooneySeus and Dianto (2000).

Spatial Distribution and Density

Fishing using fixed (stationary) gear 

was the dominant human use of 

the sanctuary in 2001–2002 and 

occurred throughout the sanctuary 

as determined by the standardized 

surveys (Figure 95). Density surfaces 

for the survey data ranged from a 

high of 1.73–1.92 surface buoys/km2/ 

month around the southwest corner 

of Stellwagen Bank and the northwest 

section of the sanctuary off Cape Ann, 

to lows of 0.0–0.19 surface buoys/

km2/month, primarily in the southeastern section of the sanctuary. The 

dense areas coincided with the presence of trap fishing vessels, indicating 

concentrations of fishing gear targeting lobsters or, in some cases, crabs. 

This conclusion is corroborated by 

the distribution of the catch of lobster 

in the sanctuary revealed by spatial 

analysis of the VTR landings data 

for1994–2002 (not shown). 

In general, the density of fixed fishing gear was greatest in the western 

portions of the sanctuary and diminished to the east. While the level 

of fixed fishing activity decreased 

to the east, substantial levels of use 

still occurred there. These levels 

were highest (approximately 0.2–0.6 

surface buoys/km2/month) in an area 

DESCRIPTION OF PRINCIPAL GEAR TYPES

Fixed Gear

Trap Fishery. Trap fisheries employ a passive methodology where traps sit 

on the seabed and use bait (usually dead fish) to attract lobsters, and to a 

lesser extent crabs, to the traps. Traps are wire or wooden cages that typically 

measure 91 cm by 53 cm by 34 cm (36 in by 21 in by 13.5 in), although some 

can be larger. Traps are often fished in “trawls” consisting of a number of 

traps leading off a common “ground line.” In the area around the sanctuary, 

trawls typically consist of approximately 25 traps spaced 30-55 m (100-180 ft) 

apart (W. Hoffman, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA, 

Pers. Comm.). Therefore, a single trawl can be over 1,219 m (4,000 ft) in 

length. Ground lines along the length of the trawl characteristically consist 

of buoyant polypropylene line that can float more than 5 m (16 ft) above 

the bottom (McKiernan et al., 2002). On each end of a trawl, a “buoy line” 

runs from the gear to a buoy visible at the surface (i.e., the surface buoy). As 

described above, two surface buoys might indicate the presence of over 1,219 

m (4000 ft) of lobster gear.

Gillnet Fishery. Gillnets are comprised of thin, transparent, monofilament 

webbing stretched between a buoyant “float line” running along the top of 

the net and a heavy “lead line” running along the bottom. Tension between 

the buoyant float line and the heavy lead line causes the webbing to rise from 

the seabed to a height of 2.5 to 3.6 m (8 to 12 ft). If flatfish (e.g., flounder) 

are targeted, the float line and lead line are tied together, limiting the height 

to ~ 1 m (3 ft). A single net is ~ 91 m (300 ft) long and nets are joined 

together into “strings”. In the GoM, net strings range between 458 m (1500 

ft) and 2,292 m (7,500 ft) in length (Read, 1994). Each end of a string is 

marked on the surface with a buoy (usually a “high flyer”) that is attached 

to the gear by a line also used for hauling. Strings of gillnets are often set 

in a zigzag or even circular pattern, with small weights along the lead line 

acting as pivot points. As with the trap fishery, it is important to note that an 

observation of two surface buoys can indicate the presence of hundreds or 

thousands of meters of netting on the seafloor below them.

Mobile Gear

Otter Trawl Fishery. Bottom otter trawlers or “draggers” target primarily 

groundfish by towing a large conical net along the seabed (Von Brandt,

1984). The net opening is maintained by the action of a buoyant “headrope” 

(on the top), a weighted “footrope” (on the bottom), and the spreading 

effect of heavy trawl “doors” (up to 450 kg or approximately 1,000 lbs) on 

either side of the net’s mouth. The resistance of the doors moving through 

the water maintains a net opening width of 15 to 25 m (50–80 ft) (Carrothers, 

1981). Fish are captured by the forward motion of the net along the bottom, 

which causes fish to enter the net’s mouth and collect in the anterior “cod 

end”. Fish capture is facilitated by the movement of the footrope along the 

bottom that disturbs bottom dwelling fish and forces them up into the path of 

net. The footrope can be modified with rollers or other devices that provide 

fishermen with access to rocky or uneven bottom (Carr and Milliken, 1998). 

Midwater otter trawls and pair trawls are similarly configured but fish above 

the bottom in the water column for species such as Atlantic herring.

Scallop Dredge Fishery. A scallop dredge consists of an approximately 5 

m (15 ft) wide rigid metal box trailing a bag of metal rings. The weight of 

the dredge (up to 700 kg or 1500 lbs) and the angle of the forward cutting 

bar force the dredge to dig a few centimeters (1–2 in) into the seabed. The 

forward motion of the cutting bar dislodges scallops from the bottom causing 

them to pass over the bar and collect in the trailing chain bag. Scallop vessels 

usually tow two dredges simultaneously at speeds under approximately 5 

knots (Rago and McSherry, 2001). Scallop dredges are considered “dry” 

dredges in that they do not use water jets or suction in the capture process.
V. Status of Human Use 137

northeast of Stellwagen Bank and along a line delineating 

the Western GoM Closed Area (WGoMCA), an area closed 

to groundfishing. These areas coincided with the presence 

of gillnet fishing vessels, indicating that this fishery occurred 

primarily in the eastern and northern portions of the sanctuary. Subsequent analyses utilizing VTR data indicate that 

some of that fixed gear was bottom longline as well as gillnet. With the exception of the southwest corner, there was 

a tendency for fixed gear not to be associated with the shoal 

water of Stellwagen Bank itself.

There were two major concentrations of mobile fishing 

vessels in 2001–2002 as determined by the standardized 

surveys (Figure 96). The densest aggregation (0.048–0.052 

vessels/km2/month) occurred in the southeast section of the 

sanctuary. The primary vessels associated with that area 

were scallop dredges, although substantial numbers of stern 

and eastern trawlers also worked the area. A second aggregation occurred over a broad area covering the sanctuary’s 

northwest quarter and consisted primarily of stern and eastern trawlers. Monthly densities in this region ranged up to 

0.036 vessels/km2/month. With the exception of the heavily 

used portion in the southeast corner, mobile vessels made 

less use of the sanctuary’s eastern section and the shallower 

area on top of Stellwagen Bank proper.

Comparison of results from the two survey periods between 

1994–1995 and 2001–2001 indicates that the area fished 

by fixed gear in the sanctuary greatly expanded during the 

interim (Figure 95). Eastward expansion in the lobster fishery since the early-mid 1990s is due to declining recruitment occurring in shoaling waters and/or competition 

Figure 95. Comparison of the density and distribution of surface buoys within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary over

two survey periods: from May 1994 through August 1995 and from July 2001 through June 2002. 

Each point represents the sighting of one or more surface buoys. Surface buoys are indicators of fixed fishing gear (trap or gillnet) 

“sets” that can extend thousands of meters along the seafloor. Two surface buoys equal one set. Trap and gillnet sets cannot be 

unambiguously differentiated by surface buoys. Sightings of actively fishing lobster (trap) and gill net vessels are provided as an 

aid to determining the type of gear in an area. The 1994–1995 survey covered only the southern two thirds of the sanctuary prior 

to establishment of the Western GoM Closure in 1998. The spatial patterns are Kriged density plots using a 5,000 m search radius 

and analyzed by ESRI ARCGIS. (Source: 1994–1995 sanctuary data; 2001-2002 from Wiley et al., 2003).
138 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 12. Commercial vessels fishing within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by state of homeport.

State of Homeport1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total % 

Total

Massachusetts 318 315 276 276 328 293 267 228 249 231 2,781 85.0

New Hampshire 16 13 16 20 29 32 13 13 26 26 204 6.2

Maine 24 19 19 13 21 17 17 15 14 27 186 5.7

Rhode Island 4 7 9 10 6 7 6 3 5 57 1.7

New York 2 4 5 4 1 4 3 2 25 0.8

New Jersey 3 2 5 5 1 1 1 18 0.6

Total 367 360 330 328 386 353 301 262 295 289 3,271 100.0

Figure 96. Comparison of the density and distribution of mobile fishing vessels (stern dragger, eastern dragger

and scallop dredge) within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary over two survey periods: from May 1994 through

August 1995 and from July 2001 through June 2002. 

Each point represents the sighting of an active fishing vessel. The 1994–1995 survey covered only the southern two thirds of the 

sanctuary prior to establishment of the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area in 1998. The spatial patterns are Kriged density plots 

using a 5,000 m search radius and analyzed by ESRI ARCGIS. (Source: 1994–1995 sanctuary data; 2001-2002 from Wiley et al., 

2003). 
V. Status of Human Use 139

among fishermen for territory (Estrella and Glenn, 2004). 

Over the same timeframe, the area covered by draggers 

in the sanctuary contracted, while scallop dredge fishing 

increased, the latter most notably on the southeast corner of 

Stellwagen Bank (Figure 96). The timeframe during which 

the two surveys occurred corresponds to when regulatory 

changes imposed by NOAA Fisheries Service resulted in 

fishing effort being redirected from groundfish species, as 

well as when many boats converted to lobstering. Unless 

indicated otherwise, the following assessments are based on 

the VTR data.

Fleet Characteristics

Commercial fishing in the sanctuary is conducted by vessels 

primarily from home ports in several New England states, 

but especially from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Between 1996 and 2005, an average of 327 (range 262-

386) boats fished in the sanctuary each year (Table 12). 

These boats came from home ports in six states, but four 

states accounted for 98.6% of the total number of vessels. 

These four states and their percentages were: Massachusetts 

(85.0%), New Hampshire (6.2%), Maine (5.7%) and Rhode 

Island (1.7%). The two other states were New York and New 

Jersey.

The total number of vessels fishing the sanctuary and those 

from home ports in Massachusetts decreased over this 

decade. The number of boats from Maine, New Hampshire 

and Rhode Island fishing the sanctuary varied year-to-year 

but remained at more or less the same level.

Landings Value and Volume

As acknowledged above, the VTR data under-represent the 

total landings of lobster and bluefin tuna from catches in 

the sanctuary. Fishery landings differ from catch (see Sidebar). Additional data on lobster landings from Massachusetts Offshore Area 19 and data on bluefin tuna landings 

from NOAA Fishing Area 4, both areas being greater in size 

and subsuming the sanctuary (Figure 97), were adjusted by 

subtracting values already reported in the VTR data. The 

difference was added to the VTR base amount to identify a 

likely maximum for total commercial fishery landings from 

the sanctuary (Tables 13 and 14). Landings value is reported 

in 2005 dollars.

Landings from party boats and charter boats are reported 

in the VTR system as quantity of fish, not landed value or 

pounds as required for all other gear types, and are not 

represented in this summary of total commercial fish landings. Sales generated by those boats derive from charter 

and head fees, not from ex-vessel landings. Party boat fishing and charter boat fishing are treated separately under the 

subsequent section on recreational fishing.

State and County

Based on the VTR data, total commercial fishery landings 

value from the sanctuary during 1996-2005 ranged from a 

low of $12.5 million in 2003 to a high of $19.6 million in 

2000 (Table 13). The average annual total landings value 

Figure 97. Size and location of the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary relative to State of Massachusetts

Offshore Area 19 for reporting lobster landings

and NOAA Fishing Area 4 for reporting bluefin tuna

landings. 

NOAA Fishing Area 4 extends directly eastward to the furthest 

extent of the 200-mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Distinguishing between Catch and Landings

“Landings” is defined as the part of the fish catch that 

is unloaded and put ashore for sale. The distinction 

between catch and landings is important because 

considerable quantities of fish and fishable invertebrates 

caught are discarded at sea as bycatch. The overall 

discard to landings ratio (0.49) in northeast fisheries 

in 2002-2003 was among the highest nationwide 

(Harrington et al, 2005); essentially a third of everything 

caught was discarded (32.7 % of total nominal catch). 

The discard to landings ratio in the fishery for northeast 

groundfish in 2002-2003 was 1.79 indicating that 

nearly two-thirds of the catch (64.2%) was discarded 

(i.e., only one fish was landed for every three fish 

caught). While the by-catch of protected species such 

as marine mammals, turtles and sea birds is a major 

conservation issue, those species were not included in 

these calculations. More recent discard rates for this 

northeast fishery show that discarding from bottom 

trawls and gill nets is substantially reduced (NOAA 

Fisheries Service, personal communication, 2008).
140 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table. 13. 

Lan

dings

value (2005$) by commercial fishing in the

Stellwagen

B

an

k sanctuary by state

an

d county lan

ded (1996-2005). 

Table is base

d on VTR data

with adjustments

made for Area 19 

an

d Area 4 lan

dings.

Vessel Trip Report Data

State and County 

Landed

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total % Total

Maine 63,354 251,482 125,521 130,811 157,974 361,936 196,933 26,266 92,036 145,166 1,551,481 0.99

Washington 0 265 0 0 0 0 0 2,024 0 0 2,289 0.00Hancock 850 0 0 0 3,092 316,199 96,532 0 0 0 416,672 0.27Knox 0 105,926 80,087 53,621 22,092 0 0 0 0 0 261,727 0.17Lincoln 0 0 3,883 426 10,585 0 1,246 0 0 0 16,141 0.01Saqadahoc 4,255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,255 0.00Cumberland 50,086 122,728 25,154 73,242 113,393 27,125 97,091 21,681 86,178 86,864 703,542 0.45York 8,163 22,563 16,397 3,522 8,811 18,612 2,065 2,561 5,857 58,302 146,854 0.09

New Hampshire 72,967 28,490 39,964 121,861 332,430 261,227 133,748 148,721 260,850 370,201 1,770,459 1.13

Rockingham 72,967 28,490 39,964 121,861 332,430 261,227 133,748 148,721 260,850 370,201 1,770,459 1.13

Massachusetts 16,720,219 18,737,542 16,620,546 14,783,746 19,062,685 14,094,167 13,723,907 12,292,621 12,222,166 14,273,689 152,531,287 97.61

Essex 8,732,583 10,526,240 11,225,017 10,225,216 11,927,139 9,289,915 9,312,114 2,9,004,148 9,212,145 10,849,245 100,303,763 64.19Suffolk 594,643 513,646 221,546 143,678 570,989 145,608 102,481 45,342 166,966 150,424 2,655,323 1.70Norfolk 1,744 27,135 6,666 0 42,366 29,532 15,925 3,335 29,342 7,049 163,096 0.10Plymouth 2,975,603 2,600,429 2,954,051 2,575,654 4,172,305 1,358,764 961,650 1,264,538 1,468,468 1,247,526 21,578,988 13.81Barnstable 1,326,212 1,270,883 1,457,121 1,366,509 1,565,946 2,295,199 1,921,863 1,438,251 1,081,316 1,601,205 15,324,505 9.81Nantucket 0 0 0 0 21,702 0 0 0 0 0 21,702 0.01Dukes 0 0 0 0 24,231 8,314 12,880 24,852 0 4,002 74,279 0.05Bristol 3,089,434 3,793,567 752,481 472,689 736,452 966,835 1,396,993 512,154 263,929 413,426 12,397,959 7.93Other MA 0 5,641 3,664 0 1,555 0 0 0 0 813 11,672 0.01

Rhode Island 20,538 34,679 63,547 22,740 3,967 43,991 16,927 36,989 0 3,681 247,060 0.16

All RI Counties 20,538 34,679 63,547 22,740 3,967 43,991 16,927 36,989 0 3,681 247,060 0.16

All Other Counties 3,032 0 134,818 23,010 0 0 7,101 0 0 1,998 169,958 0.11

VTR Total 16,877,079 19,052,193 16,984,397 15,082,168 19,557,056 14,761,321 14,078,617 12,504,597 12,575,052 14,794,735 156,267,213 100.00

Additional Data Sources (modified by subtracting values already reported in Vessel Trip Report Data)

Offshore Area 19 Lobster

4,709,061 10,269,317 8,348,659 8,012,993 4,410,118 4,022,054 3,766,661 4,253,402 3,525,367 3,707,774 55,025,407

Federal Area 4 Bluefin Tuna

983,926 3,940,467 3,200,957 4,338,574 1,626,347 2,419,523 1,536,272 1,010,777 1,071,393 1,554,766 21,683,002

 Adjusted Total 5,692,988 14,209,783 11,549,615 12,351,567 6,036,465 6,441,577 5,302,933 5,264,179 4,596,761 5,262,541 76,708,409

Overall Total 22,570,066 33,261,976 28,534,012 27,433,735 25,593,520 21,202,898 19,381,550 17,768,776 17,171,812 20,057,276 232,975,622
V. Status of Human Use 141 Table 14. Landings in pounds by commercial fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by state and county landed (1996-2005). Table is based on VTR data with adjustments made for Area 19 and Area 4 landings. Vessel Trip Report Data State and County Landed 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total % Total Maine 207,333 548,017 313,771 1,444,946 170,826 84,955 421,258 11,938 64,086 359,683 3,626,813 2.13 Washington 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 1,035 0 0 1,099 0.00 Hancock 1,050 0 0 0 2,260 51,030 15,000 0 0 0 69,340 0.04 Knox 0 91,544 287,559 571,866 64,634 0 0 0 0 0 1,015,603 0.60 Lincoln 0 0 2,176 99 7,210 0 330 0 0 0 9,815 0.01 Saqadahoc 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 366 0.00 Cumberland 204,868 447,527 13,596 872,565 88,066 20,900 405,401 10,361 62,852 337,121 2,463,257 1.45 York 1,049 8,882 10,440 416 8,656 13,025 527 542 1,234 22,562 67,333 0.04 New Hampshire 45,906 23,268 22,079 70,171 243,684 194,457 372,061 451,498 179,217 1,210,240 2,812,581 1.65 Rockingham 45,906 23,268 22,079 70,171 243,684 194,457 372,061 451,498 179,217 1,210,240 2,812,581 1.65 Massachusetts 14,997,849 21,985,280 25,640,158 18,791,535 11,957,970 11,736,627 14,742,787 9,218,717 10,597,011 22,609,500 162,277,434 95.28 Essex 11,049,365 15,218,614 21,760,724 13,462,473 7,753,228 8,600,173 12,363,538 7,140,379 8,720,955 18,280,362 124,349,811 73.01 Suffolk 316,935 343,001 216,517 49,261 349,513 82,994 58,173 34,484 121,833 98,018 1,670,729 0.98 Norfolk 608 6,056 1,488 0 7,476 5,890 3,756 640 6,100 1,837 33,851 0.02 Plymouth 2,284,997 4,399,816 2,191,020 3,503,532 1,613,768 516,236 354,410 752,931 814,452 638,676 17,069,838 10.02 Barnstable 409,072 869,152 1,155,689 1,464,239 1,569,644 1,684,638 1,231,896 738,968 539,347 506,481 10,169,126 5.97 Nantucket 0 0 0 0 17,544 0 0 0 0 0 17,544 0.01 Dukes 0 0 0 0 21,015 7,950 10,345 18,950 0 2,525 60,785 0.04 Bristol 936,872 1,147,382 312,955 312,030 624,747 838,746 720,669 532,365 394,324 3,081,132 8,901,222 5.23 Other MA 0 1,259 1,765 0 1,035 0 0 0 0 469 4,528 0.00 Rhode Island 225,000 190,000 190,102 13,096 2,968 141,285 35,977 25,050 0 3,141 826,619 0.49 All RI Counties 225,000 190,000 190,102 13,096 2,968 141,285 35,977 25,050 0 3,141 826,619 0.49 All Other Counties 662 0 742,488 18,871 0 0 4,736 0 0 1,402 768,159 0.45 VTR Total 15,476,088 22,746,565 26,908,598 20,338,619 12,375,448 12,157,324 15,576,819 9,707,203 10,840,314 24,183,966 170,310,944 100.00 Additional Data Sources (modified by subtracting values already reported in Vessel Trip Report Data) Offshore Area 19 Lobster 1,177,862 837,101 1,628,137 1,549,096 742,601 769,263 789,107 825,361 699,694 674,620 9,692,842 Federal Area 4 Bluefin Tuna 479,789 490,241 680,616 684,169 227,611 388,720 253,976 195,582 54,998 440,063 3,895,765 Adjusted Total 1,657,651 1,327,342 2,308,753 2,233,265 970,212 1,157,983 1,043,083 1,020,943 754,692 1,114,683 13,588,607 Overall Total 17,133,739 24,073,907 29,217,351 22,571,884 13,345,660 13,315,307 16,619,902 10,728,146 11,595,006 25,298,649 183,899,551
142 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

from the sanctuary was $15.6 million over this period. The 

upper possible average annual value for this period after 

adjustment for lobster and bluefin tuna was $23.3 million; 

annual adjusted upper values ranged between $17.2 million 

in 2004 to $33.3 million in 1997. Comparable landings 

information in pounds is presented in Table 14 but, except 

where noted, the remainder of this discussion is based on 

dollar value (2005$).

Massachusetts ports received the bulk of the landings (97.8%) 

and determined the overall temporal pattern in value, which 

trended down over the decade (Table 12 and Figure 98). 

[Landings in pounds show a steeper decline with an uptick 

in 2005 due to record catches of Atlantic herring, a low value 

product, in the sanctuary that year (Table 13 and Figure 99).] 

Landings in Maine ranged from $0.03 million in 2003 to $ 

0.36 million in 2001. Landings in New Hampshire ranged 

from $0.03 million in 1997 to $0.37 million in 2005. Landings in both Maine and New Hampshire, while low overall, 

varied by an order of magnitude over this period. Landings 

in Rhode Island were the lowest and most variable. New 

Hampshire was the only state to see higher landings in 2005 

than in 1996, trending opposite to these other states. 

The percent of total landings from the 

sanctuary by county landed for the period 

1996–2005 is presented in Figure 100. 

Essex County in Massachusetts received 

64.2% of the landings, followed by Plymouth County (13.8%), Barnstable County 

(9.8%) and Bristol County (7.9%), all also 

in Massachusetts. Landings in all other 

counties amounted to 2% of the total or 

less. Landings information is presented 

in aggregate by county, rather than by 

port, to ensure that data confidentiality 

is maintained.

Species and Gear

The top ten species landed from the 

sanctuary during 1996-2005 based 

on ex-vessel dollar value and volume 

(pounds) are indicated in Table 15. 

Lobster and cod contributed the greatest value; four species (lobster, cod, 

yellowtail flounder and sea scallops) 

accounted for more than half (60.0%) of 

the total ex-vessel value. Atlantic herring 

contributed the greatest volume (41.0%) 

and together with cod accounted for 

half (51.4%) of the total pounds landed. 

Figure 98. Trends in value (2005$) of annual

commercial fishery landings from the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary for the period 1996–2005.

Figure 99. Trends in annual commercial fishery

landings in pounds from the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary for the period 1996–2005.

Figure 100. Distribution of commercial fishery landings from the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by county landed based on total landings

value for the period 1996–2005.
V. Status of Human Use 143

Overall, the top ten species accounted for 85.2% of total 

landings value and 86.3% of total volume landed from the 

sanctuary.

The top ten gear types fished in the sanctuary based on 

ex-vessel value and volume for the same period are also 

provided in Table 15. The bottom otter trawl-fish accounted 

for the highest dollar value of landings from the sanctuary 

(35.4%) and the midwater pair trawl accounted for the greatest landed volume (26.5%). Four gear types (bottom otter 

trawl-fish, lobster pot, sink gill net and sea scallop dredge) 

accounted for the greatest ex-vessel value (88.7% of total) 

and four gear types (midwater pair trawl, bottom otter trawlfish, sink gill net and midwater otter trawl) accounted for 

the greatest volume of pounds landed (83.9%). Overall, the 

top ten gear types accounted for 99.0% of total landings 

value and 99.1% of total volume landed 

from the sanctuary.

Two species caught in the sanctuary, 

American lobster and Atlantic herring, are 

notable because of the inverse relationship exhibited between their landed value 

and volume and their relationship to one 

another in the conduct of fishing. Lobster 

accounted for 23.9% of the landed value, 

but landings were only 4.6% of volume. 

By contrast, herring accounted for 3.4% 

of the landed value, but landings were 

41.0% of volume. Lobster is high value/

low volume (poundage), while herring is 

low value/high volume. Lobster is caught 

Table 16. Comparison of ex-vessel value (2005$) of commercial fishery

landings from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary (1996–2005) by New

England state landed relative to total value of fishery landings in

those states from all sources. 

Adjusted total is likely maximum value for commercial fishing in the sanctuary.

State Landed Total * Sanctuary % Sanctuary

Massachusetts 3,274,371,313 138,257,598 4.22

Maine 3,226,531,641 1,406,314 0.04

New Hampshire 178,314,569 1,400,258 0.79

Rhode Island 949,036,882 243,379 0.03

VTR total 7,628,254,405 141,307,549 1.85

Adjusted Total 212,753,418 2.79

* Source: Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries Service

Table 15. Top ten species landed and top ten commercial fishing gear types used in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

(1996–2005) based on landed value (2005$) and volume (lbs.). 

a. Species Total lbs 

1996–2005

% Total 

1996–

2005

b. Species Total value 

1996–2005

(2005 $)

% Total 

1996–

2005

1 Herring, Atlantic 70,084,751 40.99 1 Lobster, American 37,643,120.87 23.93

2 Cod 17,781,281 10.40 2 Cod 27,428,431.67 17.44

3 Dogfish, Spiny 17,429,616 10.19 3 Flounder, Yellowtail 16,021,158.90 10.19

4 Flounder, Yellowtail 12,187,130 7.13 4 Scallop, Sea 13,239,975.18 8.42

5 Lobster, American 7,781,831 4.55 5 Monkfish (Round/tails/livers) 11,189,345.56 7.11

6 Monkfish (Round/tails/livers) 5,799,527 3.39 6 Flounder, Witch / Gray Sole 8,269,795.59 5.26

7 Hake, Silver/Whiting 4,385,477 2.57 7 Flounder, Winter / Blackback 5,552,683.01 3.53

8 Flounder, Witch/Gray Sole 4,374,122 2.56 8 Herring, Atlantic 5,374,683.03 3.42

9 Flounder/ Winter/Blackback 3,952,821 2.31 9 Flounder, American Plaice /Dab 4,808,256.36 3.06

10 Pollock 3,806,895 2.23 10 Tuna, Bluefin 4,448,954.58 2.83

c. Gear Types Total lbs 

1996–2005

% Total 

1996–

2005

d. Gear Types Total value 

1996–2005

(2005 $)

% Total 

1996–

2005

1 Pair Trawl, Midwater 45,305,120 26.52 1 Otter Trawl, Bottom, Fish 55,674,129.20 35.40

2 Otter Trawl, Bottom, Fish 43,002,828 25.17 2 Pot, Lobster 35,358,454.48 22.48

3 Gill Net, Sink 36,598,845 21.42 3 Gill Net, Sink 35,176,080.73 22.37

4 Otter Trawl, Midwater 18,352,059 10.74 4 Dredge, Scallop, Sea 13,251,335.64 8.43

5 Purse Seine 8,521,839 4.99 5 Pair Trawl, Midwater 4,242,985.73 2.70

6 Pot, Lobster 7,523,142 4.40 6 Longline, Bottom 4,160,609.74 2.65

7 Longline, Bottom 5,352,766 3.13 7 Hand Line/Rod & Reel 3,093,587.95 1.97

8 Dredge, Scallop, Sea 2,448,887 1.43 8 Harpoon 2,041,146.18 1.30

9 Pot, Hag 1,426,663 0.84 9 Otter Trawl, Midwater 1,539,612.43 0.98

10 Hand Line/Rod & Reel 913,209 0.53 10 Purse Seine 1,077,952.71 0.69
144 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

for northeast commercial fisheries in 2002/2003 was 0.49 

(Harrington et al., 2005). Fishery ratios ranged between a 

high of 1.790 for northeast groundfish to a low of 0.040 for 

Atlantic herring. The VTR landings data (fisheries for lobster 

and bluefin tuna were not included in the calculation of the 

ratios) for SBNMS were partially stratified by fishery type. 

Since herring accounted for an average of 41% of the landings from the sanctuary during 1996–2005 (Table 14), the 

0.040 ratio for the herring fishery was applied to the average 

of the 2002/2003 herring landings; the regional total ratio 

of 0.49 was applied to the remainder of the fishery landings 

averaged over 2002/2003.]

Recreational Fishing

Although a few party boats initiated a recreational ground 

fishery in the Stellwagen Bank area in the late 1940s, 

commercial vessels supporting recreational fishing have 

only regularly worked the area since the mid 1970s (NOAA, 

1993). Previous to that time, the recreational fishery was 

largely based in nearshore waters within 4.8 km or 6.4 km 

(3 mi. or 4 mi.) off the coast. The seaward movement of 

recreational fishing in the mid 1970s is attributed to the 

decline in nearshore groundfish stocks, which necessitated 

vessels moving farther offshore to catch these species. Three 

decades later in 2006, readers of Offshore magazine voted 

Stellwagen Bank the number three favorite recreational fishing spot in the northeast (Offshore, July 2006).

Recreational fishing in the sanctuary is divided into two 

categories: party/charter boat and private. In the party/

charter boat category, commercial operators take customers 

fishing for a fee. In the private category, individuals own or 

rent boats that they use to go fishing. Party boats are usually 

15.2 m (50 ft.) or longer and carry 20 to 80 passengers. 

Charter boats generally measure 7.6 m to 9.1 m (25 to 30 

ft.) and carry an average of six paying passengers (hence the 

expression “six-pack” charters). Private boats often measure 

6.1 m (20 ft.) or longer and carry one to several anglers.

Data Types and Sources

Fishing Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data for the period 

1996-2005 (described above) were used to characterize 

entirely for human consumption, while a large share of the 

herring catch is for use as bait in the pot fishery for lobster.

Northeast Landings Value

The ex-vessel value of commercial fishery landings from the 

sanctuary based on the VTR data is compared to the total 

value of commercial landings by state for Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine (all of coastal 

New England except Connecticut) for the period 1996-2004 

(Table 16). The New England landings data are not available 

for 2005; these data are for all species caught in the northeast area fisheries and were provided by the NOAA Fisheries 

Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Landings value 

was adjusted and continues to be reported in 2005 dollars. 

Essentially all (99.9%) of the commercial fishery landings 

from the sanctuary over that period were landed in the ports 

of these four states.

The total value of commercial fishery landings from the 

sanctuary was 4.2% of the total landings value for Massachusetts, 0.8% for New Hampshire and 0.04% or less for Maine 

and Rhode Island based on the VTR data alone. The total 

value of landings from the sanctuary was 1.9% of the total 

landings value for all fisheries in New England. When the 

upper possible values based on adjusted lobster and bluefin 

tuna landings are added to the VTR data and factored into 

this analysis, the total value of landings from the sanctuary 

was still no more than 2.8% of the New England total over 

the decade. This analysis omits Connecticut, which realized next to no landings from the sanctuary and which, if 

included, would reduce this percentage.

Total Catch by Commercial Fishing

As noted above, commercial fishing landed 17.0 million 

pounds (7,725 mt) to 18.4 million pounds (8,342 mt) of 

fish and crustaceans from the sanctuary on average per year 

during 1996–2005 (Table 14). The lower estimate is the VTR 

landings; the upper estimate is the VTR landings plus adjustments for lobster and bluefin tuna. 

These landings are minimal estimates of total catch from the 

sanctuary because they do not include the landings by charter and party boats and by private recreational fishing, nor 

do they include the bycatch and regulatory discards associated with all the fisheries involved. This total also does 

not include biomass estimates for seafloor biogenic habitat 

and associated biological community losses due to fishing. 

These losses could be considerable given the broad spatial 

extent over which the sanctuary is routinely fished.

A first order approximation of the level of commercial fishery discards in SBNMS in 2002/2003 is 4.0 million pounds 

(1.8 mt) on average per year. The total VTR landings for 

SBNMS in 2002/2003 were 13.3 million pounds (6.0 mt) 

on average per year. This approximation suggests that 

commercial fishery discards amounted to about 23% of 

total average annual catch (17.3 million pounds or 7.8 mt) 

in SBNMS in 2002/2003. [Note: The level of commercial 

fishery discards in the SBNMS in 2002/2003 was approximated as follows: The regional total discard to landings ratio 
V. Status of Human Use 145

party and charter boat fishing in the sanctuary, and consisted of the reported quantity (i.e., number) of fish landed by 

species. A comparable data base for private recreational 

fishing specific to the sanctuary does not exist. The sample 

size for private recreational fishing boats in the standardized survey database (described above) for the sanctuary is 

too limited for reliable analysis at the scale of the sanctuary. Shipboard survey tracklines were run primarily during 

weekdays and likely under-sampled boating activities occurring during weekends and holidays, when this sector would 

be expected to be most active. Alternatively, results from 

the NOAA Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey 

Query were used to draw general inferences about private 

recreational fishing in the sanctuary (Personal communication from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries 

Statistics Division [http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/queries/index.html]).

NOAA Survey Query data are the estimated pounds caught 

by species, based on a standardized random telephone 

survey of the general public. Data from the survey query 

used in this analysis are for offshore Massachusetts (i.e., 

Federal Exclusive Economic Zone three to 200 miles off the 

coast), which is an area inclusive of, but many times the 

size of, the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. The data are also 

problematic because they include catches from two distinct 

biogeographic provinces, i.e., the database is inclusive of 

species from the GoM to the north of Cape Cod and from 

the mid-Atlantic shelf to the south. While there is sharing 

of seasonal transitional species between these segments of 

offshore Massachusetts, the two provinces are associated 

with differing species assemblages and ranges, a fact apparent in the species mix listed in the query results.

Party and Charter

Spatial Distribution and Density

Party and charter boats show distinctly different spatial 

patterns of use within the sanctuary (Figure 101). This figure 

is based on the VTR data for the period July 2001–June 2002, 

which is the base period for analyses of spatial distribution 

and density established in this document for treatment of 

fishing. The Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area (WGoMCA) also is indicated in this Figure; 22 percent of this closed 

area overlaps the eastern side of the sanctuary and is known 

as the “sliver.”

As previously explained, the WGoMCA (and sliver) was 

established by NOAA Fisheries Service in 1998 at the 

recommendation of the NEFMC for the purpose of recovering groundfish stocks, specifically cod and haddock. 

Bottom-tending trawl gear and gill nets were specifically 

excluded from this closed area, but recreational hook 

and line remained among the allowable gear for catching 

Figure 101. Spatial density patterns based on fishing trips for party boat (a) and charter boat (b) fishing in the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during July 2001–June 2002. 

The patterns are Kriged density plots using a 5,000 m search radius and analyzed by ESRI ARCGIS. VTR gear code: Party/Charter 

(Trip ID: 2, 3).
146 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

groundfish there. Party and charter boats have come to view 

the sliver as a refuge from competing forms of commercial 

groundfishing.

Trip density for party boats was highest across all but the 

southern-most part of the sliver and over most of the northern half of the sanctuary; trip density was lowest over Stellwagen Bank and in the southwest quadrant of the sanctuary. 

Trip density for charter boats was highest over almost all 

of Stellwagen Bank and portions of the sliver; trip density 

was lowest in the western and north-central portions of the 

sanctuary. High trip densities for both party and charter 

boats occurred in the sliver, but the concentrated coverage 

indicated there for party boats is compelling.

Fleet Characteristics

Fishing by party boat and charter boat in the sanctuary is 

conducted by vessels with home ports of registry from across 

the entire eastern seaboard from Florida to Maine (Table 17). 

Three states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine) 

accounted for essentially 94% of the total number in each 

category; Massachusetts accounted for the great majority 

of the party (76.6%) and charter boats (78.7%) fishing in 

the sanctuary. Other states represented in the total include 

Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, 

West Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina and Florida.

Between 1996 and 2005, an average of 25 party (range 

17-43) and 44 charter (range 27-75) boats fished in the 

sanctuary each year. The number of party boats each 

year remained relatively steady over 1996-2003, increasing sharply over 2004-2005 (Table 17a). The number of 

charter boats each year trended upwards over 1996-2003, 

also increasing sharply over 2004-2005 (Table 17b). These 

trends are illustrated in Figure 102.

The annual number of trips for party boats over this period 

ranged from 133 to 517 with an annual mean of 292; the 

range for charter boat trips was 352 to 937 and the mean 

was 598. The annual number of party boat anglers ranged 

from 3,416 to 21,150 (mean 10,610); the range for charter 

boat anglers was 3,377 to 6,142 (mean 4,808). On average over this period, party boats made half the number of 

trips as charter boats but took twice the number of anglers. 

These data are summarized in Table 18. Counts based on 

these measures all increased over this period.

Pricing and Sales Value

General approximation of the direct sales value of party 

boat and charter boat fishing in the sanctuary suggests a 

Table 17. Number of (a) party boats and (b) charter boats by state of home port that landed fish from the

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary during 1996–2005.

a. Party Boats

State of Homeport1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total % 

Total

Massachusetts 32 31 25 31 27 28 22 25 32 39 292 76.6

New Hampshire 5 4 1 3 5 5 6 5 8 7 49 12.9

Maine 4 2 2 2 4 2 3 19 5.0

Rhode Island 1 2 1 1 2 7 1.8

New York 1 1 1 1 4 1.0

Connecticut 1 1 1 3 0.8

Florida 1 1 1 3 0.8

North Carolina 1 1 2 0.5

Virginia 1 1 2 0.5

Total 38 43 31 39 35 39 29 31 44 52 381 100

a. Charter Boats

Massachusetts 41 49 36 44 54 46 52 43 81 94 540 78.7

New Hampshire 6 4 4 6 8 12 11 14 13 14 92 13.4

Maine 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 15 2.2

Florida 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 13 1.9

New York 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 1.3

Connecticut 1 2 1 1 1 6 0.9

Vermont 1 1 1 1 4 0.6

West Virginia 1 1 1 1 4 0.6

Rhode Island 1 1 2 0.3

Missouri 1 1 0.1

Total 52 58 45 57 70 63 67 59 100 115 686 100
V. Status of Human Use 147

combined total of about $2.5 million in 2005. This calculation is based on a representative “head” fee of $50 per party 

boat passenger and a representative charter cost of $1,200 

per trip, using the VTR data for number of passengers and 

trips in 2005 (Table 18). This approximate value is rounded 

upwards to account for tips to crew members, which is 

customary and which can be 10%-20% of the purchase 

price. Representative pricing was provided by several 

companies offering party boat fishing in the sanctuary and 

by the Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Captains Association.

Landings Characteristics

As remarked earlier, “landings” is defined as the part of the 

fish catch that is unloaded and put ashore. The distinction 

between catch and landings is important because quantities 

of fish are discarded at sea as bycatch. The discard to landings ratio in northeast recreational fisheries is not known, 

but discarding does occur. Recreational discards can be 

sublegal size fish or undesired species caught, for example.

Discard mortality also is not well known for the northeast 

recreational fisheries. However, species like cusk are particularly susceptible to discard mortality because of the barotrauma experienced in being brought to the surface from 

depth. Landings are invariably minimum indications of the 

total numbers of fish caught and the total mortality experienced in recreational as well as commercial fisheries.

State and County

The total number of 353,459 fish landed by party boats 

from the sanctuary during 1996–2005 (Table 19a) was less 

than the total 503,735 fish landed by charter boats over that 

period (Table 19b). Massachusetts ports received 81.1% 

and New Hampshire ports received 16.8%, together totaling 97.9% of the party boat landings from the sanctuary. 

Massachusetts ports received 98.4% of the landings from 

charter boats. Massachusetts and New Hampshire ports are 

predominant in the party boat fishery in the sanctuary, while 

Massachusetts ports dominate charter boat fishing there.

The percent of party and charter boat landings from the sanctuary by county is presented in Figure 103. Essex County 

in Massachusetts received 68.5% of the party boat landings followed by Rockingham County in New Hampshire 

(16.8%) and Plymouth County in Massachusetts (11.3%), 

together totaling 96.6% of the party boat landings during 

1996–2005. By contrast, Plymouth County received 68.4% 

of the charter boat landings followed by Essex County 

(29.7%), together totaling 98.1% of the charter boat landings over the same period. These results are consistent with 

the spatial patterns of use presented earlier in this section in 

which party boats demonstrated intensive use of the northern portions of the sanctuary, while charter boats predominantly used the southern portions, especially Stellwagen 

Bank proper (Figure 101).

Table 18. Number of vessels, trips and anglers fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by (a) party boats and (b) 

charter boats during 1996–2005.

a. Party Boats b. Charter Boats

Year Vessel Trip Angler Year Vessel Trip Angler

1996 38 772 26,501 1996 51 622 7,521

1997 43 799 27,060 1997 57 679 6,683

1998 31 676 23,654 1998 44 619 5,339

1999 39 814 27,891 1999 57 692 6,261

2000 35 740 26,335 2000 69 1,082 8,489

2001 39 912 34,885 2001 63 1,109 9,471

2002 29 912 32,703 2002 67 1,255 9,273

2003 31 798 29,373 2003 59 987 8,285

2004 45 1,510 55,815 2004 100 1,586 12,410

2005 53 1,268 46,849 2005 115 1,841 13,012

Total 383 9,201 331,066 Total 682 10,472 86,744

Figure 102. Trend in number of party and charter

boats fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

during 1996–2005. 

Establishment of the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area 

(WGOMCA) in 1998 is indicated by the vertical line.
148 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 19. 

Q

uantity

of fish lan

ded by (

a) party bo

ats

an

d (

b) charter bo

ats fishing in the

Stellwagen

B

an

k sanctuary by state

an

d county lan

ded (1996–2005).

a. Party Boats

State and County 

Landed

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total % Total

Maine 0 664 618 264 1,298 0 0 0 315 197 3,356 0.95

Lincoln 0 0 509 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 509 0.14

Cumberland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.00

York 0 664 109 264 1,298 0 0 0 315 195 2,845 0.80

New Hampshire 1,031 796 102 2,103 3,774 5,271 10,367 7,394 16,338 12,263 59,439 16.82

Rockingham 1,031 796 102 2,103 3,774 5,271 10,367 7,394 16,338 12,263 59,439 16.82

Massachusetts 26,417 16,738 14,119 22,589 20,266 34,207 26,251 28,241 48,736 49,067 286,631 81.09

Essex 20,207 15,067 12,799 20,234 16,426 31,703 23,841 26,123 39,959 35,831 242,190 68.52

Suffolk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 102 195 0.06

Plymouth 6,187 1,659 1,320 2,355 3,840 2,504 2,210 2,025 8,002 9,675 39,777 11.25

Barnstable 23 12 0 0 0 0 200 0 775 3,459 4,469 1.26

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,065 1,968 4,033 1.14

All RI Counties 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,065 1,968 4,033 1.14

All Other Counties 0 0 0 506 0 97 865 0 410 0 1,878 0.53

Total 27,448 18,198 14,839 24,956 25,338 39,478 36,618 35,635 67,454 63,495 353,459 100.00

b. Charter Boats

Maine 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 99 72 177 0.04

York 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 99 72 177 0.04

New Hampshire 2,189 318 384 1,939 86 189 552 1,408 386 242 7,693 1.53

Rockingham 2,189 318 384 1,939 86 189 552 1,408 386 242 7,693 1.53

Massachusetts 24,755 22,648 26,052 50,732 73,119 104,736 65,807 29,463 42,205 56,219 495,736 98.41

Essex 7,452 11,462 14,880 15,551 15,776 22,733 13,264 14,719 16,436 17,460 149,733 29.72

Suffolk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 520 631 0.13

Norfolk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.00

Plymouth 17,303 11,113 11,162 35,181 57,343 82,003 52,098 14,728 25,583 37,870 344,384 68.37

Barnstable 0 73 0 0 0 0 445 16 50 318 902 0.18

Bristol 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 25 50 85 0.02

Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 129 0.03

All RI Counties 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 129 0.03

All Other Counties 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 92 0.02

Total 26,944 22,966 26,436 52,677 73,205 104,925 66,359 30,871 42,690 56,662 503,735 100.00
V. Status of Human Use 149

WGoMCA

Establishment of the WGoMCA in 1998 

did not have an immediate effect on the 

number of party boats fishing in the sanctuary (Figure 102), but counts of party 

boat trips and anglers increased steeply 

two years after the closure was instituted 

(Figure 104). By contrast, the effect on 

charter boats was more immediate (Figures 

102 and 105). The number of charter 

boats and, especially, the number of trips 

increased greatly between 1999 and 2005. 

Party boats are much larger vessels than 

charter boats and represent more substantial capital investment. In a fluctuating 

business environment fraught with regulatory risk such as involves fishing, the greater lag in rate of increase in the number of 

party boats relative to charter boats is to be 

expected for this reason. 

The greater reliance of party boats on fishing in the sliver portion of the sanctuary 

relative to charter boats was noted in the 

previous section on spatial distribution and 

density (Figure 101). In the 2001-2002 

base period used to analyze the spatial 

densities of party and charter boat fishing 

in the sanctuary, 43% of party boat trips 

and 42% of party boat anglers fished within the sliver compared to 29% of charter 

boat trips and 34% of charter boat anglers. 

Figure 106 compares the annual quantity 

of fish landed from the sanctuary by party 

and charter boats over 1996–2005. The 

steep rise in quantity of fish landed following establishment of the sliver in 1998 

is evident for charter boats but not party 

boats.

The steep drop in charter boat landings in 

2002 and 2003 (Figure 106) appears to be 

the result of an interim final rule, issued 

pursuant to northeast multi-species recreational and party/charter vessel restrictions, that imposed possession limits on 

cod and haddock taken in the WGoMCA 

during August 1, 2002 to August 22, 2003, 

with Amendment 13 taking effect at the 

later date (NOAA Small Entity Compliance 

Guide, 2002). Landings by party boats, 

which use the sliver more often than charter boats, remained essentially level over 

these two years. The overall effect of these 

possession limits by 2005 was to bring 

near parity to the quantity of fish landed 

by party boats and charter boats fishing in 

the sanctuary.

Figure 103. Distribution of (a) party boat and (b) charter boat

landings (number of fish) from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary by

county landed for the period 1996–2005.
150 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

The apparent contradiction inherent in the fact that party 

boats use the sliver more intensely than charter boats, yet 

their landings were less affected by the interim final rule 

may be explained by differences in the species composition of party and charter boat landings. As indicated in the 

following section, cod, in particular, and haddock constituted a greater share of charter boat landings as compared 

to party boat landings.

Species

The top ten species caught by party and charter boat fishing 

in the sanctuary during 1996–2005 based on number of fish 

landed are indicated in Table 20. The top four species in 

each vessel category in descending order were Atlantic cod, 

haddock, pollock and cusk, together totaling 90.5% of the 

party boat landings and 96.9% of the charter boat landings. 

Cod and haddock made up 80.9% of the party boat landings 

and 89.4% of the charter boat landings. Importantly, cod 

alone made up 54.1% of the party boat landings but 77.0% 

of the charter boat landings.

Figure 104. Trends in number of anglers and trips by

party boats fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

during 1996–2005. 

Establishment of the WGoMCA in 1998 is indicated.

Figure 105. Trends in number of anglers and trips

by charter boats fishing in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary during 1996–2005. 

Establishment of the WGoMCA in 1998 is indicated. 

Figure 106. Trends in party boat and charter boat

landings (quantity) from the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary during 1996–2005. 

Establishment of the WGOMCA in 1998 is indicated.

Table 20. Top ten species caught by (a) party boat and (b) charter boat fishing in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

during 1996–2005 based on number of fish landed.

a. Party Boat Species Total qty 

1996–2005

% Total 

1996–

2005

b. Charter Boat Species Total qty 

1996–2005

% Total 

1996–

2005

1 Cod 192,659 54.14 1 Cod 387,215 77.03

2 Haddock 95,150 26.74 2 Haddock 62,022 12.34

3 Pollock 21,652 6.08 3 Pollock 29,234 5.82

4 Cusk 12,634 3.55 4 Cusk 8,507 1.69

5 Dogfish, Spiny 8,263 2.32 5 Tuna, Bluefin 4,665 0.93

6 Mackerel, Atlantic 8,252 2.32 6 Wolffish / Ocean Catfish 3,977 0.79

7 Wolffish / Ocean Catfish 5,307 1.49 7 Mackerel, Atlantic 3,284 0.65

8 Redfish / Ocean Perch 2,653 0.75 8 Redfish / Ocean Perch 847 0.17

9 Bluefish 1,809 0.51 9 Dogfish, Spiny 588 0.12

10 Ocean Pout 1,260 0.35 10 Striped Bass 451 0.09
V. Status of Human Use 151

As explained above, the WGOMCA was established to help 

rebuild groundfish stocks, specifically cod and haddock. 

The highest spatial densities of party and especially charter 

boats were in the closed area where it overlapped the sanctuary (sliver). Party and charter boats appear to target areas 

in the sanctuary that produce high landings of these two 

species. The spatial differences in their fishing patterns may 

reflect alternate strategies: party boats generalize to catch 

a mix of cod and haddock and charter boats specialize to 

catch primarily cod.

As explained previously, cusk and Atlantic wolfish are on 

the Species of Concern List for the Endangered Species Act. 

These two species, albeit at relatively low numbers, were 

among the top ten species landed by party and charter boats 

fishing in the sanctuary (Table 20). These species have 

no directed management plan under the MFCMA despite 

continued exploitation of their populations. Atlantic halibut 

also are on the Species of Concern List and were reported 

within the VTR system as being caught on party and charter 

boats in the sanctuary during 1996-2005.

Private

There are no comparable data available to assess private 

recreational fishing at the scale of the sanctuary. NOAA 

Survey Query data, as explained above, are used to draw 

general inferences. Landings data in pounds caught by 

species in the federal offshore waters of Massachusetts (three 

to 200 miles off the coast) are presented in Table 21.

The survey query data in these tables were adjusted by 

removing transitional species more associated with the 

offshore waters to the south of Cape Cod. These species 

were rarely listed among the party and charter boat landings in the sanctuary based on the VTR reports. Further 

adjustment was made for striped bass which is illegal to 

catch or possess in federal waters of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone (which includes the sanctuary). These data sets allow 

comparison (1) between survey query private/rental (Table 

21a) and combined party/charter (Table 21b) landings and 

general comparison (2) between survey query party/charter 

and the VTR party boat and charter boat landings.

General Characteristics

After adjustment to remove the species less likely to be 

caught in the sanctuary, the survey query private/rental 

landings (Table 21a) and party/charter landings (Table 21b) 

indicate that Atlantic cod are caught in the greatest number. 

When cod, other cods/hakes and pollock are combined, the 

subtotal amounts to 72.7% of the total landings for private/

rental and 89.8% for party/charter.

The survey query party/charter subtotal (89.8%) compares 

favorably to 90.5% for the VTR party boat subtotal that 

groups cod, haddock, pollock and cusk together (above). 

The survey query party/charter landings (Table 21b) demonstrate further similarity to the VTR party boat landings by 

including Atlantic mackerel, bluefish and spiny dogfish 

among the species more commonly caught.

The adjusted survey query private/rental landings are considered to be a reasonable representation of that category of 

recreational fishing in the sanctuary. The general pattern 

that emerges to characterize all categories of recreational 

fishing in the sanctuary is one of scaled difference: from a 

high degree of specialization for cod by charter boat fishing, 

through mixed species concentration preferably for cod and 

haddock by party boat fishing, to more generalized fishing 

and species switching by private recreational boats.

The survey query data provide some indication of effort 

trends in recreational fishing in the federal waters off Massachusetts, although the wide coverage area limits the applicability to the sanctuary. In general, the number of angler 

trips and the number of anglers engaged in recreational 

fishing in offshore waters of Massachusetts increased over 

the 1996–2005 timeframe. The number of people fishing 

in the offshore waters of Massachusetts more than doubled, 

reflecting similar rate increases in party boat and charter 

boat fishing in the sanctuary as indicated under the “Fleet 

Characteristics” subsection of this document.

Striped Bass

Striped bass cannot be fished for, caught, possessed or 

retained within the federal waters of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone [50 CFR 697.7(b)] except in certain waters 

off Rhode Island and New York. However, the original 

NOAA Survey Query data indicate sizeable landings of 

striped bass by private/rental fishing boats (20.5% of the 

total) and by commercial party/charter boats (9.4% of the 

total) in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone off Massachusetts. Table 21, which summarizes these data, indicates that 

private/rental landings of striped bass totaled 6.25 million 

pounds and that party/charter landings of striped bass totaled 

1.65 million pounds over the 1996–2005 period.

This situation requires immediate remedy. There either is a 

low level of understanding about the federal regulation, in 

which case there is need of considerable directed education 

to inform the public of this prohibition, or there is a high 

rate of violation, in which case there is need for increased 

enforcement. Or the question in the survey query needs to 

be rewritten and better specified, so that people responding 

do not place themselves in jeopardy by ostensibly admitting 

guilt to violation of federal law and to assure survey data 

quality.
152 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 21. 

Lan

dings (poun

ds) by species in the federal offshore

waters

of Mass

achusetts by (

a) private

/rental bo

ats

an

d (

b) party

/charter bo

ats

during 1996–

2005 base

d on the NOAA 

Survey

Query data. Adjustments were

made as detaile

d in the text.

a. Private Rental

Species Landed 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total % Total

Atlantic Cod 653,602 122,940 738,601 346,096 884,419 2,682,180 1,983,851 3,426,837 2,619,733 1,881,481 15,339,740 63.79

Atlantic Mackerel 499,155 425,671 103,685 473,200 220,409 334,711 453,310 266,404 304,484 98,166 3,179,195 13.22

Bluefish 377,469 209,331 218,813 74,732 0 243,710 274,808 224,294 255,998 601,144 2,480,299 10.31

Other Cods/hakes 1,812 0 54,663 17,035 45,267 178,848 207,369 32,727 255,476 697,776 1,490,973 6.20

Pollock 74,862 0 4,881 26,493 467 318,044 139,767 9,991 0 196,758 771,263 3.21

Summer Flounder 8,728 8,036 63,195 18,799 63,224 46,749 88,166 68,396 37,405 43,206 445,904 1.85

Other Tunas/mackerels

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171,595 171,595 0.71

Winter Flounder 5,613 6,149 11,795 381 15,296 8,364 4,795 893 1,263 0 54,549 0.23

Other Fishes 14,700 4,092 3,858 0 0 11,285 14,806 0 5,463 0 54,204 0.23

Dogfish Sharks 0 0 7,086 0 5,029 0 0 0 29,473 0 41,588 0.17

Little Tunny/Atlantic Bonito

0 3,768 0 0 0 0 0 6,228 0 0 9,996 0.04

Sculpins 3,516 1,151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,667 0.02

Red Hake 0 0 0 0 0 2,046 0 0 0 0 2,046 0.01

Herrings 1,958 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,958 0.01

Cunner 0 818 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 886 0.00

Totals 1,641,415 781,956 1,206,577 956,736 1,234,111 3,825,937 3,166,940 4,035,770 3,509,295 3,690,126 24,048,863 100.00

Other Species Fished But Less Likely Caught In SanctuaryBlack Sea Bass 9,795 4,334 789 3,364 227,250 4,493 23,896 2,511 19,114 36,131 331,677

Tautog 89,934 25,789 8,300 0 0 0 0 31,083 0 0 155,106

Scup 25,617 14,852 35,931 2,452 1,096 10,620 22,075 0 25,236 0 137,879

White Perch 0 0 11,402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,402

Totals 125,346 44,975 56,422 5,816 228,346 15,113 45,971 33,594 44,350 36,131 636,064

IllegalStriped Bass 297974 562,684 466,626 309,815 444,445 704,478 554,411 1,090,730 1,089,930 729,050 6,250,143
V. Status of Human Use 153 Table 21. Landings (pounds) by species in the federal offshore waters of Massachusetts by (a) private/rental boats and (b) party/charter boats during 1996- 2005 based on the NOAA Survey Query data. Adjustments were made as detailed in the text. b. Party/Charter Species Landed 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total % Total Atlantic Cod 954,991 1,450,252 1,532,702 1,384,341 2,336,530 1,035,699 750,840 986,922 411,491 1,087,790 11,931,558 75.38 Other Cods/hakes 1,812 0 54,663 17,035 45,267 178,848 207,369 32,727 255,476 697,776 1,490,973 6.20 Bluefish 34,372 306,627 105,298 17,524 125,794 44,493 117,302 29,352 241,860 160,151 1,182,773 7.47 Pollock 12,059 40,102 26,766 42,516 18,530 275,326 25,245 29,952 131,011 209,759 811,266 5.12 Atlantic Mackerel 10,183 34,815 12,762 19,786 2,767 46,678 0 31,455 10,020 0 168,466 1.06 Other Fishes 15,132 20,620 15,406 6,310 16,903 10,159 8,430 16,460 10,234 21,333 140,987 0.89 Cunner 0 747 0 1,052 0 0 0 30,102 159 542 32,602 0.21 Summer Flounder 12,482 82 0 0 11,918 1,473 459 201 0 0 26,615 0.17 Dogfish Sharks 0 0 679 0 0 0 0 324 2,275 18,808 22,086 0.14 Other Tunas/ mackerels 0 4,176 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,119 9,969 16,264 0.10 Winter Flounder 0 0 439 0 0 1,486 1,660 229 573 1,709 6,096 0.04 Eels 0 875 0 0 0 553 0 0 0 0 1,428 0.01 Skates/rays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 719 719 0.00 Little Tunny/atlan- tic Bonito 0 0 406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 406 0.00 Sculpins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 298 0.00 Herrings 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 115 194 0.00 Other Flounders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 165 0.00 Red Hake 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0.00 Totals 1,046,792 1,870,470 1,721,733 1,507,259 2,785,772 1,549,796 987,642 1,201,170 946,185 2,212,771 15,829,590 100.00 Other Species Fished But Less Likely Caught In Sanctuary Scup 32,350 51,429 125,360 11,799 260,895 25,714 184,545 72,240 11,433 1,407 777,172 Black Sea Bass 558 1,217 201 201 12,912 1,616 11,777 64,401 728 0 93,611 Spanish Mackerel 55,653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55,653 Tautog 0 893 573 739 0 0 0 7,116 443 844 10,608 White Perch 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 439 Dolphins 0 0 408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 408 Totals 88,561 53,978 126,542 12,739 273,807 27,330 196,322 143,757 12,604 2,251 937,891 Illegal Striped Bass 597 212,523 187,534 42,456 190,250 66,050 145,559 116,215 173,224 515,325 1,649,733
154 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Whale Watching

Commercial Whale Watching

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is one of the top-ten premiere 

whale-watching locations in the world, one of only three 

such areas in U.S. waters, as listed by the World Wildlife 

Fund in 2002 (ENS, 2006 and USA TODAY, 2007); it was 

voted best in the Northeast for wildlife watching by the readers of Offshore magazine in 2006 (Offshore, 2006). Threatened and endangered species of whales are the attraction 

for more than a million visitors who go whale watching in 

the sanctuary each year (Hoyt, 2001). While the educational opportunity provided on whale watching trips can 

have a positive effect on efforts to protect whales, growth 

of the industry, use of larger and faster boats and variable 

operational standards raise concerns for the welfare of the 

whales.

Commercial whale watching on Stellwagen Bank began 

in 1975 from Provincetown, Massachusetts, inaugurating 

commercial whale watching on the U.S. East Coast (see 

Sidebar). Today, whale watching in the sanctuary is among 

New England’s most notable recreational industries. It is 

estimated that more than 1.2 million passengers participated 

in whale watching tours in New England in 2000, generating annual total direct sales of more than $30 million to the 

region and $24 million to Massachusetts alone. Massachusetts accounted for nearly 80% of the New England totals 

for both passengers and revenues (Hoyt, 2001) and virtually 

all of Massachusetts whale watching occurs in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.

For sanctuary bound New England whale watchers, the 

activity represented more than a third of the value of their 

entire vacation (Hoyt, 2001). In an earlier study, more than 

two-thirds of the surveyed whale watchers had planned to 

go whale watching as part of their vacation (Hoagland and 

Meeks, 2000). In a 1988 survey of Massachusetts whale 

watchers, 45% stated that their primary purpose was whale 

watching, with 65% traveling more than 250 miles (400 

km). Only 18% of respondents in that survey were from 

Massachusetts; 64% were from elsewhere along the U.S. 

east coast (Lewis, 1988; Hoyt, 2001). The majority of whale 

watching in New England originates from Massachusetts 

ports with those boats regularly visiting the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary (Hoyt, 2001).

Commercial advertising that whale watching will be done 

in the “Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary,” rather 

than at “Stellwagen Bank,” can be an important distinction affecting market appeal and purchasing behavior. A 

survey of attitudes toward whale watching in the sanctuary conducted by Boston University’s Communication 

Research Center (1996–97) found that 38.5% of potential 

customers would prefer to go whale watching if they knew 

the activity would occur within the sanctuary; an additional 

47.8% would be equally interested. The survey also found 

that when going whale watching at Stellwagen Bank, 77% 

of customers would prefer a naturalist specifically trained 

about the sanctuary. When respondents were given a hypothetical situation of having two boat choices, with the only 

difference between the boats being that the naturalist on one 

boat had additional training about the sanctuary, 84% chose 

that boat. The survey had a margin of error of +/- 4.5%. 

Sanctuary branding and naturalist certification demonstrate 

strong marketing cache.

The concept of “eco-tourism” has a significant impact on 

the whale watching industry. As the industry matures and 

diversifies, whale watching is increasingly incorporated 

into broader tourism packages that are offered to the public. 

Typically, hotels, educational organizations, whale watch 

operations and travel agencies make joint arrangements 

(Carter, 1994) to offer whale watching packages that include 

transportation, an overnight hotel stay, shoreside recreation 

and classroom lectures (Evans, 1994). In addition to carrying tourists and students, almost all whale watching trips 

to the sanctuary feature a naturalist on board to interpret 

marine life for the public, and some also collect and record 

sightings data.

Naturalists and researchers, who educate passengers about 

the whales’ natural history and interpret the behavior of 

whales encountered on the trips, staff most of the whale 

watch boats. Scientists have used whale watch boats as 

accessible and economical research platforms to collect data 

on whales in the area. In the sanctuary, whale watch boats 

are particularly valuable in monitoring life histories of individuals. These whale watch data have played a significant 

role in the definition of the structure of the North Atlantic 

humpback whale population including distribution, stock 

identity, reproductive parameters, abundance, population 

composition, migratory destinations, behavior and humanrelated impacts (Robbins, 2000).

Humpback whales are the primary attraction for whale 

watch trips because of their long seasonal residence in the 

sanctuary, their highly visible behavior at the sea surface, 

and because of their known genealogy based on individual 

identification markings on their tail flukes. In addition to 

humpbacks, fin whales, minke whales and white-sided 

dolphins are commonly seen. North Atlantic right whales 

are less frequently encountered, owing both to their critically endangered population status (i.e., fewer right whales 
V. Status of Human Use 155

overall to frequent the sanctuary), to the shorter period of 

residence within the sanctuary (generally late winter or 

early spring to approximately July) and regulations restricting vessel approach.

Until the 2006 season when numbers rebounded to a historic high, the total number of whale sightings in the sanctuary 

had been declining over the past decade. Scientists suggest 

that reduced local availability of sand lance, the main food 

source of humpback and fin whales which attracts the 

whales to the sanctuary, may have been the primary cause 

of this earlier decline in sightings (Payne et al., 1990; Weinrich et al., 1997; Kenney et al., 2001). Prey field mapping 

by sanctuary scientists tagging humpback whales during the 

2006 season revealed large quantities of sand lance in the 

sanctuary and in the immediate vicinity of feeding humpbacks.

Recreational Whale Watching

Recreational boaters are most numerous and often aggregate in the sanctuary during the major portion of the whale 

watch season from May to September. While participation 

in whale watching by this sector is presumed high, there are 

no quantitative assessments to indicate levels of participation. These smaller private craft, dubbed the “mosquito fleet” 

by commercial whale watch operators, follow commercial 

whale watch boats and/or seek out whales independently.

NOAA whale watch guidelines have been in place since 

1985 for the GoM Region. These guidelines represent the 

best practices for the industry as endorsed by the federal 

government. There are occasional, albeit largely undocumented, reports of whale harassment and collisions between 

non-commercial vessels and whales. Evidence of smaller 

boat vessel collisions (i.e., less than 15.2 m or 50 ft.) are 

supported by photographs of cuts and scars on the backs, 

flukes and fins of cetaceans (CCS, 1991). A more detailed 

description of the guidelines is found in Appendix M.

In an attempt to educate private boaters whale watching 

in the sanctuary, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation 

Society, in collaboration with the sanctuary, developed a 

public education program entitled “See a Spout, Watch 

Out! Responsible Whale Watching.” Additionally, the 

International Fund for Animal Welfare worked with the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Provincetown Center 

for Coastal Studies and NOAA Fisheries Service to distribute educational material on this subject to registered boaters 

throughout Massachusetts. Development of such cooperative outreach programs can inform boaters when whales are 

in the vicinity and to act responsibly around these animals. 

However, these programs have been largely land-based and 

an on-the-water program is needed to increase outreach to 

vessels in the vicinity of whales. 

Other Recreation and Tourism

In addition to fishing and whale watching mentioned above, 

other popular recreational and tourism activities include 

diving, bird watching and boating, some of which take 

place in and around the waters of the sanctuary. There are 

65 small boat harbors and over 80 boating and yacht club 

The Whale Watching Cruise

Commercial whale watch cruises are conducted in 

the sanctuary from April through October, when the 

greatest concentrations of whales are present. In 2006, 

at least 13 dedicated whale watching businesses with 

between 18–23 boats operated from six Massachusetts 

ports—four out of Gloucester; three out of Boston; 

two out of Provincetown and Plymouth respectively; 

and, one each out of Barnstable and Newburyport. 

Some operators use their boats for other purposes such 

as fishing, sightseeing or commuter transportation 

(Wright, 1994). Additionally, other chartered vessels 

may engage in whale watching.

Commercial whale watch boats range in size from 

approximately 15 m (50 ft. with 35-40 passenger 

capacity) to over 42 m (140 ft. with 400 passenger 

capacity). Some boats are propelled by screw propellers 

and other by jet drives. The whale watch operations 

can be categorized into two groups: those that deploy 

boats that regularly operate at speeds from 16-20 knots, 

and those that deploy high speed boats that regularly 

operate at speeds from 25-38 knots (Wiley et al., in 

press).

Vessels may make one to three trips per day to the

sanctuary. A 4-6 hour trip averages $30-40. The tour 

schedule of most commercial whale watch boats begins 

in April, with one trip scheduled daily through June 

with two trips scheduled on weekends. School groups 

are the main market during this time. The season peaks 

during July and August; operators generally offer two 

to three trips per boat daily, catering to a generalized 

tourist market. Schedules are reduced after Labor 

Day. Seasonal demand and variable weather conditions 

determine trip frequency. Some companies have more 

than one vessel and also operate charter fishing trips or 

other types of sightseeing tours.
156 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

sites along the Massachusetts coast giving access to the 

sanctuary.

Diving

While the most frequently visited New England dive spots are 

relatively close to shore, the sanctuary offers SCUBA divers 

a chance to explore different offshore environments at the 

mouth of Massachusetts Bay; however, strong currents and 

exposed waters create challenging dive conditions. Almost 

15% of the sanctuary’s total seafloor area (126 square miles) 

is less than 130 feet deep and within depth limits for recreational diving. The shallower areas are found on top of Stellwagen Bank as well as on parts of southern Jeffreys Ledge 

and Sanctuary Hill (Figure 107). Despite the potential dive 

sites, very little diving occurs in the sanctuary.

Birdwatching

The sanctuary provides a rewarding birding opportunity 

for both novices and experienced birders. Approximately 

34 seabird species occur within the sanctuary’s boundaries; however, their abundance and distribution change 

constantly from season to season and from year to year. A 

more detailed list of species found within the sanctuary and 

the GoM area can be found in Appendix J. Each year since 

1998, the Massachusetts Audubon Society (MAS) and the 

sanctuary conduct the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Christmas 

Bird Count. The count covers a 15-mile circle that includes 

the southern end of Stellwagen Bank and the northern tip of 

Cape Cod.

Boating

Personal boating in the sanctuary often occurs as an ancillary activity to recreational fishing, whale watching, bird 

watching and diving which have been previously discussed. 

The considerable distance offshore and open ocean conditions constrain sanctuary access to day trips by larger more 

expensive boats. Sailboats frequent the sanctuary in coastwise transit from port to port, but rarely as the primary destination. Recreational boaters typically transit the sanctuary 

going to and from Boston, coming from the Cape Cod Canal 

or Cape Cod Bay, and from Provincetown or Cape Ann.

Maritime Transportation

Massachusetts Bay is a body of water in which commercial maritime activities abound and which is home to many 

harbors that ring the coast from Cape Cod to Cape Ann. The 

historic Ports of Boston, Gloucester, Salem Sound and Plymouth are active industrial ports, but the former two account 

for the majority of the commercial shipping traffic. As an 

indication of volume, there were 4,561 vessel trips made to 

and from these ports and an additional 2,149 vessels traveled through the Cape Cod Canal in 2003 (USCG, 2006). 

The majority of these vessels cross the sanctuary en route 

to and from these ports or in transit to ports to the north 

and south along the eastern seaboard. Approximately 800 

commercial fishing vessels use Massachusetts Bay as a fishing area or as a transit zone to open ocean fishing areas 

(USCG, 2006).

Traffic and Routing

Vessels crossing the sanctuary come from multiple sources, 

but two in particular. The first is vessels arriving at and 

departing from the Port of Boston. There is a vessel Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) established by the International 

Figure 107. Sanctuary map showing that almost 15% 

or 126 square miles of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

is within the recreational dive limit of 130 feet. 

Most of this area, depicted here in blue, lies on top of Stellwagen Bank but additional areas include parts of southern 

Jeffreys Ledge and Sanctuary Hill. 
V. Status of Human Use 157

Maritime Organization (IMO), that is recommended for this 

approach to Boston Harbor (Figure 73). The TSS originates 

in the Great South Channel, heads in a northerly direction 

until just off the easterly side of Provincetown (Buoy “BD”), 

where it proceeds in a northwesterly direction, crossing 

the sanctuary and ending in a precautionary area off the 

entrance to Boston Harbor. Most of the vessels entering and 

exiting Boston Harbor are large container ships, tankers, 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers, cruise ships, salt and 

scrap ships, military vessels and some research vessels; they 

tend to cross the sanctuary along a west-east axis. High 

speed ferries reaching speed as great as 40 knots transit 

portions of the sanctuary in service along the Provincetown/ 

Boston route.

The second source of vessel traffic across the sanctuary is 

coming from or going to the Cape Cod Canal. The majority 

of vessels utilizing the Canal include tug and tow boats, fishing vessels, recreational boats, military vessels, passenger 

and cargo ships and some tankers. Most of these vessels 

tend to cross the sanctuary along a north-south axis.

Large commercial ships arriving at and departing from the 

Port of Boston generally use the voluntary TSS. This scheme 

was established to prevent collisions by maintaining separation between inbound and outbound vessels. With the 

exception of the TSS, vessels operating in the vicinity of 

the Port of Boston are unencumbered with regard to track. 

Vessel masters may use whatever course and speed they 

wish, consistent with the International Convention for the 

Prevention of Collisions at Sea (COLREG), weather conditions, sea state, visibility and other marine operations 

taking place along their intended track. Ships arriving from 

the southeast and east will typically make directly for the 

precautionary area and the TSS.

Non-TSS traffic, approaching from the east and 

northeast, typically follows historic tracks from 

Europe and Canada that are not marked on 

published navigational charts or maintained by 

the USCG. Figure 108 provides a three-dimensional representation of large commercial vessel 

traffic crossing the sanctuary based on USCG 

Automatic Identification System (AIS) data for 

April–May 2006. The tracks for vessels crossing 

the sanctuary going to or from the Port of Boston 

by way of the TSS predominate.

Port Activity

Port of Boston

Because the sanctuary’s location straddles the 

mouth of Massachusetts Bay, it is the “gateway” 

to maritime commerce in Massachusetts, principally the Port of Boston. The Port of Boston 

is the largest seaport in New England and is 

among the oldest and busiest ports in the country. The seaport currently handles more than $8 

billion worth of goods annually and is the largest 

handler of container cargo in New England (25 

container shipping lines), shipping and receiving 

1.2 millions tons each year. The terminals in the 

Port of Boston are equipped to handle 1.3 million tons of 

general cargo, 1.5 million tons of non-fuels bulk cargo and 

12.8 millions tons of bulk fuel cargos each year (MassPort, 

2006a). The Port of Boston is also a major maritime energy 

trans-shipment and storage location for the New England 

region, including many shipments of refined petroleum 

products via tanker and barge as well as LNG to the terminal 

in Everett, MA, that meet 90% of Massachusetts’ petroleum 

consumption needs.

The majority of vessel activity occurring in and around the 

sanctuary throughout the year is dominated by the transport of petroleum products, cargo and LNG. Large, deep 

draft commercial ships in this service include: tanker ships, 

container ships, dry bulk carriers, roll on-roll off (RO-RO) 

ships and gas carriers (including LNG carriers). These deep 

draft ships made an average of 2,257 transits per year to 

and from the Port of Boston over the period 2000–2005 

(Table 22). There was no pronounced seasonality characterFigure 108. Three-dimensional representation of large

commercial vessel traffic (156 ships) crossing the Stellwagen

Bank sanctuary based on USCG AIS data for April–May 2006. 

The former vessel Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) is indicated where it 

crosses the sanctuary and Massachusetts Bay.

Table 22. Annual shipping transits of commercial deep

draft vessels to/from the Port of Boston (2000–2005). 

Source: Boston Harbor Pilots Association

Year Transits

2000 2,188

2001 2,028

2002 2,230

2003 2,260

2004 2,299

2005 2,541

Average 2,257
158 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

istic of this traffic for the three years sampled (2001-2003) 

(Figure 109). Commercial deep draft and other maritime 

traffic entering and leaving the Port of Boston and transiting 

Massachusetts Bay is characterized in Table 23. 

To accommodate the worldwide trend toward larger vessels, 

the Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) began the 

Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project (BHNIP) to 

deepen key portions of the harbor in 1998. The project 

was completed in 2000 and, as a result, Boston’s channels 

are now deeper than those of many east coast ports. To 

date, despite the deepening of portions of Boston Harbor, 

vessel traffic has remained relatively stable, and there has 

been no significant increase in the size of vessels utilizing 

the harbor. While it is expected that vessel activity will 

continue to be dominated by the movement of petroleum 

products, MassPort anticipates an increase in the number of 

large LNG tankers utilizing the Port of Boston.

Ten major cruise lines currently service Boston as either a 

port of call or a cruise departure and return location. In 

recent years, cruise ship activity to Cruiseport Boston, 

particularly between the months of April through October, 

increased steadily as a result of the growing popularity of 

northern-bound cruise vacations, particularly to maritime 

Canada. There currently are approximately 100 cruise ship 

departures from or ports of call at Boston annually and this 

number is expected to increase. With the presence of a 

state-of-the-art cruise ship terminal, the Black Falcon Cruise 

Terminal on the Reserved Channel, the port could support 

considerable expansion in this type of maritime activity.

Cruise ship activity is being heavily promoted and the 

annual number of passengers has increased dramatically, 

tripling between 1996 (69,075 passengers) and 2005 

(233,000 passengers) (MassPort, 2005, 2006a). The Request 

for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) to construct a new cruise 

ship terminal (MassPort, 2006b), projects that the Port could 

increase the total number of cruise passengers to over 

400,000 each year. This would approximately double the 

2005 number. Boston is now considered one of the fastest 

growing high-end cruise markets in the country. 

Port of Gloucester

Since the first American fishing settlement was established 

in Gloucester in 1623, fishermen and traders made it one of 

the country’s most famous deepwater harbors. During the 

first half of the 19th century, Gloucester supported an active 

fishing industry and a prosperous trade network. Later in 

the century, Gloucester turned its attention almost entirely 

to fishing and became known as the center for fisheries 

under sail. Today, the port sustains its fisheries role while 

seeking diversification.

The Port of Gloucester is 15 miles north of Boston. It is an 

import and export point for Canadian and European ports 

of call. Its direct connection to the Massachusetts interstate 

road system makes the Port of Gloucester the most accessible over-the-road port in Massachusetts and an effective 

inter-modal transport center between Canada and the U.S. 

It is poised to support regular cruise ship service to Canadian maritime destinations. Gloucester is also the largest 

commercial fishing port on Massachusetts Bay and was 

Figure 109. Number of commercial deep draft vessel transits to/from the Port of Boston by month for the years

2001–2003. 

Source: Boston Harbor Pilots Association.
V. Status of Human Use 159

ranked 13th among the top 100 U.S. commercial fisheries 

ports in 2003 based on landings.

The outer and inner harbors support approximately 225 

deep-water commercial fishing vessels up to 300 ft. (91 m) 

in length. Depending on the season, harbor use is approximately 40% commercial and 60% recreational. The number 

of lobster boats in the harbor varies widely, from 250-300 

for Gloucester and 400-800 regionally for Cape Ann (which 

includes the neighboring towns of Beverly and Essex).

Other Harbors

In addition to the Ports of Boston and Gloucester, mentioned 

above, there are several other harbors in Massachusetts 

whose activities use sanctuary resources. These harbors 

principally include Provincetown, Plymouth, Scituate, 

Green, Cohasset, Lynn, Marblehead and Salem.

During the 19th century, Provincetown Harbor was considered a major port, being home to approximately 175 whaling vessels and an equal number of Grand Banks fishing 

schooners. Today, only a small commercial fishing fleet 

exists; Provincetown and its harbor have become largely 

dependent upon tourism. Whale watch boats, fishing party 

boats and recreational boats prevail.

Plymouth Harbor experienced a similar history and transformation. For centuries, Plymouth harbor served host to 

numerous cargo and fishing vessels and was home to a 

prolific shipbuilding enterprise, which made the harbor 

famous world-wide. Following the Civil War, shipbuilding 

ceased and shipping in and out of the harbor declined as 

more modern vessels became too large to enter. Today, 

Plymouth Harbor is a departure point predominantly for 

pleasure boaters, whale-watching vessels and recreational 

fishing parties, although still receiving some commercial 

traffic. Plymouth Harbor is part of a complex that includes 

the small boat harbors in the neighboring towns of Kingston and Duxbury, once also historic centers for shipbuilding during the age of sailing schooners, but now primarily 

recreational in character.

Scituate Harbor is considered to be one of the better deepwater harbors on the Massachusetts south shore and supports 

a fleet of approximately 55 commercial fishing vessels, 

recreational charter fishing boats and numerous pleasure 

boats. While supporting an active commercial fleet, Scituate is primarily a recreational and seasonal-use harbor with 

approximately 700 moorings (harbor and rivers) and 650 

slips (combined in nine private and two public marinas) in 

the summer season.

Green Harbor in the neighboring town of Marshfield is often 

associated with Scituate as a commercial fishing harbor. It 

is a principal harbor for the landing of bluefin tuna in Massachusetts Bay (along with Gloucester and Provincetown). It 

supports a small commercial fleet of groundfish and lobster 

vessels as well as charter boats and shelters a primarily 

recreational mix of small boats.

Cohasset Harbor is a small harbor used primarily by residential and summer season boaters. In addition to its 

large private recreational fleet, the harbor supports a small 

commercial lobster fleet of approximately 25 boats.

Lynn Harbor accommodates approximately 300 recreational vessels, 60 small commercial vessels, 10 commercial 

passenger ferries and approximately 50 commercial fishTable 23. Characteristics of commercial deep draft vessels and other maritime traffic entering/leaving the Port of

Boston. Number of transits indicated is for 2005. 

Source: USCG, 2006.

Type of Ship Hull Displacement 

(tonnes)

Speed (knots) Complement Transits/Year

Passenger Cruise Ship Steel 56,000 Cruising: 20–25

Top: 32.5

Passengers: 920–2,758

Crew: 545–1,253

295

Whale Watching Boats Steel/Aluminum <1,000 Cruising: 11

Top: 40

Passengers: 150

Crew: 2–3

3,328

Container Ship Steel 64,000 20/25 25 455

Bulk Cargo Steel 32,000 15 25 244

Tankers Steel 64,000 15 25 1,160

RO-RO Ship1 Steel 37,500 15-25 25–30 41

LNG Carrier2 Steel 108,000 20 25–30 126

Dredging Vessels (Tugs) Steel 3,700 5 3 365

Petroleum Barge (Tugs) Steel 3,700 5 3 1,420

LNG DWP OSV3 Steel <1,000 13 8 240

Fishing Trawlers 

(ocean-going)

Steel 2,600 12 4 11,885

Lobster Boats Fiberglass/Wood <1,000 15 2 39,000

1Roll on-Roll off 2Liquified Natural Gas 3Deep water port operations support vessel
160 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

ing vessels. About 40% of vessel traffic is commercial; the 

remaining 60% being recreational.

Marblehead Harbor is primarily a recreational summer-use 

harbor with 2,200 mooring permits issued each year. The 

harbor shelters approximately 30 commercial fishing boats.

Salem Harbor is primarily used for recreational purposes 

with limited commercial traffic delivering coal and petroleum products. There are 1,400 registered moorings in the 

harbor; there are 10,000 recreational boats berthed within 

Salem Sound. The harbor supports a fleet of approximately 

100 commercial fishing vessels.

Due to the volume, frequency and types of vessels transiting the sanctuary area from numerous ports and harbors, 

the potential for vessel-vessel collisions, accidental oils 

spills and vessel discharges as well as vessel collisions with 

marine mammals are issues of concern. For more information regarding discharges and marine mammal vessel strikes 

refer to the sections of this document on Discharge and 

Disposal Activities and Marine Mammal Vessel Strikes.

Prohibited Uses

Minerals Mining

The Secretary of the Interior has the statutory authority and 

responsibility to plan for and to conduct the offering of leases 

of outer continental shelf (OCS) acreage, as directed in the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, as amended (OCSLA) (43 

U.S.C. § 1331 et seq.). Within the U.S. Department of the 

Interior (US DOI), the Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

has primary responsibility for management of OCS minerals 

operations. Minerals operations include offshore oil and 

gas development and sand and gravel mining. However, 

exploring for, developing or producing industrial materials 

within the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is prohibited (15 C.F.R 

§ Subpart N, Sec. 922.142). “Industrial material” means 

mineral, as defined in Sec. 922.3, which includes oil and 

gas as well as sand and gravel.

Offshore Oil and Gas

Currently, all new oil development is prohibited within the 

thirteen designated US National Marine Sanctuaries, which 

are managed by the US Department of Commerce’s NOAA 

(representing 0.1% of the total area under oil/gas leasing 

moratoria and 0.04% of total OCS area) (Chandler and 

Gillelan, 2005). On June 26, 1990, a Presidential Order 

was signed preventing any further OCS leasing and development activity within the Georges Bank area of the North 

Atlantic Planning Area, which includes the sanctuary until 

after the year 2000. This period of time was again extended 

on June 12, 1998, when President Clinton issued an Executive Order that prevented such activities until June 30, 2012 

(Presidential Executive Memorandum 1111, 1998). No 

exploratory wells have been drilled anywhere on the Atlantic OCS region since 1984.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to inventory and analyze oil and natural gas resources beneath all of the waters of the OCS using “any available technology, except drilling, but including 3-D seismic 

technology to obtain accurate resource estimates” (Energy 

Policy Act of 2005). Not only does the Energy Policy Act’s 

inventory include areas currently under drilling moratoria, it requires the MMS to identify resources and explain 

how legislative, regulatory, and administrative programs or 

processes restrict or impede the development of identified 

resources and the extent that they affect domestic supply. 

It has yet to be determined how oil and gas exploration as 

so stipulated under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 can be 

conducted in National Marine Sanctuaries (NMSs), since it 

directly conflicts with US protected area legislation such as 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1992.

Sand and Gravel

Within the past decade, the Boston metropolitan area has 

experienced significant and rapid economic growth, which 

has in turn encouraged substantial industrial, commercial 

and residential development. Pressures on both the housing 

industry and transportation systems to meet the demands of 

this growth have resulted in increased consumption of and 

demand for sand and gravel resources, for use as aggregate 

in construction activities. However, extraction of sand and 

gravel has considerable potential to adversely impact the 

biological integrity of the sanctuary (e.g., fish, invertebrates 

and marine mammals) as well as physically alter the surface 

profile of Stellwagen Bank and its attendant oceanography. 

As a result, in 1992, at the time of the sanctuary’s designation, commercial sand and gravel mining were made 

prohibited activities within the borders of the sanctuary. In 

addition, under Stellwagen Bank sanctuary regulations 15 

C.F.R § Subpart N, drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the sanctuary is strictly prohibited.

Submerged Cables and Pipelines

The laying of submerged cables and pipelines is a prohibited activity under Stellwagen Bank sanctuary regulations 

15 C.F.R., Subpart N, Sec. 922.142. Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the sanctuary, or 

constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material 

or other matter on the seabed of the sanctuary is prohibited. 

However, prohibited activities can be permitted on a caseby-case basis.

Cables

In August of 2000, the Hibernia high-capacity fiber optic 

cable was laid across 12.1 miles (19.5 km) of seafloor in the 

northern part of the sanctuary under terms and provisions 

of a NMSP authorization/special use permit issued to the 

company, 360 Networks Inc. Cable ownership and permit 

monitoring responsibility was transferred to the company, 

CVC Inc. in 2002. The underwater cable provides a direct 

link between North America and the Republic of Ireland. 

The cable is designed for a life expectancy of 25 years 

and is buried at an average depth of approximately 1.5 m 

(4.9 ft.) into the seafloor. The cable was laid using a sea 

plow controlled from a cable ship on the surface. While 

an advisory to mariners has been posted to alert vessels to 
V. Status of Human Use 161

the cable’s position, recent monitoring suggests, that while 

most of the cable remains buried, it may be at risk of exposure and damage where it is routed through muddy basins 

subjected to fish trawling or dredging.

Although the proper laying of submarine cables is thought 

to be reasonably benign environmentally, the presence of a 

cable in an active fishing area could cause problems with 

damage to both the cable and fishing gear. Some have speculated that cables on the sea bottom could create obstacles 

to the movement of bottom-dwelling organisms (Darnell, 

1976). The trench and fill required for burying cables and 

pipelines could disturb sensitive fish spawning areas; the 

activity of the installation equipment could disturb marine 

mammals and seabirds; and excavation activity could 

disturb or destroy marine archaeological sites.

The impact of laying fiber optic cables to seafloor habitats 

and associated taxa along the cable route is not yet fully 

known, although the issue is being assessed in the sanctuary. In 2001, following the laying of the cable, additional 

sampling stations were added to the on-going Seafloor 

Habitat Recovery Monitoring Project (SHRMP). This 10-

year program was initiated in 1998 following creation of the 

Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area (WGoMCA) to study 

the recovery rates of seafloor habitat (physical and biogenic) 

and associated taxa (such as fishes) in the sanctuary following the cessation of fishing. The project now compares the 

effects of fishing to the effects of the laying of fiber optic 

cable, as well as to the effects of background environmental 

variation. Biannual sampling is conducted using remotely 

operated vehicles (ROVs), video drift cameras, side scan 

sonar and S4 current meters. The project is expected to 

continue through 2010.

Pipelines

No pipelines currently exist within the sanctuary’s boundaries. However, located to the west of the sanctuary and 

running through state waters from Beverly, Massachusetts, to Weymouth, Massachusetts, is a pipeline called 

the “HubLine.” This 48.3-km (30-mi), 76.2-cm (30-in 

diameter), natural gas pipeline will connect the 901.2-km 

(560-mi) Maritimes & Northeast pipeline with the 1,609.3-

km (1,000-mi) Algonquin pipeline (Duke Energy, 2005a). 

Applications to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) on October 10, 2000, were filed by Algonquin Gas 

Transmission, L.L.C. to begin construction of the pipeline 

(Duke Energy, 2005b).

Currently, the offshore portions of this pipeline have been 

completed. Most portions of this pipeline were buried at a 

minimum depth of 1 m (3.3 ft); however, several sections 

required horizontal directional drilling, conventional dredging, jetting, plowing and blasting. This operation is certain 

to have had an impact on the local benthic environment 

(Estrella, 2004). Impact assessment, mitigation and restoration are being carried out by the NOAA Fisheries Service, 

EPA, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) and the Massachusetts Division of Marine 

Fisheries (DMF). The most significant problem with pipelines, and with electrical transmission cables which use 

circulating oil for cooling, is the possibility of leaks causing 

contamination of the surrounding waters.

Deepwater Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Ports

Construction of a deepwater LNG port is a prohibited 

activity within the sanctuary by virtue of the prohibition 

against alteration of the seafloor and discharge of materials. 

A deepwater LNG port is a system of pipelines, mooring 

buoys, anchors, risers and related equipment and is regulated under the Deepwater Port Act (DWPA) and administered 

by the USCG and the Maritime Administration (MARAD).

In late 2004, the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary was notified 

that two companies, Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge, LLC 

(Gateway) and Neptune, LLC (Neptune), would be applying 

for deepwater port licenses to install LNG import terminals 

and associated pipelines very near the sanctuary. While 

located outside of the sanctuary the proposed projects were 

found likely to affect sanctuary resources. Both applicants 

have proposed operating for 30–40 years within habitat 

utilized by four endangered whale species (North Atlantic 

right, humpback, fin and sei) for feeding, nursing and migration. The proposed port sites are near multiple state ocean 

sanctuaries with the closest port site being 1.2 nm from the 

sanctuary’s western border and the farthest being 2.8 nm 

(Figure 110). Although the ports are located just outside 

of the boundary of the sanctuary NOAA determined that 

they constitute a significant threat to sanctuary resources, 

and mitigation measures have been adopted to reduce the 

risk of impact.

With the release by the USCG and MARAD of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statements (DEISs) for the Gateway 

and Neptune projects on May 19 and June 2, 2006, respectively, formal consultation with the USCG and MARAD was 

initiated by the NMSP under Section 304(d) of the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). These were the most 

significant consultations under Section 304(d) to date and 

included separate consultation under ESA and MMPA by 

the NOAA Fisheries Service. Under the NMSA, the NMSP 

has 45 days from initiation to develop and recommend 

reasonable and prudent alternatives for implementation by 

the USCG to prevent injury to sanctuary resources. The 

NMSA defines sanctuary resources as “any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary that contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, 

educational, cultural, archaeological, scientific, or aesthetic 

value of the sanctuary.”

NOAA’s submission in response to Gateway’s DEIS, 

dated July 3, 2006, included both the NMSP’s comments 

as required under the National Environmental Policy Act 

and the program’s recommendations under the NMSA. 

The report is available through the USCG’s docket system 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=40

3755&docketid=22219). NOAA’s submission in response 

to Neptune’s DEIS, dated July 17, 2006, is also available 

through this system (http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.

cfm?documentid=405640&docketid=22611).
162 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Based on information provided by the USCG and MARAD, 

the NMSP found that the projects, considered individually 

and together, were likely to have significant, constant, and 

long-term adverse effects upon marine resources of the sanctuary due to the following: the increased risk of ship strikes 

to the sanctuary’s endangered whale populations, including 

the North Atlantic right whale; increased acoustic exposure 

to marine mammal and fish species; increased risk of whale 

entanglement and loss of benthic habitat in the sanctuary due 

to displaced fishing effort; possible re-suspension of toxic 

materials during construction; diminished visual aesthetics; 

and entrainment of planktonic and fishery resources by LNG 

carriers at port and during transit.

The NMSP made twelve 304(d) recommendations for 

Neptune and thirteen recommendations for Gateway 

suggesting conditions to be included if the project licenses 

were approved in order to minimize the impacts of port 

construction and operation on sanctuary resources. Three 

recommendations in particular were critical to mitigating 

the impacts on marine mammals. They called for implementation of acoustic technologies to detect and/or monitor 

the presence of whales relative to LNG vessel transits and 

LNG port construction and operation. The NOAA Fisheries 

Service commented on habitat impacts and fishery resources during the LNG approval process.

Both federal and state agencies evaluated the mitigation 

options to address issues raised under the National and 

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Acts, and the USCG 

and MARAD evaluated mitigation options through the 

finalization of the NEPA process and resulting license and 

associated conditions A formal response from the USCG 

to the NMSP regarding the 304(d) recommendations was 

released in mid October 2006 and Final Environmental 

Impact Statements (FEISs) for Gateway and Neptune were 

released in late October/early November 2006. Public 

hearings for the FEISs were held in Massachusetts the first 

week of November 2006. NOAA Fisheries Service issued 

biological opinions for the two projects following consultations under the Endangered Species Act in early 2007, 

and USCG/MARAD issued records of decision conditionally approving both ports soon after. The Neptune port was 

licensed in January 2007, and the Northeast Gateway was 

licensed in May 2007. 

Wind Power Generation

Securing a windmill to the seafloor or anchoring a floating 

windmill is a prohibited activity in the sanctuary under the 

current regulations (15 C.F.R § Subpart N). Consideration 

for generating power using windmills secured to the land 

or seafloor is becoming more prevalent in New England. 

The combination of steady, year-round winds and a nearby 

Figure 110. Location of two separate Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) deepwater ports, Northeast Gateway and

Neptune, proposed adjacent to the western boundary (inserts) of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. Each port would

have at least two offshore installations indicated by the buoy locations.
V. Status of Human Use 163

power-hungry populace makes the Massachusetts coast a 

seemingly attractive site for this type of activity. Currently, 

a major proposal to build an offshore wind farm consisting 

of 130 windmills, each 247 ft. high, in Nantucket Sound 

is under consideration by government agencies. There is 

another proposal to place a similar wind farm in Buzzards 

Bay, Massachusetts. The sanctuary is not aware of any 

interest in placing windmills on top of Stellwagen Bank at 

this time.

Mariculture

Mariculture (or the aquaculture of marine products) is a 

prohibited activity within the sanctuary by virtue of the 

prohibition against alteration of the seafloor and discharge 

of materials. While the practice of mariculture is gaining 

recognition and popularity throughout the northeast region, 

few proposals have yet been made to conduct aquaculture 

activities in federal waters off the Massachusetts coast. 

Such activities would require a Section 10 permit (Rivers 

and Harbors Act) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) and, depending on the nature and location of the 

project, a federal consistency review by the Massachusetts 

Coastal Zone Management (MCZM) Office to determine 

consistency with the policies of the MCZM Program.

Artificial Reefs

The placement of artificial reefs (ARs) in the Stellwagen Bank 

sanctuary is a prohibited activity by virtue of the prohibition 

against alteration of the seafloor and discharge or deposit 

of materials into the sanctuary. There has never been a 

proposal to place an artificial reef in the sanctuary, which 

is located offshore within the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ). There is currently little interest in establishing 

facilities within the EEZ by the commercial sector, largely 

because of the lack of formal regulatory structure (Stickney 

et al., 2006). However, ARs have been established in other 

sanctuaries and this situation has precipitated development 

of a national policy on ARs for the sanctuary program.

This national policy addresses how the NMSP considers 

proposals to establish artificial reefs in sanctuaries. The 

policy is meant to build upon, not replace, the National Artificial Reef Plan developed in accordance with the National 

Fishing Enhancement Act. Nothing in the NMSP AR policy 

is meant to conflict with that plan or that act, and the policy 

only applies to activities within designated NMSs.

Artificial reef development is generally prohibited in NMSs 

and may only be undertaken in these marine protected 

areas for educational, research and resource management 

purposes. Because the impacts of ARs are not entirely 

understood, the NMSP will proceed cautiously in considering permits for AR development in NMSs. The NMSP will 

use information obtained from monitoring ARs currently in 

NMSs and elsewhere to determine the extent and type of 

future AR development allowable in NMSs.

This policy recognizes that there may be situations where 

ARs help a sanctuary achieve its mission. The relative merit 

of ARs in NMSs is the subject of continued debate within 

the national program.

Concerns over ARs include:

•	Destruction of benthic species and habitats upon emplacement;

•	Collateral damage if the ARs were to break apart;

•	Attraction of biomass from surrounding natural habitats;

•	Toxic contamination from PCBs, asbestos, hydrocarbons

or other toxic materials left in the ARs; and

•	Attraction of fishing activities, which target large, vulnerable breeding adults and spawning aggregations.

Potential benefits of ARs are:

•	Provision of habitat for selected fish and invertebrate

species;

•	Concentration of uses (recreational fishing and diving)

and their diversion from other more sensitive areas; 

•	Enhancement of user opportunities that increase awareness of a sanctuary.
164 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment
165

VI. 

Summation

This section reviews points raised in the 

previous sections of this document and forms 

conclusions. It considers the outcomes of 

cumulative actions and effects. It summarizes 

the status and condition of sanctuary 

resources.
166 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Context

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary has a long cultural tradition 

based around fishing and whaling. Humans have depended 

on the sanctuary’s diverse and abundant marine resources for 

sustenance and economic prosperity for hundreds of years. 

Both Native populations and Europeans chose to inhabit the 

shores of Massachusetts Bay because of the easily accessible 

and plentiful marine natural resources, such as cod and various species of whales that could be extracted. The historic 

exploitation of these resources forged a cultural tradition 

that is difficult to perpetuate today as a result of overfishing, 

coastal and ocean habitat destruction and rapid transformation of the region’s economy. The modern appreciation for 

the sanctuary’s resources requires that they be protected 

for their intrinsic value, multiple ecosystem services, and 

recreational and ecotourism importance, while facilitating 

consumptive uses (including fish and seafood production) 

that are environmentally sustainable and compatible with 

the widely recognized need and legislative mandate for 

resource protection.

The sanctuary was designated for a multitude of reasons, 

not the least of which was its long history of human use, 

its high natural productivity and relative high species diversity. There are well over 575 known species in the sanctuary, including over 80 species of fish, and the list is largely 

incomplete. Living landscapes (anemone forests, sponge 

gardens, hydroid meadows, worm tube beds) carpet the 

seafloor and the associated marine communities support 

benthic and pelagic species that are dependent upon them. 

Water column and seafloor habitats provide feeding and 

nursery grounds for 22 marine mammal species, including 

the endangered humpback and fin whales and the critically 

endangered North Atlantic right whale. The area supports 

foraging activity by 34 species of seabirds, dominated by 

gulls, storm petrels, gannets, auks (alcids), sea ducks and 

shearwaters. Fish and invertebrate populations include 

both demersal and pelagic species, such as cod, flounders, 

bluefin tuna, herring, lobster and scallops. Leatherback and 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (endangered species) on occasion 

visit the area for feeding.

Historic Importance

Sitting astride historic fishing grounds and shipping routes, 

the sanctuary has been a locus for a variety of human maritime activities for over four centuries. Beginning in the 

earliest days of the European exploration and settlement of 

North America, fishermen were drawn to the immensely 

productive fishing grounds off the New England coast. 

These initial forays paved the way for the European colonization of New England and the establishment of the English 

colony at Plymouth, Massachusetts. Fishery resources 

harvested from Stellwagen Bank played an important role 

as a trade commodity that ensured the success of the early 

English settlements established around Massachusetts Bay. 

Utilizing their local fisheries, New Englanders developed a 

trading network that spanned the Atlantic world and formed 

the basis for the region’s early maritime-based economy.

New England developed its cultural identity through shipping and its interaction with other cultures. This cultural 

exchange was made possible by the international trading 

voyages that originated and returned to communities on the 

doorstep of the sanctuary. Vessels from Boston, Salem and 

other Massachusetts ports transited through the sanctuary 

on the way to the Far East, Europe and the Caribbean as part 

of a major marine transportation network. In addition to 

the commodities exchanged with Europe, tens of thousands 

of Europeans immigrated to the U.S. on vessels that passed 

through the sanctuary’s waters on the way to Boston.

The major shipping corridors established in the past are 

still prominent today where they cross the sanctuary. Ship-
VI. Summation 167

wrecks on the sanctuary’s seafloor give evidence of the 400 

year history of maritime transportation and commerce that 

passed through the area. To date, 18 historic shipwreck 

sites have been located in the sanctuary and four of the 

shipwrecks have been identified by name; three shipwreck 

sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

These shipwrecks are tangible connections to the past that 

allow the Sanctuary Program to study and better understand 

history as they encapsulate significant stages of shipbuilding.

The sanctuary’s most notable shipwreck is the wooden 

hulled paddle wheel steamship Portland. Built in 1889 

in Bath, Maine, for the run between Portland, Maine, and 

Boston, the steamship was one of the largest and most palatial vessels afloat until its loss with almost two hundred lives 

in 1898 during the “Portland Gale,” the “perfect storm” 

of that century. The Portland was listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places in 2005 because of its historical 

and archaeological significance to New England and, more 

specifically, Maine and Massachusetts. The wreck is the 

most intact and best preserved New England “night boat” 

yet located. New England “night boats” were steamships 

that connected metropolitan areas separated by a distance of 

between 125 and 200 miles on mainly overnight voyages.

The shipwreck site of the coal schooners Louise B. Crary and 

Frank A. Palmer is another extraordinary sanctuary historical 

resource. The two Maine-built nearly 300 foot-long schooners collided in 1902 with full loads of coal from Virginia. 

Today, the vessels lie upright, intact to their main decks 

with their bows joined at the point of impact. In 2006 the 

shipwrecks were listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places because they exemplified the critical transportation 

network that supplied New England’s energy needs. These 

shipwrecks are the best example of the great New England 

coal schooners located to date.

Venturing back to prehistory, Stellwagen Bank mostly owes 

its existence to the last great ice sheet (known as the Laurentide Ice Sheet) and to changes in sea level that accompanied and followed deglaciation. About 12,000 years ago, 

Stellwagen Bank stood well above sea level and may even 

have been connected to Lower Cape Cod or, at the least, 

separated from the Cape by a shallow strait. Stellwagen 

Bank, then, closely resembled present-day Lower Cape Cod. 

Lakes, swamps and marshes probably dotted the landscape. 

Along the shore, there would have been beaches, sea cliffs, 

spits and lagoons. The climate was colder back then than 

it is now, and spruce and poplar forests and park lands of 

tundra shrubs and grasses may have covered the bank top.

Mastodon and mammoth teeth have been dredged up from 

the seafloor near Stellwagen Bank, evidence of the animal 

life of the time. Early Paleo-Indians arrived in New England 

about 11,000 years ago, and they may have witnessed the 

beginning of the final chapter in the history of Stellwagen 

Bank as emergent land. By then, local sea level was rising as 

crustal rebound slowed and as the melting glaciers continued to return water to the ocean basins. About 10,000 years 

ago, Stellwagen Bank slipped beneath the sea.

Status Today

Today, whales swim where ancient elephants may have 

once trod. These marine mammals now make the waters of 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary one of the most intensively 

used whale habitats in the northeast continental region of 

the U.S. The humpback whales of the sanctuary represent 

the longest continuously studied group of baleen whales 

in the world. Matrilineal studies show evidence of four 

generations (1976-2006) of humpback use as well as intergenerational site fidelity to specific sanctuary feeding and 

nursery areas. Additionally, critical habitat designation was 

established for the North Atlantic right whale in 1994 inclusive of the southwestern part of the sanctuary.

The newly-established sister sanctuary relationship between 

the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the Dominican Republic humpback whale sanctuary is the first conservation 

management action worldwide to protect a migratory 

marine mammal species on both ends of its range (between 

sanctuary feeding/nursery grounds and the largest mating/

calving grounds for humpback whales in the North Atlantic) by functionally linking two important national marine 

protected areas. The formal agreement was signed by both 

parties in December 2006.

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary is a hotspot for prey abundance, which is what ultimately attracts the whales, sustains 

the fish and other wildlife, and supports the economic 

viability of most current uses in the sanctuary. Sand lance 

numbers in the sanctuary are the highest and most concentrated anywhere in the southern GoM. Atlantic herring also 

abound in the Massachusetts Bay/Cape Cod Bay system in 

relatively higher abundance than most elsewhere in the 

southern GoM. The margins of Stellwagen Bank are sites 

of high horizontal and vertical movement of both water and 

plankton due to the bank’s exposure to GoM water circulation. The interaction between physical oceanography and 

bathymetry creates environmental conditions that result in 

high primary productivity and the aggregation of biomass at 

multiple trophic levels.

A distinctive feature of the sanctuary’s physical oceanography is the seasonal generation of internal waves over 

Stellwagen Bank. The sanctuary is considered to be the 

best place in the GoM to study this phenomenon because 

of ease of access and proximity to research infrastructure. 

Internal waves are particularly important for water column 

mixing and localized transport within the sanctuary area; 

they are generated by the tides in response to the sanctuary’s 

complex seafloor topography. The entirety of the sanctuary seafloor has been mapped using multi-beam sonar at a 

vertical resolution of approximately 25 cm and a horizontal resolution of approximately 10 m. In conjunction with 

extensive ground-truthing (e.g., video, still photos, sediment 

samples), the sanctuary multi-beam map provides the most 

complete characterization of the seafloor in the GoM.

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary lies within the Gulf of 

Maine Large Marine Ecosystem (GoMLME), one of the most 

productive marine areas in the world. Because of the highly 
168 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

varied topography, wide range of depths that cross water 

column boundaries, and high diversity of habitat types in 

a relatively small area, Stellwagen Bank sanctuary encompasses the wide range of landscapes, habitats, communities 

and the species representative of the GoM region. Via its 

position amidst the Maine Coastal Current and GoM counterclockwise gyre, the sanctuary is integrally connected with 

the rest of the GoM through water circulation and serves as 

both a source (for export) and a sink (for import) for larvae 

of various and numerous organisms.

For centuries, Stellwagen Bank has proved to be a rich 

and productive fishing ground, particularly for groundfish 

species like cod, haddock and flounder. Historically, fishermen have also been able to catch Atlantic halibut, swordfish and large schools of mackerel and herring. During the 

second half of the 20th century, the area gained fame as 

a whale watching destination. In 2007, USA TODAY (and 

previously in 2002, the World Wildlife Fund) named Stellwagen Bank one of the top ten premiere places in the world 

to watch whales. In 2006, the readers of Offshore magazine 

voted Stellwagen Bank the best place to watch wildlife and 

the number three favorite recreational fishing spot in the 

northeastern U.S. And, as the U.S. partner of BirdLife International, Mass Audubon has designated Stellwagen Bank an 

Important Bird Area. But, challenges abound.

Current Challenges

On an annual basis, virtually every square kilometer of the 

sanctuary is physically disturbed by fishing, to greater or 

lesser degree, depending on the gear used (Figure 111). This 

assessment includes the portion of the sanctuary overlapped 

by the Western GoM fishery closure area, because regulations pertaining to that closure do not restrict all types of 

fishing. The disturbances caused by fishing are chronic as 

well as extensive; they are repetitive and recurring rather 

than single impact events. 

Fishing impacts and puts pressure on every resource state in 

the sanctuary, whether it is biogenic seafloor habitats, marine 

mammals or shipwrecks. Fishing has removed almost all of 

the big old growth individuals among biologically important fish populations, reshaped biological communities 

and habitats in the process, and until recently, reduced fish 

species diversity and richness in the sanctuary. Commercial 

fishing lands 17.0 million pounds to 18.4 million pounds of 

fish and crustaceans from the sanctuary each year on average (1996-2005), yet discards approximately 23% of the 

total catch as bycatch (based on 2002/2003 estimates). The 

part of the catch from the sanctuary that actually is landed 

amounts to between 1.85%–2.79% of the total New England 

landings value for all northeast fisheries. [This analysis 

omits Connecticut, which realized next to no landings from 

the sanctuary and which, if included, would reduce this 

percentage.]

Atlantic herring accounts for the greatest volume by species 

landed from the sanctuary, averaging several thousand 

metric tons annually with the highest single year landings 

to date of 7,726 metric tons in 2005. Herring removal in 

this amount by fishing reduces the forage base available to 

marine mammals in the sanctuary and could be a factor 

in causing local prey depletion and in determining the 

local abundance of whales and dolphins in the sanctuary. 

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.

The sanctuary is a hot spot for whale entanglement with 

fishing gear, accounting for 41% of all reported cases of 

entanglement in the northeast region. Analysis of scars on 

humpback and right whales in the GoM region indicate that 

between 50% and 70% of animals in some populations 

have been entangled at least once in their lives and between 

10% and 30% of the population become entangled each 

year. Mortality subsequent to entanglement among humpback and right whales is on the order of 11%, although this 

rate is likely an underestimate because of the difficulty in 

quantification and follow-up in case studies.

Fishing gear fouls eleven of the eighteen known historic shipwreck sites in the sanctuary, which also display evidence of 

damage by gear impacts. While mobile fishing gears represent the biggest threat to the sanctuary’s maritime heritage 

resources, virtually all common gear types are involved. 

Shipwrecks are a non-renewable sanctuary resource as they 

cannot recover from damage. 

Because of its proximity to the Port of Boston, the sanctuary 

receives more commercial shipping traffic than any other 

location within US jurisdiction in the GoM. Concomitantly, 

the sanctuary is a hot spot for vessel/whale strikes along the 

eastern seaboard of the U.S. Approximately 10% of the 

vessel/whale collisions recorded world-wide were reported 

from the sanctuary area including Cape Cod Bay and Boston 

Harbor. Species struck included fin, humpback, sei, minke 

and North Atlantic right whale, four of which are listed as 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act and all of 

which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. During a two-year study in the sanctuary, commercial 

whale watch boats, ostensibly operating under provisions 

of the NOAA whale watching guidelines, exhibited a noncompliance level of 78% while engaged in that activity.

The sanctuary also seems prone to biological invasion by 

exotic species, based on factors associated with community maturity and the niche opportunities for introduction 

of exotics created by a history of lowered species diversity and extensive chronic habitat disturbance by fishing. 

These conditions co-occur with the sanctuary’s location 

amid extensive commercial shipping traffic that can serve 

as primary vectors for the introduction of exotics from 

hull bottoms and ballast water. Harmful algal blooms 

and degraded water quality continue to be concerns with 

continuing coastal development and increasing urbanization in the region, coupled with unrelenting population 

growth and commensurate waste management needs. And, 

creeping industrialization along the western boundary of 

the sanctuary in the form of deepwater LNG ports may lead 
VI. Summation 169

Figure 111. Spatial density patterns based on trips for all fishing recorded in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary

during July 2001–June 2002 based on Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data. 

(a): Mobile fishing gear, e.g., bottom and mid-water trawls, scallop dredges, etc. (b): Fixed fishing gear, e.g., lobster traps, sink 

gillnets, etc. (c): Recreational fishing, e.g., party and charter boats. (d): All gear types and recreational fishing combined. The 

patterns are Kriged density plots of the VTR data using a 1,000 m search radius and analyzed by ESRI ARCGIS. VTR gear codes: 

(a) DRC, DRS, OTF, OTM, OTS, PTM; (b) GNS, LLB, PTC, PTH, PTL; (c) Party/Charter (Trip ID: 2, 3). The 1,000 m search radius is 

consistent with the length of fixed gear sets, falls within the length of mobile gear tows in the sanctuary, and the area of influence 

of recreational fishing. 
170 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

to chronic underwater noise affecting sanctuary resources in 

virtual perpetuity.

Compatible Uses

While it is important to appreciate the sanctuary’s history 

and today’s challenges, it is also important to recognize that 

the sanctuary is mandated by Congress to facilitate only 

those uses compatible with the sanctuary’s primary objective of resource protection. Therein lies both the opportunity and the challenge; the opportunity to correct practices harmful to sanctuary resources, and the challenge to 

accomplish that goal in ways that create positive outcomes 

for users and that can be supported by the general public. It 

is this public at large for which sanctuary resources are held 

in common trust.

The term “compatible” is articulated as the standard for 

acceptable use pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. But the Act does not define nor does it provide the 

criteria to apply that standard. This term needs to be defined 

and made operational, the means to which is proposed in 

the Compatibility Determination Action Plan that follows in 

the next section. The underlying 

concept is to identify and allow 

uses that restore and maintain 

ecological integrity, protect 

maritime heritage resources and 

foster an ethic of environmental 

sustainability in the sanctuary. 

Current practices, some steeped 

in history, others of more recent 

origin, may have to be modified 

or even dissuaded. Innovation, 

experimentation and incentives 

can affect successful transition 

over time.

While the term “compatible” 

may be difficult to define bureaucratically, the concept may be 

easier to understand metaphorically. Essentially, human activities should not “bankrupt” the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. The 

sanctuary’s living and cultural 

resources can be considered 

forms of capital, managed as 

though they were holdings in a 

diversified investment portfolio, 

all capable of bearing interest. 

The goal is to realize successful 

investment (i.e., management) 

outcomes over the long term by 

minimizing or at least spreading 

risk.

For example, seafloor biogenic 

and water column habitats 

can be considered the saving 

accounts, the most conservative investments because they 

must endure perpetually to offer reliability. Fish species of 

commercial and recreational interest can be considered the 

high yield stocks that potentially pay big dividends but incur 

the greatest risk because they are associated with conditions 

of high variability and uncertainty. If successfully applied, 

the compatible use standard should offer a reasonable return 

on investment for the users of the sanctuary without harming the principal held by the public at large.

Cumulative Impacts

Effects of Fishing

The principal effects of fishing on sanctuary resources act 

through multiple pathways to cumulatively impact biological community interactions (Figure 112). Resulting changes 

in the composition of biological communities ultimately 

affect the ecological integrity and biological diversity of the 

Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. All of these effects are documented as occurring in the sanctuary and are variously 

Figure 112. Cumulative impacts caused by fishing in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary, mediated through directed mortality and collateral impacts

affecting community interactions, leading to altered ecological integrity.
VI. Summation 171

discussed in the section Resource States as well as summarized in Figure 112. 

Fishing effects fall within two categories: effects due to (1) 

the direct mortality of the fish caught and landed for sale, 

and (2) the collateral impacts caused by the fishing activities 

themselves. Fishing mortality impacts community interactions indirectly through population level effects on targeted 

species of economic or recreational importance. These 

population effects include the truncation of old growth age 

structure and removal of the most reproductively significant 

fraction of the population. These altered populations then 

directly affect the structure and function of their associated biological communities through multiple ecological 

processes, including predation and competition that, in 

turn, affect food webs and trophic dynamics.

The collateral impacts of fishing are more numerous and 

exert their effects in more complex ways. Fishing activities can damage seafloor habitats by altering and simplifying their physical structure and by impairing and rendering 

biogenic (living) habitats dysfunctional. Habitat damage 

reduces shelter availability and can exert population effects 

through recruitment success and survivorship. The removal 

of biomass as fishery bycatch has unintended community 

level consequences mediated through collateral and incidental mortality of discards. Discards can be economic 

in kind (i.e., non-saleable species) or regulatory (e.g., fish 

below minimum size, numbers caught exceeding allowable 

level of take). Bycatch mortality can be direct, as the result 

of capture, or incidental, due to injury or habitat displacement. Both habitat damage and bycatch mortality directly 

impact the structure and function of biological communities 

in the sanctuary.

Figure 112 indicates that the sanctuary cannot effectively 

conserve its biodiversity by managing just for population 

level effects of fishing on commercially important species, 

and that the ultimate goal of sanctuary management must 

be the protection and restoration of its biological communities. The figure also indicates that the key to protecting and 

restoring biological communities within the sanctuary must 

be modification of fishing activities to make them environmentally sustainable such that habitats are not damaged and 

excessive biomass as bycatch is not removed. If the sanctuary is to be effectively managed for biodiversity conservation, fishing in the sanctuary cannot continue to be prosecuted solely in terms of the more conventional sense of 

sustainable production. Rather, the calculation of optimum 

yield within the sanctuary should explicitly include the 

protection of biological diversity pursuant to the objectives 

of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

Effects on Marine Mammals

Three principal sources pressure marine mammals in the 

sanctuary: (1) fishing, (2) shipping and boating, and (3) 

human population, industry and harmful algal blooms 

(HAB) (Figure 113). All three sources contribute varying 

levels of pollutants and chemical contaminants which can 

have negative effects on marine mammals.

The principal effects due to fishing include the reduced 

forage base available for marine mammals due to local 

depletion of herring, entanglement in fixed fishing gear, and 

behavioral disturbance associated with tuna fishing activities in the vicinity of whales feeding and underwater noise. 

The principal effects due to shipping and boating include 

vessel strikes of whales and behavioral disturbance associated with whale watching and underwater noise.

These effects can cause the mortality, injury and/or harassment of marine mammals possibly leading to their reduced 

local abundance in the sanctuary. Reduced local abundance 

of marine mammals in the sanctuary can in turn diminish 

the public’s recreational enjoyment of the place, depress its 

ecotourism value, and alter the role of marine mammals as 

a functional element of the sanctuary ecosystem.

Effects on Maritime Heritage Resources

Fishing, diving and remote sensing all have the potential to 

diminish the archaeological integrity of maritime heritage 

resources in the sanctuary by altering shipwreck characteristics and site context (Figure 114). Fishing impacts have 

been documented on eleven of the eighteen known historic 

shipwreck sites in the sanctuary. While diving and remote 

sensing currently are occurring infrequently in the sanctuary, their potential impacts on historic shipwrecks (indicated 

by dashed lines in the figure) are considered in the summary 

of cumulative impacts presented here.

The principal effects due to fishing include structural 

damage associated with gear impacts and removal of artifacts through gear entanglement and “capture” in bottom 

trawls and gillnets. Hook and line fishing also causes these 

impacts through boat anchoring and the use of heavy sinkers 

and jigs. Access to the sites by remote sensing technology 

and divers may be negatively affected by lost nets and lines 

that entangle the wrecks and impede close approach.

While diving on a shipwreck does not necessarily have negative impact, divers can cause structural damage through boat 

anchoring/grappling/tying onto a shipwreck. Divers have 

also been known to remove artifacts. Likewise, although 

remote sensing does not necessarily damage a maritime 

heritage resource, accidental damage is possible through 

entanglement, and certain remote technologies, such as 

ROVs, can remove artifacts from an archaeological site.

Condition Summary

A “snap-shot” of the inferred state or health of key sanctuary resources is provided in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

Condition Report (NOAA, 2007). The report is linked to 

resource conditions more fully described in the Resource 

States section of this document. The Condition Report

summary table, excerpted and updated here (see following 

note), was originally intended to provide a preliminary overview of the status and trends of sanctuary resources as well 

as the basis for making judgments concerning status (Table 

24). The summary table results are generally consistent with 

and representative of findings presented in this document, 

although not fully comprehensive of all issues. For more 
172 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

details, refer to the full Condition Report (http://stellwagen.

noaa.gov).

[Note: Long-term changes in fish species diversity 

(1975-2005) measured across six indices (Figure 37) do not 

appear to be changing in any consistent way (question 9); 

indices are at levels comparable to the 1970s and the rating 

is upgraded to fair-poor. Sand lance has been deleted as a key 

species in jeopardy (question 12), adjusting for increases in 

sand lance availability in consecutive years 2006 and 2007. 

Maximum length of cod increased over 1990-2005 (Figure 

41), reversing a long-term downward trend (1963-2000) 

(Figure 40), indicating that conditions may be improving 

(question 12).]

The summary table indicates the need for management 

actions that address the degraded conditions of key habitats and living resources in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Over half of all categories (10 of 17) had fair through poor 

ratings, with eight of ten relating to habitat or living marine 

resources. The general trend for habitat and living resources 

appears to be static and in need of improvement, an indication that pressures on living resources are high, requiring 

targeted management efforts. The status of seafloor communities and habitats in the sanctuary remains problematic. 

Monitoring programs for water quality and a number of 

other concerns (e.g., environmental contaminants, invasive 

species) need to be more sufficiently addressed as well. The 

physical integrity of historic shipwrecks requires protection 

from human use, particularly from fishing gear impacts.

The summary table rates resource status on a scale from 

good to poor; the timelines used for comparison vary from 

topic to topic. However, the trends are generally based 

on observed changes in status over the past five years 

(2001-2006), unless otherwise specified. Evaluations of 

status, trends and final ratings were made by sanctuary staff, 

based on interpretation of quantitative and, when necessary, 

non-quantitative assessments and observations of scientists, 

managers and sanctuary users with pertinent knowledge. 

The Condition Report was 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.

Moving Forward

The broad range and technical specificity of the information compiled in this document was derived from the very 

hard work of nearly 200 people participating on ten working groups representing all stakeholder interests in the sanctuary. These individuals were committed to developing a 

better understanding of the condition of sanctuary resources 

through the management plan revision process. Many of 

these individuals were staff specialists of fishery management agencies, especially NOAA Fisheries Service NERO 

Figure 113. Effects on marine mammals caused by the cumulative impacts of human activities in the Stellwagen Bank

sanctuary that could alter their role as a functional element of the sanctuary ecosystem.
VI. Summation 173

and NEFSC, who freely made their expertise and extensive 

databases available to the sanctuary for use in many of the 

analyses and research projects referenced. Many of the 

members of these working groups were fishermen, who 

committed themselves to this planning process and engaged 

positively in the dialogue by bringing their practical experience to bear on the issues; so too, members of the whale 

watching and maritime industries, environmental organizations, academic institutions and the public at large gave 

valuable input.

This document provides background information necessary 

for managing the sanctuary for biodiversity conservation 

and clarifies the scale and scope of fishing and other activities in the sanctuary. The information provides a detailed 

picture of the present condition of sanctuary resources and 

the activities exerting pressures on them. There is now the 

basis to consider how things should be done differently to 

improve sanctuary management, since that is what the findings indicate is needed.

The action plans that follow in the next section are preceded 

by a statement and discussion of the vision for the sanctuary 

that was developed by the Sanctuary Advisory Council as 

part of the management plan revision process. This vision 

draws contrast to the current conditions in the sanctuary.

“The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is teeming 

with a great diversity and abundance of marine life, supported by diverse, healthy habitats in clean ocean waters. The 

ecological integrity of the sanctuary is protected and fully 

restored for current and future generations. Human uses 

are diverse and compatible with maintaining natural and 

cultural/resources.”

The first step to realizing this vision is compiling a current 

accounting of the status of the sanctuary’s resource states, 

which this first part of the document has done. The next step 

is to convert this knowledge into actions that can reasonably 

be taken on the basis of what is now known. These actions 

and their respective strategies and activities are proposed 

in the action plans that follow. The action plans are based 

extensively on the advice of the Sanctuary Advisory Council 

working groups and these recommendations should be put 

into practice.

Figure 114. Effects on maritime heritage resources in the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary caused by cumulative impacts

and leading to diminished archaeological integrity.
174 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 24. Revised summary of findings from the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary Condition Report (2006) that was prepared

preliminary to this document. 

Refer to Appendix A in the Condition Report for an explanation of the questions posed in this table. 

While providing a useful overview pertinent to most key sanctuary resources, the table is not inclusive of all resource conditions 

and associated pressures such as local depletion of prey species for endangered whales, increased underwater noise from industrial 

sources, etc. that are covered in this document.

# Questions/Resources 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 on-going 

monitoring, as explained in 

text, with references.

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 on-going 

monitoring, as explained in 

text, with references.

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.

MWRA outfall.

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 are they 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 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?

t

Fishing gear impacts, shipping.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 non-indigenous species and how is it 

changing? t

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?

s

Cod (keystone 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.
VI. Summation 175

Table 24. Continued. 

# Questions/Resources Rating Basis for Judgment Description of Findings

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 and how is it changing?

t Fishing gear impacts. The diminished condition of selected archaeological resources has reduced, to some extent, their 

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?

t 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.

Status: Good Good/Fair Fair Fair/Poor Poor Undetermined

Trends: s Conditions appear to be improving toward one of the higher categories.

— Conditions do not appear to be changing.

t Conditions appear to be declining toward one of the lower categories.

? Undetermined trend.

N/A Question not applicable.
176 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment
177

VII. 

Action

Plans

This section presents the sanctuary action 

plans. It explains what action plans are, what 

they are intended to do, and how they will 

be implemented. It presents funding scenarios and timelines, along with performance 

measures to gauge program effectiveness. It 

consists of eleven action plans that address 

priority needs identified in four programmatic 

areas: capacity building, ecosystem protection, marine mammal protection and maritime 

heritage management.
178 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Introduction to Action Plans

consideration: (a) advisory council recommendations, (b) 

statutory requirements, (c) budget constraints, (d) feasibility and (e) prerequisites for implementation. The strategies 

were ranked as either High, Medium or Low priority based 

on staff assessments of these criteria.

Only strategies are prioritized, as activities are a subset of 

them. The implementation of strategies begins when the 

final management plan is released, unless activities are 

currently ongoing. Strategies are prioritized as follows:

•	High (H): Strategies that are imperative and either underway or address the sanctuary’s immediate needs. Work 

should be carried out within the first two years.

•	Medium (M): Strategies that are important and need to

be:

•	Initiated within three years and completed within five

years; or

•	Accomplished as the opportunity arises or in conjunction with other work; or

•	Carried out if additional resources are provided (e.g.,

external research opportunities/funding).

•	Low (L): Strategies that should be initiated within five years

if additional human and financial resources are available 

(e.g., a post-doctoral student has extramural funding to 

address a particular issue).

The status of implementation of strategies and activities is 

noted in the action plans as either ongoing or planned with 

the corresponding year for initiation.

How are they evaluated?

Background. Implementation of each action plan will be 

evaluated through one or more performance measures. See 

Table 3 at the end of each action plan. These measures will 

demonstrate progress towards the desired outcomes stated 

for each action plan. With the performance measures in this 

draft management plan, the sanctuary is establishing a baseline of information that will be used by the sanctuary and 

the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) to evaluate 

effectiveness over time.

As part of the effort to improve overall resource management, ongoing and routine performance evaluation has 

become a national priority for the NMSP, and by extension, 

for the sanctuary. Both site-specific and national programmatic efforts are underway to better gauge the sanctuary’s 

ability to meet its stated objectives and to address the issues 

identified in this management plan. Beyond these principal purposes, performance evaluation has other benefits, 

including:

•	Highlighting successful (or not so successful) efforts to

manage sanctuary resources;

What are Action Plans?

Action plans are detailed plans for addressing an issue or 

problem in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS or sanctuary) over the next five years. They 

are issue-driven not program- or theme-driven. You will 

not find a marine mammal action plan but you will find, 

for example, a plan to minimize behavioral disturbance 

of marine mammals and a plan to reduce entanglement of 

marine mammals.

Action plans are a collection of strategies sharing common 

management objectives. The plans provide an organized 

structure and process for implementing these strategies over 

the next five years, including a description of the requisite 

activities and requirements for implementation.

What is their origin?

Action plans arose from grassroots concerns about the sanctuary ecosystem solicited by NOAA during two separate 

public scoping comment periods in 1998–99 and 2002. In 

the latter period, NOAA received over 20,000 comments 

addressing issues such as water quality degradation, no-take 

areas, enforcement issues and whale entanglements in the 

sanctuary.

After reviewing the comments, the sanctuary advisory council, a 21-member citizen advisory committee established 

pursuant to the NMSA, grouped the comments by underlying issues and then prioritized the issues. The advisory council formed eleven working groups to develop draft recommended action plans to address these issues. The working 

groups were comprised of approximately 12–24 members 

representing users, citizens, academicians and agency 

representatives with relevant knowledge of the respective 

issues. (See Appendix F, Part 2 for a list of working groups 

and their membership.)

The working groups met over a period of approximately 

nine months (October 2003–July 2004) and formulated 

draft action plans for review and consideration by the advisory council. At their October and November 2004 meetings, the advisory council amended and voted to accept all 

draft action plans, as amended, and prioritized the strategies 

and activities. This advice was forwarded to the sanctuary 

superintendent who, with staff, developed final proposed 

action plans based on the advisory council’s recommendations, taking into consideration budgetary and statutory 

constraints. The final proposed action plans are presented in 

this document for public review and comment.

How are they prioritized?

The sanctuary has a limited budget and cannot simultaneously address all of the issues it faces. Consequently, it was 

necessary to prioritize the strategies within each action plan. 

To accomplish this task, the staff took the following into 
VII. Action Plans—Introduction 179

•	Keeping the public, Congress, and other interested parties

apprised of program effectiveness;

•	Helping program administration identify resource gaps;

•	Improving accountability;

•	Fostering the development of clear, concise and, when

appropriate, measurable outcomes; and

•	Providing a means to comprehensively evaluate sanctuary management in both the short and long term.

To help ensure these benefits are realized, the NMSP is 

developing tools for measuring and understanding the 

effectiveness of existing and new management programs, 

strategies and activities. Currently, these tools are primarily site-specific and are being worked into the regular cycle 

of management at each of the thirteen sanctuaries through 

the management plan review process. Evaluation tools are 

also being applied at the national level to better understand 

the effectiveness of the entire NMSP. These tools combine 

results from site-specific evaluations with results from crosssite programs, strategies and activities.

As this process matures, NMSP staff will continue to integrate new and improved methods for evaluating management effectiveness (at both the site-specific and national 

programmatic levels). Development and application of 

improved methods and approaches to evaluating and 

managing program effectiveness is a continuing and adaptive process in the NMSP. Figure 115 depicts the basic idea 

behind this process, which will be implemented in all sanctuaries undergoing management plan review.

Process. Issues and problems are identified during the scoping process relative to NMSP and site goals. Staff then works 

to develop objectives relative to proposed management 

strategies, as identified in each of the action plans. Performance measures are then drafted, which identify the means 

by which the sanctuary will evaluate its progress towards 

achievement of the objectives. As represented by the large 

arrow in Figure 115, measures are developed to provide 

information on results over time, from the near term (within 

one year or so) to the long term (over the span of ten years or 

more). As these measures are monitored over time, data are 

collected on progress towards the achievement of outcomes 

and the production of outputs (or products).

Objectives achieved and outputs produced are reported 

as accomplishments; inabilities to achieve objectives or 

produce outputs are also reported, but as areas falling short 

of targets. In these areas, staff will work to identify the issues 

preventing management from reaching targets (represented 

in Figure 115 by the arrow running along the bottom of the 

graphic). This internal review is one of the primary benefits 

of performance evaluation, as it provides an opportunity for 

staff to think carefully about why particular strategies are 

not meeting stated targets and how they can be altered to 

do so.

In the draft SBNMS management plan, each action plan 

contains a series of performance measures. Because it takes 

time and effort to track the information necessary to report 

on each performance measure, the sanctuary staff limited 

the number of performance measures. These measures are 

meant to be representative, not comprehensive, of all the 

Figure 115. NMSP performance evaluation logic model.
180 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

activities planned by the sanctuary in the management plan. 

The sanctuary Superintendent is responsible for tracking all 

the performance measures and reporting the results of the 

performance evaluation. The task of gathering specific information for various measures is delegated to sanctuary staff.

All performance measures for this draft management plan are 

found in a series of eleven tables (one for each action plan). 

Each table identifies: (1) the action plan’s desired outcome, 

(2) the performance measure(s) to track the achievement of 

the desired outcome, (3) the specific means of evaluation 

for the performance measure, and (4) a link to NMSP performance measures.

In some cases, identifying the baseline may be the first order 

of action so that subsequent reporting is based on concrete 

information. Periodic reporting on the effectiveness of 

sanctuary management, as evaluated by the performance 

measures described in each action plan, will be conducted. There will be opportunities for public comment on the 

sanctuary’s perception of its performance, as well as ideas 

on how to improve the effectiveness of management, when 

evaluation is on the agenda at sanctuary advisory council 

meetings.

How are they organized?

Action plans consist of issue statements, goals, objectives, 

strategies and activities. The issue statement summarizes 

why the action plan is necessary. The goal provides the 

purpose for the plan. Objectives establish requirements for 

achieving the goal. Strategies and activities are discrete, 

specific management actions designed to meet the requirements of the objectives. A table at the beginning of each 

action plan lists the objectives with their associated strategies and respective priority (Table 1). Two tables at the end 

of each action plan detail estimated costs for implementing 

the strategies (Table 2) and provide performance measures 

related to achieving the desired outcomes (Table 3).

What are the costs?

Sanctuary staff developed budgets for each action plan by 

evaluating the resources necessary for their complete implementation. Staff estimated the programmatic cost required 

to address each strategy, including the number of fieldoperation days required (boat, air, dive), as well as materials, supplies and travel time needed. Some strategies will be 

contracted to other parties, in which case the total cost of the 

contract was included in the budget estimate. A summary of 

the cost estimated for each action plan is included in Table 

25. Budgets were developed assuming work would begin 

in the first year, while allowing for resource limitations and 

the time necessary for program and partner development to 

fully occur. Figure 116 shows the management plan costs 

over five years.

Table 25. Estimated Annual Costs for Action Plan Implementation.

Action Plan

Estimated Annual Cost (in thousands)*

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5

Capacity Building

Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure 638.0 1932.4 4811.9 2224.6 2417.3

Interagency Cooperation 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Public Outreach and Education 54 127 330 330 330

Compatibility Determination 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal—Capacity Building 692.6 2060.0 5142.5 2555.2 2747.9

Ecosystem Protection

Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management 533.5 803.5 873.5 813.5 804.5

Ecosystem Alteration 30.0 12.0 27.0 13.0 13.0

Water Quality 15.0 55.0 50.0 35.0 10.0

Subtotal—Ecosystem Protection 578.5 870.5 950.5 861.5 827.5

Marine Mammal Protection

Behavioral Disturbance 180.0 556.0 556.0 480.0 305.0

Vessel Strike 75.0 221.0 226.0 211.0 136.0

Entanglement 175.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 186.0

Subtotal—Marine Mammal Protection 430.0 962.0 967.0 876.0 626.0

Maritime Heritage Management

Maritime Heritage 152.0 183.0 190.0 144.0 149.0

Subtotal—Maritime Heritage 152.0 183.0 190.0 144.0 149.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost of All Action Plans 1853.1 4075.5 7250.0 4436.7 4350.4

* Cost estimates reflect only programmatic costs and do not include federal labor costs.
VII. Action Plans—Introduction 181

How are they implemented?

Appendix O provides an outline of how the various strategies in the management plan will be implemented. The 

implementation of the strategies depends on various factors 

including:

•	priority of strategy implementation based on resources

available;

•	coordination level necessary with partners for implementation; and

•	funding source(s) for strategy implementation.

Certain strategies and activities have been partially or 

wholly implemented prior to or during the management 

plan review process. Other strategies are new aspects of 

the updated management plan or may be initiated pending funding. Full implementation of the management plan 

exceeds current resources available to the sanctuary therefore requiring some prioritization of the action plan or strategies. As more resources become available, a greater level 

of implementation will be possible.

Appendix O outlines how much implementation could occur 

with the existing amount of resources and how increases 

in resources would affect the amount of implementation 

possible for each strategy or action plan. Implementation of 

most of the strategies in this management plan will require 

some input or coordination from partners, particularly other 

government agencies, research institutions, and NGO’s. The 

table outlines the level of involvement expected from partners to achieve full implementation of each strategy. Many 

action plans and strategies are completely dependent on 

involvement from other agencies or dependent on research 

conducted by a research institution. Funding for implementation of many of the strategies will require a mix of internal 

NMSP funds as well as funding from external sources such 

as grants, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, or inkind work from partner agencies.

Figure 116. Five-year management plan costs.
182 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Explanation of Vision and Mission

Vision:

The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is teeming with a great diversity and abundance of marine life supported 

by diverse, healthy habitats in clean ocean waters. The ecological integrity of the sanctuary is protected and fully restored for 

current and future generations. Human uses are diverse and compatible with maintaining natural and cultural resources.

Mission:

To conserve, protect and enhance the biological diversity, ecological integrity and cultural legacy of the sanctuary while 

facilitating compatible use.

The sanctuary vision is a statement of desired outcome. It 

derives from public opinion and sentiment; it is realized by 

achieving the mission. The sanctuary mission is a statement 

of intrinsic purpose. It derives from the language and intent 

of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the specific guidance articulated by the sanctuary’s original management 

plan, designation document and regulations. The mission is 

achieved by meeting the objectives and successfully implementing the strategies and activities in the action plans.

‘Unpacking’ the Vision

On July 11, 2005 the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary Advisory Council formulated the vision statement given above. While there was consensus among the 

members on this vision, there was also considerable discussion as to the meaning and intent of various phrases and 

words in the vision. The following explanation ‘unpacks’ the 

vision so the public can better understand what the vision is 

for the sanctuary. In unpacking the vision, various phrases 

are highlighted followed by a synopsis of the discussion that 

occurred among advisory council members on their understanding and intent of the words and phrases.

“Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary”—Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is an ecosystem. It is 

not just fish or lobsters or whales or sand lance; it is all of 

these and more. Physical habitat and associated physicalchemical factors such as temperature, salinity, and nutrients 

interact with biological organisms to create and sustain the 

ecosystem. The sanctuary is not an isolated ecosystem; it 

is part of the greater Gulf of Maine ecosystem and Atlantic 

Ocean. Because the sanctuary is not an isolated ecosystem, 

marine animals move into and out of the sanctuary throughout the year. Humans are connected to, not apart from, the 

sanctuary ecosystem so recreational, historical, cultural and 

archeological resources, such as shipwrecks, are also part of 

the sanctuary. The sanctuary is a special place.

“Teeming with a great diversity and abundance of marine 

life”—A long-time fisherman on Stellwagen Bank said he 

could remember when you didn’t need GPS or a latitude 

and longitude to know when you were on Stellwagen Bank. 

“You could see the flocks of seabirds for miles. On cloudless days, it looked like it was raining as the sand eels broke 

the surface of the water. Nets were full; whales and other 

marine life were all around you.” The vision for the sanctuary is that it will be teeming with marine life—not only great 

abundance of individuals, but also great diversity of species. 

In addition, individuals within a species will be distributed 

over the range of sizes possible for that species: young to 

old, immature to mature, small to large reflecting a healthy 

population of organisms.

“supported by diverse, healthy habitats in clean ocean 

waters”—The ecosystem definition indicates that biological organisms are not divorced from their habitats. The rich 

diversity of marine life is dependent on, and supported by, 

diverse habitats (sand, gravel, boulders, mud, outcrops, etc.) 

that contribute to healthy biological populations. Significant 

progress has been made to clean up ocean waters through 

the passage of international marine laws and regulations, 

the U.S. Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act Amendments, and 

other legislation, policies, and regulations. The sanctuary 

supports continued efforts to clean up ocean waters. Even 

though there currently are pollutants, invasive species, 

and other contaminants entering the marine environment, 

the vision is to have ocean waters that are clean, with the 

capacity to assimilate those contaminants and pollutants 

that continue to be emitted, released or discharged into the 

marine environment.

“ecological integrity”—The term ‘ecological integrity’ is 

part of the 1972 Clean Water Act and part of the National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act, yet it is neither well defined nor 

completely understood. Ecological integrity refers to the 

marine ecosystem and the structure (e.g., species diversity) and functions (e.g., ecological processes) needed to 

sustain not only the ecosystem, but also desired human 

uses over time. The Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management working group recognized that ecological integrity is 

an important, but poorly defined, attribute of the sanctuary. 

It recommended, as part of its action plan, that a separate 

working group be formed to: (1) define ecological integrity; 

(2) identify indicators that could be measured and monitored to determine how to protect ecological integrity; and 

(3) determine to what extent the ecological integrity of the 

sanctuary is degraded and needs to be restored. This work-
VII. Action Plans—Introduction 183

ing group has been formed and is developing a definition of 

ecological integrity that will help guide the management of 

the sanctuary.

“protected and fully restored for current and future generations.”—As indicated above, both the Clean Water Act and 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act require the ecological 

integrity of the nation’s waters be protected. A sanctuary 

such as SBNMS, by definition, offers protection to those 

residing there, whether as permanent residents or as transients. Some animals, such as the right whale for example, 

find sanctuary while in this ecosystem. Management actions 

focus on protecting ecological integrity and facilitating 

public and private uses of the resources compatible with 

protecting ecological integrity.

There is also a general agreement that the ecological condition of Stellwagen Bank has changed from what it was 

historically and that the ecological integrity of the sanctuary 

should be restored. The extent to which the sanctuary can 

be restored is dependent on the state that can be sustained 

within the greater Gulf of Maine and Atlantic Ocean, given 

the changes (some irreversible) that have occurred to ecosystems throughout the globe. The restoration, protection, and 

stewardship of the sanctuary are not just for current generations, but also for future generations. Our posterity should 

be able to also enjoy the beauty, complexity and resources 

of the sanctuary.

“Human uses are diverse”—Given its location, the sanctuary is an ‘urban’ marine sanctuary. The desired uses 

of the sanctuary range from research and education as a 

living laboratory to its aesthetic appeal for whale watching 

to recreational and commercial fishing through exploring 

undersea shipwrecks. These uses and others are recognized 

by the sanctuary and those uses compatible with the objectives of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act are considered 

in developing policy and management practices for the 

sanctuary.

“and compatible with maintaining natural and cultural 

resources.”—In addition to the natural resources, there 

are also a variety of cultural, historical, and archeological 

resources such as shipwrecks that are also maintained and 

sustained as part of the sanctuary.

The desired future state described and explained above is 

the vision for the sanctuary. The eleven action plans that 

follow are directed to achieving the sanctuary mission and 

moving this desired future state of the sanctuary from dream 

to reality, for current and future generations. The action 

plans are grouped into four thematic categories based on 

subject matter and/or functional relatedness: capacity 

building, ecosystem-based sanctuary management, marine 

mammal protection, and maritime heritage management.
184 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Capacity Building refers to the development of increased 

organizational capabilities achieved through infrastructure improvements, leveraged partnerships and improved 

inter-jurisdictional cooperation, as well as expanded 

volunteerism and supplemental external funding support. 

It includes the refinement of institutional mechanisms to 

guide decision-making and adoption of new protocols to 

better implement policies and procedures.

Four action plans underscore public scoping concerns 

regarding capacity building for the sanctuary. The Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure (ADMIN) Action 

Plan frames the organizational structure and programmatic support needed to effectively address marine 

resources management and enforcement, research and 

monitoring, and education and outreach regarding the 

sanctuary. The Interagency Cooperation (IC) Action 

Plan clarifies the roles, responsibilities and relationships 

among agencies having overlapping regional jurisdiction with the sanctuary in order to strengthen resource 

protection and improve interagency communication. 

The Public Outreach and Education (POE) Action Plan 

is predicated on developing outreach and education 

programs that serve to implement management policy, 

raise public awareness and understanding of sanctuary 

resources and encourage responsible stewardship. The 

Compatibility Determination (CD) Action Plan provides 

a structured approach and protocol for determining 

whether or not a use is compatible with the sanctuary’s 

primary objective of resource protection.

Capacity Building

1. Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure

2. Interagency Cooperation

3. Public Outreach and Education

4. Compatibility Determination
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 185

Administrative Capacity and

Infrastructure Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure (ADMIN) 

Action Plan (AP) provides recommendations to strengthen 

the sanctuary’s base-level staffing, facilities infrastructure 

and program support to effectively meet the basic needs of 

sanctuary management. Emphasis is placed on the human 

and physical infrastructure and financial resource requirements of the site.

Overall administrative direction, program policy and 

budgetary control of the thirteen national marine sanctuaries and the monument reside with the Director of the NMSP. 

The NMSP provides general oversight and coordination for 

sanctuary management, sets overarching priorities, and 

directs general policy and program development. Related 

responsibilities, while more limited in scope, devolve to the 

sanctuary superintendents for resource management and 

day-to-day operations of the respective sites. These responsibilities are expressed in the form of goals, objectives, strategies and activities listed in the site management plans.

Individual sites vary in size, mix of uses and complexity 

of issues. These differences are reflected in staffing levels, 

budget allocations and facilities development. As sites 

update and revise management plans, they identify and 

evaluate needs for more effective management. Additional 

resources are required to meet the expanded public demands 

and expectations raised by the process and to respond to the 

changing legal mandates and policy (NOAA, 2004).

Recommendations from across the SBNMS Draft Management Plan reflect new or renewed emphasis in the areas of 

outreach, education, research, financial resource development, marine operations and law enforcement. Increases 

in program visibility, scientific capability and enforcement 

patrol frequency are essential. A basic administrative and 

infrastructural insufficiency underlies the site’s ability to 

achieve full success in these areas. 

Goal

The goal of the ADMIN AP is to ensure that the administrative, operational and financial capacities of the sanctuary 

are adequate to effectively implement the vision, mission, 

goals and objectives of the sanctuary.

Objectives

The ADMIN AP has four objectives and associated strategies to build the additional capacity necessary for the sanctuary to meet basic requirements for staffing, infrastructure 

support and program implementation (Table 26).

•	ADMIN.1—Strengthen Site Staffing and Program Support

Capabilities

•	ADMIN.2—Maintain and Further Develop Site Infrastructure

•	ADMIN.3—Develop a SBNMS Volunteer Program That

Leverages Program Implementation and Increases Site 

Visibility

The estimated costs for implementation of the ADMIN AP 

are indicated in Table 27. The performance measures are 

listed in Table 28.
186 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

ADMIN.1 Objective—Strengthen Site

Staffing and Program Support Capabilities

Background. The capability of SBNMS to implement the 

activities presented within the Draft Management Plan 

necessitates an increase in staffing over the next five 

years, either through the addition of permanent positions 

or through the effective use of contract services. Existing 

part-time positions should become full-time. A review and 

if necessary re-description of existing positions is recommended to optimally apply knowledge, skills and abilities 

of existing staff. Organizational structure should be modified to accommodate added channels of communication 

and streamline command and control functionality. Staff 

positions and responsibilities as currently organized (Figure 

117) include:

•	Sanctuary Superintendent: Responsible for overall administration of SBNMS programs and activities;

•	Operations and Program Coordinator: Responsible for

marine operations, facilities renovation and maintenance, 

management plan review, emergency and contingency 

planning, permitting, and dive unit supervision;

•	Education Coordinator: Responsible for education, public

awareness and exhibit programs, and communications;

•	Research Coordinator: Responsible for research and

monitoring programs;

•	Advisory Council Coordinator: Responsible for sanctuary

advisory council meeting planning, needs assessment and 

coordination (0.75 time);

•	Program Support Specialist: Responsible for budgetary

control, general procurement, and office management;

•	Administrative Assistant: Responsible for general office

support and assistance (0.5 time);

•	Geospatial Technology Coordinator: Responsible for

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) management, 

information technology management, Automatic Information System (AIS) management, and technical planning 

support;

•	GIS/WEB Specialist: Responsible for GIS analysis, web site

product development and updating, information technology, and audio-visual support;

Table 26. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for ADMIN action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

ADMIN.1 Strengthen Site Staffing 

and Program Support Capabilities 

(1.1) Integrate staff capabilities with program needs. High

(1.2) Hire additional staff and streamline organizational structure. High

(1.3) Enhance operation of the sanctuary advisory council. High

ADMIN.2 Maintain and Further 

Develop Site Infrastructure 

(2.1) Maintain and acquire vessels as necessary. High

(2.2) Work with NMSP headquarters to develop and implement a SBNMS 

long-range facilities plan that prioritizes partnering opportunities with the 

town of Scituate, MA.

High

(2.3) Maintain a database for sanctuary permitting. High

(2.4) Maintain and enhance a SBNMS diving program. High

(2.5) Develop an effective enforcement program. High

ADMIN.3 Develop a SBNMS Volunteer Program that Leverages Sanctuary Programs and Increases Site 

Visibility 

(3.1) Develop SBNMS volunteer program. High

(3.2) Maintain and expand SBNMS volunteer diver corps activities. High

(3.3) Develop and support international exchange of volunteers between 

SBNMS and other MPAs. Low

Figure 117. Current organizational chart for the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary.
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 187

•	Maritime Archaeologists (2): Responsible for assessing,

inventorying and documenting historic sanctuary resources (each 0.75 time); and

•	Boat Captain: Responsible for maintenance and operation

of sanctuary research vessels (RVs) (currently 0.5 time).

Strategies (3) To Strengthen Site Staffing and Program 

Support Capabilities

(1.1) Integrate staff capabilities with changing program 

needs. Current staffing (Figure 117) is responsible for existing 

project execution and day-to-day operations. Knowledge, 

skills and abilities of employees will be reviewed and evaluated to determine how staff may be tasked more effectively 

and what additional training may be necessary to improve 

operational effectiveness.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(1.2) Hire additional staff and streamline organizational 

structure. Site staffing is inadequate to support new or 

expanded programs. At a minimum, the positions identified 

below are required to ensure that the sanctuary meets its 

priority obligations as identified in the Draft Management 

Plan. Staffing structure would be reorganized to accommodate these positions, streamline communication and narrow 

the span of supervisory control (Figure 118).

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

Activities:

1.2.1 Hire a Marine Community Ecologist. This position 

is required to effectively implement the objectives, strategies and activities included in the three 

ecosystem protection action plans: ecosystembased sanctuary management, ecosystem alteration and water quality. SBNMS currently is unable 

to provide this specialized expertise to sufficient 

extent.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.2.2 Hire a Research Specialist. This position is required 

to effectively implement the objectives, strategies and activities included in the three marine 

mammal protection action plans: marine mammal 

behavioral disturbance, marine mammal vessel 

strike and marine mammal entanglement. Specialized technical expertise is needed to complement 

and expand existing core competencies.

Status: Planned, 2009

Figure 118. Organizational Chart—proposed.
188 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

1.2.3 Hire an Outreach Specialist. This position is 

required to build capacity and effectively implement multiple action plan outreach objectives. 

Outreach and education functions of the sanctuary need to be separated to achieve strategic focus 

and apply specialized expertise. This position 

would raise public awareness and understanding 

of SBNMS, a stated high priority need.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.2.4 Hire an Education Specialist. This position is 

required to build capacity, effectively implement 

multiple action plan education objectives. This 

position would develop sanctuary programming to 

support formal and informal public education. As 

noted, education and outreach functions need to 

be separated to improve effectiveness and expand 

capabilities.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.2.5 Hire two Enforcement Officers. Two positions are 

required to provide regular dedicated enforcement 

patrols of SBNMS. Currently, Massachusetts’s 

marine enforcement officers are contracted under 

a Joint Enforcement Agreement by NOAA Office 

of Law Enforcement (OLE) to work on an elective 

overtime basis in the sanctuary. The arrangement 

has proven inadequate in terms of patrol coverage 

and frequency.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.2.6 Hire a First Mate. The revised NOAA small boat 

policy requires that a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

licensed captain and qualified first mate operate 

the SBNMS research vessel, RV AUK. The first 

mate position is mandatory by this policy.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.2.7 Hire a Database Technician. This position is 

required to help manage and provide client 

services for the data information system called for 

in several action plans, notably ecosystem-based 

sanctuary management.

Status: Planned, 2010

[Note: In addition to these new positions, organizational 

capabilities can be improved by re-describing several 

existing positions and assigning commensurate responsibilities without increasing their position count. These 

positions are indicated in the revised organizational chart 

and include: Assistant Superintendent to assist in supervising day-to-day activities and program planning; Marine 

Operations and Facilities Coordinator to plan and oversee 

all vessel and facilities operations and support the site’s 

technology infrastructure; and, External Affairs Coordinator to plan and coordinate all matters dealing with the 

advisory council, volunteer activities, sister sanctuary 

relationships and to liaison with ‘Friends’ organizations. 

The responsibilities of the prior Geospatial Technology 

Coordinator position will be subsumed under the Marine 

Operations and Facilities Coordinator and the GIS/Web 

Specialist positions as appropriate.]

(1.3) Enhance operation of the sanctuary advisory council. The advisory council serves as a conduit for community 

input and as a source of advice to the sanctuary superintendent. Adequate support of the advisory council ensures 

continued public input to management decision-making, 

while expanding public awareness of the sanctuary and the 

related marine resource management issues. Public involvement is vitally important to protect and manage sanctuary 

resources successfully. Additional funding is needed for 

workshops, working groups and related activities to ensure 

that the advisory council is provided the means to continue 

to provide relevant and timely advice on difficult and often 

controversial issues.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

ADMIN.2 Objective—Maintain and Further

Develop Site Infrastructure

Background. The management and administration of sanctuary programs relies on adequate and fully functioning 

facilities, vessels, and vehicles for support.

Facilities. The sanctuary’s facilities are located on First 

Cliff in Scituate, Massachusetts approximately one hour 

south of Boston. They are comprised of an administrative 

office, meeting annex, boathouse, and pier. The administrative offices and conference room occupy a 6,800-sq-ft, 

three-story building in the former Scituate USCG Station. 

An adjacent 2,200-sq-ft, two-story annex houses a meeting 

facility and office space for visiting scientists, post-doctoral 

students and graduate interns. Both buildings are climatecontrolled using geothermal technology. Major renovation 

of the Administrative Building and the Annex was completed in 2004.

A 3,565-sq-ft two-story boathouse is built on pilings over 

the water and includes a 300-ft pier, with two floating docks 

attached. The docks have the capacity to berth one 50-ft 

vessel and three smaller boats simultaneously. Additionally, the sanctuary has two moorings adjacent to the pier. 

Renovations are planned for both the boathouse and pier to 

better utilize the existing capacity and to accommodate the 

new 50-ft research vessel.

Vessels and Vehicles. SBNMS currently operates two vessels: 

the RV Gannet (28-ft power boat) and a new 50-ft research 

catamaran, the RV Auk, which was recently constructed 

and put into service in summer 2006. These vessels serve as 

the principal means for accessing the sanctuary and support 

research, monitoring and education activities. The sanctuary also operates four vehicles for passenger use and equipment transport. [Note: The RV Sentinel (41-ft utility boat) 

was surplused in 2006 due to the extensive major repairs 

needed. Plans are for it to be replaced by a vessel suited for 

enforcement activities.].

Strategies (5) To Maintain and Further Develop Site Infrastructure

(2.1) Maintain and acquire vessels as necessary. Maintenance of existing vessels is required to ensure they are 

in safe, operating condition. New vessels will have to be 
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 189

acquired over time to enhance sanctuary management 

capacity or replace aging vessels.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(2.2) Work with NMSP headquarters to develop and implement a SBNMS long-range facilities plan that prioritizes 

partnering opportunities with the town of Scituate. In 2001 

the NMSP released a draft long-range facilities report that 

prioritized renovation of the SBNMS administrative building 

and adjacent garage during 2003-2004. The next phase in 

renovation of the SBNMS facility is the marine operations 

center (MOC). The MOC will be comprised of the following components: boathouse, pier and docks, fuel shed, boat 

moorings, and association with the Scituate Marine Park. 

The MOC will be designed to accommodate:

•	Vessel maintenance and repair

•	Year-round vessel docking/mooring

•	Dive locker

•	Restroom facilities

•	Wet and dry lab for visiting scientists

•	Equipment storage for Massachusetts Environmental

Police

•	Office and meeting space

•	Parking space

•	Boat trailer storage

Development of two of the components will necessitate 

partnering with the town of Scituate. Winter docking of 

the Research Vessel Auk may require leasing slip space at 

the town’s marina. The NOAA pier is too exposed to storm 

waves to accommodate the vessel during the winter months. 

Acquiring parking space to accommodate vehicles and boat 

trailers may require cooperation with the town in purchasing 

or leasing a vacant lot adjacent to the boathouse. Associated 

requirements and possible solutions will be described in the 

long-term facilities plan. [Note: Strategy POE 1.3 refers to a 

related but separate facilities planning process.]

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

(2.3) Maintain a database for sanctuary permitting. The 

sanctuary issues permits for research, education and specialuse activities in accordance with the NMSA. Maintenance 

of the NMSP’s online permitting database (Online Sanctuary Permitting, Reporting, and Evaluation System: OSPREY) 

will facilitate the efficient and timely issuance of permits on 

an as-needed basis.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(2.4) Meet the equipment needs of an expanded SBNMS 

diving program. The sanctuary operates an active diving 

program to inventory and document shipwrecks, conduct 

scientific research, characterize SBNMS resources, and 

conduct emergency rescues as necessary. The equipment 

needs of the diving program will grow in support of expanded field programs, deployment of the new research vessel 

and renovation of the boathouse as a marine operations 

center (see Strategy ADMIN 4.2).

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(2.5) Develop an effective enforcement program. Enforcement of sanctuary laws and regulations is critically needed. 

The mission of sanctuary enforcement is to ensure compliance with the NMSA (16 USC §1431 et seq.) and the regulations of the sanctuary (15 CFR §922). The sanctuary’s 

enforcement goal is to prevent harm to its living marine 

and maritime historical resources. The preferred approach 

emphasizes community-oriented policing and problem 

solving. Enforcement of sanctuary regulations should be 

supported as an ongoing activity through the Joint Enforcement Agreement (JEA) between NOAA’s Office of Law 

Enforcement (OLE) and the sanctuary. The sanctuary needs 

to update its enforcement plan, utilizing a database of use 

and user patterns to assess enforcement needs, and help 

target enforcement actions.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.5.1 Hire two full-time patrol officers dedicated to 

patrolling the sanctuary year-round. Patrol officers could be either NOAA OLE or Massachusetts 

Environmental Police (MEP) employees under hire 

to the sanctuary (see Strategy ADMN 1.2).

Status: Planned, 2009

2.5.2 Revise the cooperative enforcement plan between 

the SBNMS and NOAA OLE. The current plan 

allows for the cross-deputization of state MEP 

officers to patrol sanctuary waters, and enforce 

sanctuary and other relevant federal laws and 

regulations. The existing cooperative enforcement 

plan needs to be updated to ensure that enforcement needs are being met and coordination of all 

available enforcement assets is occurring. SBNMS 

enforcement needs include:

•	 Routine patrols of the sanctuary waters;

•	 Detection, investigation and prosecution of

violations;

•	 Twenty-four hour response capability (sea or

air);

•	 Deputization training and updates;

•	 Inter/intra-agency coordination of enforcement

assets;

•	 Administrative, legal and technical support;

and

•	 Enforcement outreach and interpretive efforts

to affected commercial and recreational users.

Status: Planned, 2008

2.5.3 Acquire and maintain a dedicated, year-round 

enforcement boat to conduct routine sanctuary patrols. There is high demand by the public 

for increased sanctuary patrols and interpretive 

enforcement activities.

Status: Planned, 2009
190 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

2.5.4 Expand patrol-related outreach and interpretive 

enforcement efforts. There are many reasons for 

high-visibility presence of an enforcement vessel 

within SBNMS including permit oversight, compliance monitoring with whale watch guidelines 

particularly during high use periods, and whale 

disentanglement and stand-by. As importantly, it is 

necessary to conduct interpretive enforcement and 

education. During patrols, officers can provide 

sanctuary information directly to users, and materials can be distributed selectively as appropriate. Related communications can be increased 

with constituents and user groups at marinas and 

community events.

Status: Ongoing

ADMIN.3 Objective—Develop a SBNMS

Volunteer Program That Leverages Program

Implementation and Increases Site Visibility

Background. The sanctuary lacks a structured volunteer 

program to plan, implement and properly oversee volunteer activities. Currently, SBNMS volunteers are few in 

number, although interest in volunteering is high; they 

support limited activities and functions on an as-needed 

basis. However, there are many opportunities where volunteers could contribute meaningfully, if provided guidance. 

Such opportunities include, but are not limited to, general 

education and outreach in schools and communities, staff 

support, research and scientific monitoring.

Strategies (3) To Develop a SBNMS Volunteer Program that 

Leverages Sanctuary Programs and Increases Site Visibility

(3.1) Develop a SBNMS volunteer program. Many functions of the SBNMS can be enhanced through establishment of a volunteer program that provides essential support 

for sanctuary projects, and builds community support and 

commitment to the goals and strategies of the sanctuary. The 

program would focus on team-building, organized communication, project oversight and general support, including 

partnerships with other organizations.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

Activities:

3.1.1 Develop a volunteer operations plan. The sanctuary should identify and prioritize its volunteer 

program objectives. Programmatic areas may 

include education and outreach, science and 

monitoring, historic maritime resources and boater/diver corps. As part of this effort, developing 

criteria for a sanctuary docent program is essential. The docent program will provide a corps of 

knowledgeable volunteers, who will represent the 

sanctuary, as appropriate, at public events and 

other outreach functions.

Status: Planned, 2008

3.1.2 Develop a student internship program. The sanctuary could benefit from short-term specialized 

assistance, which leverages staff resources and 

provides education and training for high school 

and college level students pursuing careers in 

marine science.

Status: Planned, 2008

3.1.3 Develop a post-doctoral support program. The 

sanctuary needs highly specialized technical and 

scientific capability applied to short-term specific 

Table 27. Estimated costs for ADMIN action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Integrate staff capabilities with changing program needs. 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

(1.2) Hire additional staff and streamline organizational structure. 197.0 507.7 798.5 958.3 1054.1 3515.6

(1.3) Enhance operation of the sanctuary advisory council. 10.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 65.0

(2.1) Maintain and acquire vessels as necessary. 150.0 150.0 1000.0 200.0 200.0 1700.0

(2.2) Work with NMSP to develop and implement a long-range 

facilities plan that prioritizes opportunities with the town of 

Scituate.

80.0 750.0 2130.0 0.0 0.0 2960.0

(2.3) Maintain a database for sanctuary permitting. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.4) Meet the equipment needs of an expanded SBNMS diving 

program.

1.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 15.0

(2.5) Develop an effective enforcement program. 0.0 0.0 60.0 80.0 80.0 220.0

(3.1) Develop SBNMS volunteer program. 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 16.0

(3.2) Maintain and expand the volunteer dive corps activities. 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 5.0

(3.3) Develop and support international exchange of volunteers 

between SBNMS and other MPAs. 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 638.0 1932.4 4811.9 2224.6 2417.3 12024.2

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 191

needs of programmatic areas. The sanctuary should 

partner with research and academic institutions to 

share costs for post-doctoral fellowship positions.

Status: Planned, 2008

(3.2) Maintain and expand SBNMS volunteer diver corps 

activities. Emphasis on recruitment and training of new 

diver corps volunteers will provide much-needed support for 

sanctuary historic maritime resource projects, research and 

monitoring activities and education and outreach programs. 

In particular, the diver corps could assist with historic shipwreck inventory and photo-documentation of biological 

communities. These activities have the potential to advance 

general understanding and greatly raise sanctuary visibility 

(see Strategy ADMIN 2.4).

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(3.3) Develop and support international exchange of 

volunteers between SBNMS and other MPAs. SBNMS in 

New England and Silver Bank Humpback Whale Sanctuary 

in the Dominican Republic (DR) share the same population 

of humpback whales. The humpback whales reproduce and 

calf in the DR and feed and nurse their young in SBNMS. 

A ‘sister-sanctuary’ volunteer exchange program between 

SBNMS and Silver Bank Humpback Whale Sanctuary will 

support education and research exchanges between the 

two countries. The programmatic exchange would promote 

visibility of cross-boundary sanctuary resources and could 

lead to increased support for joint education and outreach 

projects.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2008.

Table 28. Performance measures for ADMIN action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

Organizational and financial capacity is strengthened to implement the vision, mission, goals and objectives of the SBNMS.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2011, SBNMS will have sufficient capacity and 

adequate staffing to implement all priority strategies in the management plan.

SBNMS will annually report 

staffing levels and priority 

outcomes to the advisory council and NMSP.

Number of staff 

(combined federal and 

contract positions): 11

Build infrastructure

By 2011, enforcement patrols will be conducted in 

the sanctuary twice weekly from April to November.

SBNMS will track the number 

of hours logged in the sanctuary by enforcement officers.

Number of Patrol-hours 

conducted in the sanctuary: 0

Living marine 

resources, habitat, water quality

By 2011, creation of a Volunteer Program will 

increase the number of volunteer-hours contributed to sanctuary programs by 25%.

SBNMS will track the number 

of volunteers and respective 

hours.

Number of Hours 

contributed by Volunteer 

Program: 0

Volunteer

By 2011, the SAC will have formed and completed four working groups as specified in six action 

plans.

SBNMS will track the number 

of working group meetings held 

and action plans produced.

Number of meetings 

completed by Zoning 

WG: 2

Raise awareness
192 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Interagency Cooperation

Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Interagency Cooperation (IC) Action Plan (AP) makes 

recommendations to clarify agency responsibilities that 

overlap those of SBNMS and to improve interagency coordination and effectiveness. The AP provides the framework to 

clarify the roles, responsibilities and relationships between 

agencies associated with SBNMS in order to strengthen 

resource protection within the sanctuary and improve interagency communication.

Goal

The goal of the IC AP is to foster and facilitate cooperation and coordination of planning and management actions 

in support of partnering state and federal agency missions, 

when consistent with the NMSA and bearing on sanctuary 

resources. SBNMS will communicate its purpose and findings to these agencies and seek opportunities to share information, resources and expertise with them.

Objectives

The IC AP has two objectives and associated strategies to 

foster interagency cooperation (Table 29).

•	IC.1—Facilitate Cooperation and Coordination Between

Agencies

•	IC.2—Establish Mechanisms for Improved Information

Sharing Between Agencies

The estimated costs for implementation of the IC AP are 

indicated in Table 30. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 31.
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 193

IC.1 Objective—Facilitate Cooperation and

Coordination between Agencies

Background. SBNMS needs to foster and facilitate interand intra-agency coordination in order to better protect 

sanctuary resources as mandated by the NMSA. Numerous 

agencies operate pursuant to federal statues (e.g., Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, etc.) that 

have jurisdiction that spatially overlaps sanctuary boundaries. These Acts often complement the intent and purpose of 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

The following are examples of agency activities pertinent to 

sanctuary management. NOAA National Marine Fisheries 

Service (Fisheries) is responsible for managing sustainable 

fisheries. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

responsible for managing water resource quality. The Army 

Corps of Engineers is responsible for managing dredging 

and dumping activities. The Minerals Management Service 

is responsible for managing offshore wind, wave and solar 

energy projects except in sanctuaries. The United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for enforcing federal 

fisheries regulations, among others, and ensuring safety at 

sea. These responsibilities are stated in their simplest terms 

but indicate why coordination with the sanctuary is essential.

While SBNMS has been coordinating with these agencies 

since sanctuary designation, more formal mechanisms for 

coordination need to be developed in many cases, and 

more frequent communication is appropriate. In all cases, 

it is expected that agencies that have overlapping management authority with SBNMS will cooperate and collaborate 

to protect sanctuary resources while achieving their respective missions.

Strategies (4) To Establish Cooperation and Coordination 

between Agencies

(1.1) Initiate discussions regarding a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between SBNMS and NOAA Fisheries Service to facilitate cooperation and coordination. 

The MOU would: (1) clarify agency roles and responsibilities for protecting biodiversity and biological communities, 

threatened and endangered species, and habitats within the 

SBNMS; (2) facilitate the exchange of information, advice 

and technical assistance between SBNMS and NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office (NERO); (3) coordinate agency efforts concerning research, ecosystem protection and public outreach when pertinent to the management and protection of sanctuary resources; and (4) clarify 

responsibilities under Sections 304(a)(5) and 304(d) of the 

NMSA.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

1.1.1 Meet with NOAA Fisheries Service NERO staff to 

scope details of an MOU that facilitates cooperation and coordination with SBNMS.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.1.2 Work with NOAA Fisheries Service NERO to 

execute final MOU.

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.2) Coordinate proposed activities with NOAA Fisheries 

Service NERO. This effort will clarify the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies regarding consultation, permitTable 29. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for IC action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

IC.1 Facilitate Cooperation and 

Coordination Between Agencies 

(1.1) Re-establish discussions regarding a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) among SBNMS, NOAA Fisheries Service NERO and the NEFMC to 

facilitate cooperation and coordination. 

High

(1.2) Coordinate proposed activities with NOAA Fisheries Service NERO. High

(1.3) Facilitate cooperative research and outreach between SBNMS and 

NOAA Fisheries Service NEFSC. High

(1.4) Evaluate the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NOAA Fisheries Service for commenting on 

proposed activities occurring at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS).

High

IC.2 Establish Mechanisms for 

Improved Information Sharing 

Between Agencies 

(2.1) Provide information via the web on the responsibilities and activities of 

multiple agencies with roles pertinent to the SBNMS. Medium

(2.2) Provide regular updates to the USCG Area Contingency Plans. Medium

(2.3) Establish a mechanism for informal consultation with the EPA, NEFMC, 

MWRA, MADEP and MACZM Office on Water Quality Issues. Medium

(2.4) Update and continue to implement the sanctuary Cooperative Enforcement Program High

(2.5) Support continued meetings of the advisory council’s Interagency Cooperation Working Group. Low

(2.6) Participate in the GoM Council and other regional initiatives. Medium

(2.7) Participate on relevant advisory panels of the NEFMC. High

(2.8) Depict sanctuary boundaries. High
194 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

ting and outreach. The principal purpose is to improve 

communication by clarifying under what circumstances 

consultation between the two agencies is warranted.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

1.2.1 Meet with NOAA Fisheries Service NERO staff to 

scope the details of a protocol.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.2.2 Draft and finalize the protocol with NOAA Fisheries Service NERO.

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.3) Facilitate cooperative research and outreach between 

SBNMS and NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC). The purpose of this protocol is to 

facilitate cooperative research and outreach and leverage 

funding and technical expertise by both agencies.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

1.3.1 Meet with NOAA Fisheries Service NEFSC staff to 

scope the details of a protocol.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.3.2 Draft and finalize the protocol with NOAA Fisheries Service NEFSC.

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.4) Evaluate the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 

NOAA Fisheries Service for Commenting on proposed 

activities occurring at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site 

(MBDS). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1992 

interagency MOA includes the requirement to coordinate 

disposal projects proposed for MBDS with NOAA Fisheries. This MOA was executed prior to the 1992 amendments 

of the NMSA requiring consultation by a federal agency 

conducting activities that may affect sanctuary resources. 

The effectiveness of the MOA in ensuring that SBNMS 

resources are not injured needs to be evaluated and, 

because of the concerns stated below, there needs to be a 

mechanism for the sanctuary to be notified about dumping 

activities at the MBDS. Due to the number of projects using 

the MBDS, thresholds for coordination between NERO and 

SBNMS should be considered.

The MBDS is located directly alongside the western boundary of the SBNMS. The disposal site receives approximately 

one to two hundred thousand cubic yards of clean dredge 

material per year and is the USACE’s most active dumpsite 

in New England. The sanctuary has two concerns over this 

activity: (1) the risk of disposed dredged material entering 

and injuring sanctuary resources, and (2) the disturbance of 

historic radioactive and toxic waste in the inactive foul area 

that could enter and injure sanctuary resources. Under the 

existing MOA, the USACE is required to notify the NOAA 

Fisheries Service NERO of when dredged material is going 

to be deposited at the disposal site but not the SBNMS. 

However, the consultation provision of the NMSA still 

applies even if this MOA is not updated and consultation by 

USACE with SBNMS is required.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

1.4.1 Ensure that SBNMS is placed on the USACE 

public notice electronic mailing list and develop 

an internal protocol for following up on these 

notices.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.4.2 Develop a NOAA intra-agency protocol for 

consultation by NOAA Fisheries Service with 

SBNMS for dredged material disposal activities at 

the MBDS that may affect sanctuary resources.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.4.3 Work with the USACE to consider requiring Automated Identification System transponders on all 

dredge barges to facilitate tracking of their routes 

to ensure they do not inadvertently dump materials in the SBNMS.

Status: Planned, 2008

IC.2 Objective—Establish Mechanisms

for Improved Information Sharing between

Agencies

Background. One of the policies of the NMSA is to foster 

comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of sanctuaries and activities affecting them, in a 

manner which complements existing regulatory authorities. 

To further this policy, it would be useful for SBNMS to serve 

as a clearinghouse for agency information and be a catalyst 

for information sharing.

Strategies (8) To Establish Mechanisms for Improved Information Sharing between Agencies

(2.1) Provide information via the web on the responsibilities and activities of multiple agencies that have roles 

pertinent to the SBNMS. This strategy will assist the public 

and agency personnel in determining what agencies have 

shared jurisdiction in the sanctuary, over what resources 

and where to go for detailed information.

Priority: Medium

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.1.1 Establish a SBNMS webpage that serves as a 

clearinghouse for pertinent fishing regulations in 

the sanctuary by providing web links to appropriate regulatory agencies. The purpose of this web 

page is to facilitate regulatory compliance by the 

public by directing them to the appropriate regulatory agency for details.

Status: Ongoing

2.1.2 Establish a SBNMS webpage that serves as a 

clearinghouse for agency contact information 

to inform the public about the roles of the various agencies that have authority overlapping the 
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 195

sanctuary and provide web links to these agencies.

Status: Ongoing

2.1.3 Establish a SBNMS webpage that informs the 

public of the latest results of research and other 

activities conducted within the sanctuary by 

other agencies and provide web links to these 

agencies.

Status: Ongoing

(2.2) Provide regular updates to the USCG Area Contingency Plans. The sanctuary worked with the USCG First 

District during 2003 to develop an annex to the applicable 

Area Contingency Plan (ACP) that covers the SBNMS vicinity. ACPs are USCG incident response plans, which provide 

guidance for the protection of people, natural resources, 

and property from the impacts of oil spills or hazardous 

substance releases. The ACP presents a strategy for coordination of federal, state and local agencies with industry, 

response contractors, and the local community for unified 

responses to discharges or substantial threats of discharge 

of oil or release of hazardous substances. The annex to the 

ACP is specific to the SBNMS and details sensitive resources 

as well as any recommended mitigation measures (see Strategy WQ 2.4).

Priority: Medium

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.2.1 Update the sanctuary’s annex to the Plymouth 

to Salisbury, MA Area Contingency Plan and the 

Rhode Island/Southeastern Massachusetts Area 

Contingency Plan.

Status: Planned, 2008

(2.3) Establish a mechanism for informal consultation with 

the EPA, NEFMC, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection (MADEP) and Massachusetts Office of Coastal 

Zone Management (MACZM) on water quality issues. The 

purpose of this protocol is to facilitate communication on 

water quality issues related to the watersheds and coastal 

and ocean waters that may affect sanctuary resources.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

2.3.1 Develop an informal mechanism that facilitates 

communication among the SBNMS, EPA, NEFMC, 

MWRA, MADEP, and MACZM on water quality 

issues that may affect the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2009

Table 30. Estimated costs for IC action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Re-establish discussions regarding a possible MOU 

between the NOAA/SBNMS, NOAA Fisheries Service NERO 

and the NEFMC to facilitate cooperation and coordination.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(1.2) Coordinate proposed activities with the NOAA Fisheries 

Service NERO. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(1.3) Facilitate cooperative research and outreach between 

NOAA/SBNMS and the NOAA Fisheries Service, NEFSC. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(1.4) Evaluate the MOA between the USACE and NOAA Fisheries Service for commenting on proposed activities occurring at 

the MBDS.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.1) Provide information via the web on the responsibilities 

and activities of multiple agencies that have roles pertinent to 

the SBNMS.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.2) Provide regular updates to the USCG Area Contingency 

Plans. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.3) Establish a mechanism for informal consultation with the 

EPA, NEFMC, MWRA, MADEP and MACZM Office on water 

quality issues.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.4) Update and continue to implement the sanctuary cooperative enforcement program. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.5) Support continued meetings of the sanctuary advisory 

council’s Interagency Cooperation Working Group. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.6) Participate in the GoM Council and other regional initiatives. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.5

(2.7) Participate on relevant advisory panels of the NEFMC. 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.5

(2.8) Depiction of sanctuary boundary. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
196 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

(2.4) Update and continue to implement the Sanctuary 

Cooperative Enforcement Program. The primary agencies 

involved in the current sanctuary cooperative enforcement 

program are the SBNMS and the NOAA OLE (Appendix O). 

The USCG and the Massachusetts Environmental Police 

(MEP) have been part of the sanctuary enforcement program 

to varying degree depending on their resources and priorities.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.4.1 Update and fully implement the cooperative 

enforcement agreement between SBNMS and 

NOAA OLE working with the USCG and MEP 

to ensure adequate enforcement presence and 

prosecution regarding the sanctuary. Whereas 

the existing agreement is considered functional in 

its protocols and purpose, effective implementation will require that SBNMS have regular dedicated on-the-water enforcement capabilities not 

currently available (see Activity ADMIN 2.6.1).

Status: Planned, 2010

(2.5) Support continued meetings of the sanctuary advisory 

council’s Interagency Cooperation Working Group (WG). 

The WG has proven effective as a forum to initiate dialogue 

on matters of mutual interest among agencies that have 

regional federal or neighboring state jurisdiction associated 

with the sanctuary. The WG would be reconvened on an asneeded basis to address specific issues or to share relevant 

information.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2008

(2.6) Participate in the Gulf of Maine (GoM) Council and 

other regional initiatives. The GoM Council on the Marine 

Table 31. Performance measures for IC action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

Sanctuary protection is increased through coordination with agencies that have jurisdiction overlapping the sanctuary.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2009, the sanctuary will have formalized an effective working relationship 

with NOAA Fisheries Service NERO 

and the NEFMC.

SBNMS will execute a signed MOU with 

the affected parties.

Number of signed MOUs: 

0

Partnerships

By 2009, a process for formal consultation by the USACE with the sanctuary 

pursuant to section 304(d) of the NMSA 

will be in effect.

SBNMS will document a formal consultation process.Number of consultations 

completed: 1

Partnerships

By 2011, the sanctuary will hold three 

issue-driven, problem-solving forums 

with other affected agencies, the findings of which will be entered into a 

record.

SBNMS will record the minutes of each 

forum and disseminate information pertinent to initiate next step to the respective 

agencies. The findings of each meeting 

will be entered into a record to document 

the occurrence and outcome.

Number of forums organized since publication 

of management plan: 0

Partnerships

Environment is a U.S.-Canadian partnership of government 

and non-government organizations. The organization works 

to maintain and enhance environmental quality in the GoM 

to allow for sustainable resource use by existing and future 

generations. NOAA Fisheries Service currently represents 

SBNMS interests on the GoM Council.

Priority: Medium

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.6.1 Participate in GoM Council meetings and continue to host the Gulf of Maine Marine Protected 

Areas (GoMMPAS) list serve.

Status: Ongoing

2.6.2 Participate in GoM Council and other regional 

initiatives regarding the establishment of a marine 

protected area (MPA) network within the GoM.

Status: Ongoing

(2.7) Participate on relevant advisory panels of the NEFMC.

The NEFMC operates numerous advisory panels that advise 

on managing fisheries, many of which occur within SBNMS. 

The advisory panels are a critical mechanism by which the 

sanctuary can provide input and express concerns over fishing activities in the sanctuary.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(2.8) Depict sanctuary boundaries in fishery management 

plans and related documents. On December 4, 2003 the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council passed a motion requesting that 

the NEFMC include the sanctuary boundaries on all future 

charts, maps and relevant fisheries documents in the Gulf 

of Maine. Depiction of the sanctuary boundaries will establish a more informed context for Council decision-making 

while enabling sanctuary managers to better understand 

the potential implications of Council actions. This strategy 

supports that motion.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 197

Public Outreach and Education

Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Public Outreach and Education (POE) Action Plan (AP) 

makes recommendations to resolve issues including low 

name recognition of SBNMS, need for better information 

dissemination through leveraged partnerships and public 

education through programming support. The POE AP is 

predicated on developing outreach and education tools 

that serve to help achieve sanctuary management goals and 

objectives.

Goal

The goal of the POE AP is to increase public awareness and 

understanding of the sanctuary, and encourage responsible 

stewardship of its resources.

Objectives

The POE AP has two objectives and associated strategies to 

enhance public awareness, understanding and appropriate 

use of the sanctuary through development and implementation of outreach and educational programs (Table 32).

•	POE.1—Build Capacity for Outreach Programs that

Increase Sanctuary Visibility, Awareness and Stewardship

•	POE.2—Build Capacity for Formal and Informal Education

Programs That Support Sanctuary Management Goals

The estimated costs for implementation of the POE AP are 

indicated in Table 33. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 34. 
198 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

POE.1 Objective—Build Capacity for

Outreach Programs that Increase Sanctuary

Visibility, Awareness and Stewardship

Background. The purpose of this objective is to build greater awareness of SBNMS among the general public to: (1) 

generate name recognition; (2) create a sense of ownership 

and stewardship that leads to personal involvement in the 

protection of sanctuary resources; and (3) develop an infrastructure that includes affiliate organizations and volunteers 

to build partnerships and leverage capacity for sanctuary 

outreach activities. A million or more visitors travel to the 

SBNMS each year on whale watch and recreational fishing boats without realizing that they are in a federal marine 

protected area. Neighboring communities are mostly 

unacquainted with the sanctuary, as it is offshore and outof-sight. And despite a historic relationship to the marine 

environment, many residents of coastal New England are 

unaware of the sanctuary and the diverse living marine and 

maritime heritage resources it shelters.

Strategies (4) To Build Capacity for Outreach Programs to 

Increase Sanctuary Visibility, Awareness and Stewardship

(1.1) Produce public outreach products and programs that 

best address sanctuary visibility needs. Develop appropriate pubic outreach/visibility products and programs that 

create name recognition and brand identity for the sanctuary to better inform the public of its existence, location, 

resource characteristics and programs. Table 2 lists some of 

the outreach and education products produced to date.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

1.1.1 Ask the advisory council to form an outreach 

working group of the advisory council, consisting 

of representatives from interest groups, as well 

as experts in public relations, advertising and 

marketing to advise the advisory council, which 

in turn will advise the sanctuary superintendent 

on the development of outreach campaigns for 

SBNMS.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.1.2 Assess the level of public awareness of the sanctuary and determine the communication tools and 

venues that are likely to be most effective in reaching the various constituencies and geographic 

areas.

Status: Planned, 2008

[Note: With information gained from Activities 

1.1.1 and 1.1.2 above, refine and undertake Activities 1.1.3 through 1.1.5 following.]

1.1.3 Produce periodic newsletters and other printed 

or electronic publications to provide information 

to the general public, elected officials, and user 

groups.

Status: Ongoing

1.1.4 Develop a website that provides a central location for all information about the sanctuary and 

links to affiliated organizations. The web site will 

provide ‘one-stop shopping’ for information needs 

from any stakeholder group or member of the 

general public.

Status: Ongoing

1.1.5 Develop traveling exhibits and speakers’ bureau 

to provide outreach programs to various audiences.

Status: Ongoing

1.1.6 Work with NMSP headquarters to provide street 

signage at appropriate places indicating the location of the SBNMS headquarters office in Scituate, Massachusetts.

Status: Planned, 2008

(1.2) Develop and implement outreach programs with 

stakeholder groups to increase sanctuary visibility and 

promote sanctuary stewardship. This strategy will open 

lines of communication between stakeholder groups and 

the sanctuary, and involve these groups in the design and 

Table 32. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for POE action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

POE.1 Build Capacity for Outreach 

Programs that Increase Sanctuary 

Visibility, Awareness and Stewardship 

(1.1) Produce public outreach products and programs that best address sanctuary visibility needs. High

(1.2) Develop and implement outreach programs with stakeholder groups to 

increase sanctuary visibility and promote sanctuary stewardship. High

(1.3) Work with the NMSP headquarters to develop and implement a SBNMS 

long-range facilities plan that prioritizes partnering opportunities with interpretive centers and articulates federal funding needs.High

(1.4) Establish a Media Outreach Program. High

POE.2 Build Capacity for Formal 

and Informal Education Programs 

That Support Sanctuary Management Goals

(2.1) Develop an action plan for establishing education partnerships and identify the types of programs and objectives that would best be achieved. High

(2.2) Support K-12 Educational Programming. Medium

(2.3) Support Undergraduate and Graduate Education Programming. Medium

(2.4) Support Adult Education Programming. High
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 199

implementation of collaborative outreach projects. Communication objectives will include responsible stewardship, 

conservation of biological diversity, water quality protection, maritime heritage preservation and marine mammal 

protection. Products and programs will be developed with 

partners as appropriate and address the informational 

needs of the general public and stakeholder constituencies. 

Messages will be determined in consultation with sanctuary 

staff, stakeholder group representatives and other partners. 

Examples of user groups and actions include the following:

•	Whale Watch Industry—boat signage, naturalist training,

passenger handouts;

•	Commercial Fishing—trade show workshops and exhibits,

guest speakers at meetings, articles in industry association 

publications;

•	Party/Charter Fishing Boats—passenger handouts, boat

and dock signage, speakers at meetings, articles in trade 

magazines, information in saltwater fishing guides;

•	Recreational Fishing—articlesin fishing magazines,speakers at meetings, handouts at fishing supply/bait shops;

•	Recreational Boaters—boat show exhibits, signage at

marinas and fuel docks, speakers at boat clubs;

•	Recreation and Technical Divers—programs at dive clubs,

handouts at dive shops, magazine interviews, presentations at conferences;

•	Cruise Industry—exhibits at cruise ship terminals, signage

on boats, handouts and in-room videos for passengers, 

speakers programs for passengers; and

•	Researchers—on-line permit application, on-line databases, science forums, and web index to sanctuary research.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

1.2.1 Assess existing sanctuary outreach programs and 

those of stakeholder groups and develop/prioritize new or revised outreach programs, utilizing 

partnerships where appropriate.

Status: Planned, 2008

(1.3) Work with NMSP headquarters to develop and implement a SBNMS long-range facilities plan that prioritizes 

partnering opportunities with interpretive centers and 

articulates federal funding needs. Interpretive facilities—

visitor centers, exhibits and kiosks at museums and aquariums and signage at selected locations—raise sanctuary visibility by reaching large sectors of the general public. These 

venues provide centralized distribution points for sanctuary 

outreach materials while offering a suitable and cost-effective means for the communication of sanctuary messages. 

[Note: Strategy ADMIN 2.2 refers to a related but separate 

facilities planning process.]

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

1.3.1 Identify and prioritize new areas and locations 

for installation of sanctuary exhibitry within the 

greater Boston metropolitan area.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.3.2 Develop or upgrade sanctuary visitor centers/

exhibits in gateway cities, including but not limited to Gloucester, Boston, Plymouth and Provincetown.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.3.3 Develop exhibits and signage at New England 

regional and national public outreach centers, 

including aquariums, zoos, science museums, 

maritime heritage facilities and art institutions.

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.4) Establish a Media Outreach Program. Print and electronic media can be an effective and efficient means to 

reach vast numbers of the general public as well as targeted 

stakeholder groups. SBNMS will provide information to 

the media on sanctuary resources and resource protection 

activities through the use of press releases, media advisories, web sites, still images, video footage, editorial board 

visits, media tours and other products and programs.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

1.4.1 Develop an updated media list of regional and 

national print, radio, and television outlets, 

including phone, fax and e-mail addresses to 

identify media contacts with interests in sanctuary-related stories.

Status: Ongoing

1.4.2 Develop a long-term sanctuary media plan including short-term event-driven media plans when 

appropriate. The plans will include messages and 

talking points. The extent of each plan will be 

determined on a case-by-case basis and in consultation with NOAA and NMSP headquarters.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.4.3 Prepare advisories, press releases and articles on a 

timely basis for distribution to the media; produce 

and distribute still and video images when appropriate; organize press conferences when appropriate; work with partners when applicable.

Status: Ongoing

1.4.4 Develop a web-based photo and map gallery for 

media use (may also be accessed by educators 

and other members of the general public).

Status: Ongoing

1.4.5 Organize media visits to the sanctuary, including 

research cruises and site visits, and staff visits to 

media outlets, including editorial boards, local 

radio talk shows, and community cable television, 

through a scheduled sanctuary speakers’ bureau.

Status: Ongoing
200 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

1.4.6 Assess potential themes and slogans that are likely to be most successful in attracting media and 

reader attention. Incorporate these findings into 

media planning and written/audio-visual materials.

Status: Ongoing

POE.2 Objective—Build Capacity for Formal

and Informal Education Programs That

Support Sanctuary Management Goals

Background. The purpose of this objective is to develop 

and maintain leveraged partnerships that build capacity for 

formal and informal education programs while supporting 

SBNMS management goals. Educational programming for 

ocean science can benefit from sanctuary products and 

activities that highlight SBNMS as a laboratory for learning. 

Leveraged partnerships require that all parties find value 

in the results, which necessitates care in product/program 

design and implementation. The supplemental funding, 

joint staffing and/or resources generated by partnerships 

contribute to the success of the initiative, the ability to reach 

the intended audience, and project viability over time.

Strategies (4) To Improve Capacity for Formal and Informal 

Education Programs That Support Sanctuary Management 

Goals

(2.1) Develop an action plan for establishing education 

partnerships and identify the types of programs and objectives that would best be achieved. This effort will guide the 

process for forming partnerships having the highest likelihood of success for the development and delivery of effective educational programming.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

2.1.1 Ask the advisory council to form an education 

working group of the advisory council comprised 

of teachers in grades K-12, university faculty, 

grade school and college administrators, informal 

educators, homeschoolers and other interested 

parties to advise the advisory council, which will 

in turn advise the sanctuary superintendent, in 

addressing education needs and trends.

Status: Planned, 2009

2.1.2 Assess the needs and availability of potential partners for sanctuary programs, especially in areas 

where limited sanctuary funding and staffing are 

inadequate to achieve project goals. This effort 

will broaden the scope of outside interest in and 

support for sanctuary programs and identify how 

sanctuary efforts can best support shared organizational goals.

Status: Planned, 2009

2.1.3 Develop criteria for the selection and types of 

contributions required of SBNMS partners for 

education, including other NOAA offices, other 

government agencies, public and private institutions and non-governmental organizations. This 

effort will bring strategic focus to the development 

of rationales for effective collaborations with partners in the educational community.

Status: Planned, 2009

(2.2) Support K–12 Educational Programming. The sanctuary’s proximity to major population centers, educational 

institutions and research facilities makes it accessible as a 

living laboratory for marine science and maritime studies. 

SBNMS will address the needs of educators for sanctuaryrelated materials and programs by working with regional 

organizations and specialists to address how content 

connects with K–12 learning standards in various disciplines 

at state and national levels.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2008

Activities:

2.2.1 Assess needs of K-12 educators and develop 

products and programs deemed appropriate to 

further SBNMS goals for heightened understanding of sanctuary resources, stewardship, science 

and management issues. The assessment will 

link materials to state and national standards as 

required and wherever possible.

Status: Planned, 2010

2.2.2 Provide creative programs for student participation that encourage discovery learning about 

sanctuary resources, stewardship and programs, 

including but not limited to poster/art contests, 

poetry contests, photo contests, debates, junior 

naturalist program, and student-at-sea research.

Status: Planned, 2010

2.2.3 Post education products and programs on the 

sanctuary website and provide additional background materials for student and general public 

review.

Status: Planned, 2010

(2.3) Support Undergraduate and Graduate Education 

Programming. By providing access to sanctuary information 

and creating work study opportunities for students, SBNMS 

furthers NOAA’s education goals, which include integrating NOAA science into high-quality educational materials and promoting participation in NOAA-related sciences 

and careers, particularly by members of underrepresented 

groups. Sanctuary programming can enhance formal and 

informal environmental science education. Concomitantly, 

the sanctuary can gain new insights and benefits from these 

additional participatory efforts.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2010

Activities:

2.3.1 Work with academic institutions and foundations 

to support appropriate undergraduate, graduate 

and post-doctoral research in the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2010
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 201

2.3.2 Work with educator organizations and foundations to create summer internships at SBNMS for 

education, outreach, marine management, maritime heritage, GIS and other sanctuary-related 

disciplines.

Status: Planned, 2008

2.3.3 Develop sanctuary components for a pre-service 

teacher education course, which incorporates 

information about sanctuary marine resources 

and resource management issues.

Status: Planned, 2009

2.3.4 Provide speakers and/or background information 

on the sanctuary to supplement school programming (e.g., in marine resource management, 

marine science, marine professions, maritime 

archaeology, etc.).

Status: Ongoing

(2.4) Support Adult Education Programming. There is a 

large segment of the adult population interested in continuing education programs, both locally (often through onsite lectures and courses) and nationally (via the web). 

This educated audience is a potential source of sanctuary 

volunteers and donors. The development of adult education content based on sanctuary science and activities can 

contribute to leveraged partnerships with regional educational institutions, museums, aquariums and other organizations that offer such types of programming.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

2.4.1 Develop and implement a series of special lectures 

on sanctuary issues and resources, including, but 

not limited to: sea birds, whales, boating etiquette, 

fishing, fish identification, marine management.

Status: Ongoing

2.4.2 Develop education materials linked to sanctuary 

research cruises for distribution via the sanctuary 

web site and other outreach avenues including 

telepresence.

Status: Planned, 2008

2.4.3 Investigate the potential for web-based and/or 

remote-learning courses on the sanctuary, its 

resources and marine management issues. Develop courses that can reach large segments of the 

general population.

Status: Planned, 2008

2.4.4 Assess the potential for associations with adult 

education programs such as Elder Hostel and 

Earthwatch and coordinate partnerships where 

deemed appropriate.

Status: Planned, 2009

2.4.5 Develop a full semester college course on sanctuary resources and management that provides 

content suitable for continuing education credit.

Make classes available via digital videodisk (DVD) 

and video home systems (VHS) tapes for distance 

learning purposes.

Status: Ongoing

Table 33. Estimated costs for POE action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Produce public outreach products and programs that best 

address sanctuary visibility needs. 48.0 52.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 265.0

(1.2) Develop and implement outreach programs with stakeholder groups to increase sanctuary visibility and promote 

sanctuary stewardship.

6.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 86.0

(1.3) Work with NMSP headquarters to develop and implement 

a long-range facilities plan that prioritizes partnering opportunities with interpretive centers and articulates federal funding 

needs.

0.0 0.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 600.0

(1.4) Establish a Media Outreach Program. 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 40.0

(2.1) Develop an action plan for establishing education partnerships and identify the types of programs and objectives that 

would best be achieved. 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.2) Support K-12 Educational Programming. 0.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 60.0

(2.3) Support Undergraduate and Graduate Education Programming. 0.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 60.0

(2.4) Support Adult Education Programming. 0.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 60.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 54.0 127.0 330.0 330.0 330.0 1171.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
202 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 34. Performance measures for POE action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

Public interest and understanding of sanctuary issues and opportunities are mobilized to encourage responsible stewardship.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2010, personnel will be in place to 

effectively implement outreach activities and educational programming.

An outreach specialist and an education 

specialist will be hired.

Program personnel dedicated to outreach and 

education: 1

Raise Awareness

By 2009, an action plan to guide sanctuary programs in formal and informal 

education will be developed.

SBNMS will have begun to implement the 

action plan.

Number of action plans 

developed: 0

Raise Awareness

By 2010, sanctuary visitor centers and 

traveling exhibits will reach two million 

people.

SBNMS will track the number of exhibition locations and visitor exposure.Number of people 

reached by exhibits: 1 

million

Raise Awareness

By 2010, sanctuary outreach efforts will 

reach six million people.

SBNMS will track the viewership of sanctuary publications and media outreach 

venues.

Number of people 

reached by outreach 

efforts: 1 million

Raise Awareness

By 2010, visitation to the sanctuary 

website will reach four million people.

SBNMS will track the number of unique 

visitors to the sanctuary website.

Number of people 

reached by website: 1 

million

Raise Awareness

By 2010, the sanctuary will implement formal and informal educational 

programming reaching one million 

people.

SBNMS will track the number of people 

accessing information from sanctuary 

educational programming.

Number of people 

reached: 2500

Raise Awareness
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 203

Compatibility Determination

Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Compatibility Determination (CD) Action Plan (AP) 

recommends a process by which to determine what constitutes a compatible use of sanctuary resources. The NMSA 

directs the NMSP to facilitate uses that are compatible with 

the primary mandate of resource protection, but is silent on 

how compatibility should be determined. This AP describes 

a framework for developing a sanctuary compatibility analysis. The AP only recommends process; it does not determine 

the appropriateness of any specific sanctuary use, current 

or potential, nor does it recommend any actions that could 

affect the outcome of other action plans in this publication. 

Background information on compatible use determination 

is available at http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/management/mpr/

workinggroups.html.

Goal

The goal of the CD AP is to develop a framework to assess 

and evaluate whether existing or proposed human uses 

are compatible with the sanctuary’s primary objective of 

resource protection.

Objectives

The CD AP has one objective and associated strategies to 

address the issues regarding compatible use (Table 35).

•	CD.1—Develop a Framework for Sanctuary Compatibility Determination.

The estimated costs for implementation of the CD AP are 

indicated in Table 36. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 37. 
204 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

CD.1 Objective—Develop a Framework for

Sanctuary Compatibility Determination

Background. SBNMS is considering using a Sanctuary 

Compatibility Analysis Process (S-CAP) to clarify and resolve 

compatibility issues. S-CAP uses a hierarchical approach, 

which flows from broad statements of SBNMS ‘vision’ and 

‘mission’ to more specific management ‘goals’ and ‘objectives’ to determine whether uses are compatible with sanctuary resource protection. Figure 119 provides a hypothetical application of S-CAP to sanctuary management.

S-CAP is a means to screen whether a use is compatible, 

or how it could be made compatible, and thus consistent 

with the site’s vision, mission, goals and objectives. It is a 

potential decision-making tool for application in sanctuary 

management, including performance planning (such as in 

management plan reviews), and for addressing questionable 

situations regarding specific uses. S-CAP has the following 

objectives:

•	Define the role of stakeholders and managers;

•	Define the decision-making process, such that decisions

are rational and transparent; and

•	Address current uses, new uses, the scale of use, and the

cumulative impacts of multiple uses.

[Note: Issues regarding conflicting uses that have no impact 

or risk of impact to sanctuary resources are not intended to 

be resolved by S-CAP or any other compatibility approach, 

as such issues present conflicts between uses, not between 

a use and resource protection].

Strategies (2) To Develop a Framework for Sanctuary 

Compatibility Determination

(1.1) Demonstrate the application of S-CAP. S-CAP will be 

used to answer specific questions regarding whether a use(s) 

is/are compatible with the sanctuary’s primary objective of 

resource protection. The SBNMS vision, mission, goals and 

management objectives will provide guidance for S-CAP 

deliberations.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2011

Activities:

1.1.1 The NMSP will evaluate the application of S-CAP 

and determine its usefulness as a decision-making 

tool. The process is an objective approach, which 

seeks to incorporate the best available scientific 

information, allows for stakeholder involvement 

and should be easy to understand and apply. It can 

incorporate measurable standards and indicators 

as thresholds for decision-making, if advisable. 

Ultimately, a pilot study or monitoring program, 

preferably utilizing collaborative research, may 

be necessary to properly evaluate and refine the 

application of this tool in certain cases.

[Note: S-CAP should first consider whether a use is 

already prohibited or subject to regulation. A use 

in the sanctuary permitted or regulated by another 

agency pursuant to a different authority may still 

be found to be incompatible with the SBNMS 

vision, mission, goals and objectives. It is important at this point that the S-CAP clearly guide how 

to decide if and how a use can be made compatible by imposing mitigations and what those mitigations would be.]

Status: Planned, 2008

(1.2) Refine S-CAP by incorporating results of ongoing 

sanctuary monitoring. Regularly update monitoring information. Make the updated information available for S-CAP 

evaluation to ensure that the process remains applicable 

under changing environmental conditions and evolving 

uses of sanctuary resources.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2012

Table 35. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for CD action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

CD.1 Develop a Framework for Sanctuary Compatibility Determination 

(1.1) Demonstrate the application of S-CAP. High

(1.2) Refine S-CAP by incorporating results of ongoing sanctuary monitoring. Medium
VII. Action Plans—Capacity Building 205

Figure 119. Hypothetical application of S-CAP process.

Issue: Does ‘x’ activity in the SBNMS harm marine mammals? Is it a use compatible with the sanctuary’s purpose?

Vision: Ecological integrity is protected.

Mission: Resource protection

Goal: Protect assemblages of marine mammals

Objective: Strengthen the protection of marine mammals by assessing and minimizing behavioral disturbance, including vessel strikes to and entanglement of marine mammals, and by fostering cooperation with cross-jurisdictional 

partners whose activities could impact marine mammals.

Standard: Marine mammal behavior is not altered and marine mammals are not struck or entangled by ‘x’ activity.

Indicators that standard is being achieved:

•	No marine mammals are struck or entangled by ‘x’ activity.

•	No change in marine mammal distribution due to ‘x’ activity.

•	Surface-to-dive time ratio for marine mammals is within normal range and unaffected by ‘x’ activity.

•	Marine mammal communication is unimpeded by ‘x’ activity.

Table 36. Estimated costs for CD action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total Estimated 

5 Year Cost

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5

(1.1) Demonstrate the application of S-CAP. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(1.2) Refine S-CAP by incorporating results of ongoing 

sanctuary monitoring. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.

Table 37. Performance measures for CD action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

Framework is established to assess and evaluate whether human uses are compatible with the sanctuary’s primary objective of 

resource protection.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2011, demonstrate the application 

of the Sanctuary Compatibility Analysis 

Process (S-CAP).

SBNMS advisory council will form a working group, which will file a report on the 

utility of the process as a decision-making 

tool.

Application of S-CAP: 0 Living marine 

resources, habitat, and water 

quality.
206 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act provides that the 

primary objective of sanctuary management is resource 

protection. Ecosystem protection in SBNMS requires 

the preservation/enhancement of biological and habitat 

diversity and care for the associated physical environment. The sanctuary’s challenge is to restore and maintain the ecological integrity of the site in the face of 

human-induced impacts and environmental uncertainty 

while facilitating compatible use.

Three action plans underscore public scoping concerns 

regarding ecosystem protection. The Ecosystem-Based 

Sanctuary Management (EBM) Action Plan establishes 

a framework and supporting infrastructure to integrate 

knowledge of ecological relationships with societal 

values to minimize human impacts to sanctuary resources. The Ecosystem Alteration (EA) Action Plan addresses 

the means to work with various agencies and user groups 

to reduce the alteration of benthic habitats by various 

uses and mitigate the ecological impacts of biomass 

removal by fishing. The Water Quality (WQ) Action Plan 

assesses and conserves water quality in the sanctuary by 

developing monitoring and contingency plans to examine and reduce pollution discharges, waste streams and 

catastrophic events that may adversely impact sanctuary 

resources.

Ecosystem Protection

1. Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management

2. Ecosystem Alteration

3. Water Quality
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 207

Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management

Action Plan

aries. Fisheries management in the Federal waters of the 

region is directed at species of concern, while considering 

the effects on other ecosystem components and issues. Even 

though the NOAA Fisheries Service Atlantic Large Whale 

Take Reduction Team has grouped a number of large cetaceans under its auspices, the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act is enforced on a species-by-species basis.

Goal

The goal of the EBSM AP is to protect the ecological integrity of SBNMS including that the sanctuary contributes to 

the healthy functioning of the larger GoM ecosystem. Effective implementation should: consider ecological processes 

that operate both inside and outside sanctuary boundaries; 

recognize the importance of genetic, species and habitat diversity; and accommodate human uses within the 

sanctuary to the extent compatible with the primary goal 

of resource protection. EBSM will integrate knowledge of 

ecological interrelationships with societal values to minimize human impacts to sanctuary resources.

Objectives

The EBSM AP has five objectives and associated strategies 

to implement EBSM and establish the infrastructure and 

framework for its continued development (Table 38).

•	EBSM.1—Establish a Science Review Framework

•	EBSM.2—Establish an Information Management System

•	EBSM.3—Understand Ecosystem Structure and Function

•	EBSM.4—Protect Ecological Integrity

•	EBSM.5—Evaluate the Need and Feasibility for Modifying

the Sanctuary Boundary

The estimated costs for implementation of the EBSM AP are 

indicated in Table 39. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 40.

Issue Statement

The Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management (EBSM) 

Action Plan (AP) makes recommendations for comprehensive ecosystem protection, preservation/enhancement 

of biological diversity, zoning including no-take zones, 

ecosystem-based management practices and consideration 

of boundary modification.

Ecosystem-based management arose in the late 20th century to address the scientific uncertainty inherent in natural 

systems and the failures of single-species management 

approaches to adequately address that scientific uncertainty. In simplest terms, an ecosystem is a set of inter-related 

biological communities and their associated physical environment. It includes all marine organisms together with the 

abiotic properties of the water column and seafloor and 

is connected to the human users. Over the past decade, 

marine ecosystem-based management has been variously 

practiced (Arkema et al., 2006); Leslie et al., (2008) discuss 

the broader aspects of implementation.

Since SBNMS is not a singularly discrete ecosystem unto 

itself, but rather part of the much larger GoM ecosystem, the 

application of EBSM to the SBNMS will be approached in 

two ways. First, EBSM will involve intensive collaboration 

with agencies charged with managing components of the 

ecosystem on a regional scale that overlaps with and goes 

beyond sanctuary boundaries. Second, EBSM will involve 

intensive research and monitoring within sanctuary boundaries, where an obvious sub-set of the larger GoM ecosystem is being managed.

There are no comprehensive ecosystem-based management plans in place for the southern GoM at this time. For 

example, SBNMS regulates the mining of sand and gravel, 

disturbance of the seafloor (with the exception of fishing 

activity), and dumping of waste material within its bound-
208 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

EBSM.1 Objective—Establish a Science

Review Framework

Background. A science review framework is needed to 

ensure that the sanctuary is using the best available, highest quality science for decision-making. The framework will 

consist of three parts: a science advisory working group, a 

sanctuary science symposium and a research consortium.

Strategies (3) To Establish a Science Review Framework

(1.1) Work with the advisory council to establish a science 

advisory working group. A science working group of the 

advisory council will assist in developing a science plan, 

thereby setting parameters for identifying and meeting key 

science needs. Scientific and technical membership will be 

drawn from area universities, research organizations and 

government agencies and will have representation covering 

the biological, geo-physical and societal disciplines. The 

working group will advise the advisory council, which will 

in turn advise the sanctuary superintendent on research and 

monitoring issues and provide assistance with developing a 

research and monitoring plan.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

Activities:

1.1.1 Develop a science plan that details the research, 

monitoring, and modeling activities necessary 

to carry out the sanctuary mission and inform 

management decisions (see Strategies EBSM 

3.1-3.4).

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.2) Convene a sanctuary science symposium. SBNMS 

will organize a symposium on sanctuary science to assist 

with reviewing the results of research in the sanctuary on 

essential protection issues that inform EBSM. The science 

symposium will further knowledge of the sanctuary ecosystem by fostering interaction and appropriate collaborative 

research between users and researchers on topics such as 

marine mammal acoustics, prey dynamics, oceanography, 

water quality, fish movement, etc. This should be a biennial 

symposium in which to share knowledge with the advisory 

council, SBNMS staff, academic and government scientists, 

stakeholder organizations and other interested parties on a 

regular and timely basis.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.3) Form a science consortium. SBNMS will serve as 

secretariat for an informal body that will ensure productive 

collaboration through timely dissemination of the research 

and monitoring results produced by the sanctuary. The 

consortium will be open to individuals who are committed 

to understanding how the sanctuary functions and who can 

contribute to furthering that understanding. An email/list 

serve or website will foster the sharing of ideas and posting 

of results (see Strategy EBSM 2.2).

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2009

EBSM.2 Objective—Establish an Information

Management System

Background. An information management system will be 

established to process, synthesize, and analyze scientific 

data by building upon the sanctuary’s existing infrastructure 

capacity with outside software expertise. The objective is 

to develop a well-designed information management and 

dissemination tool to facilitate science-based EBSM. The 

system should be designed so that information can be widely 

Table 38. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for EBM action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

EBSM.1 Establish a Science Review 

Framework 

(1.1) Work with the advisory council to establish a science advisory 

working group. High

(1.2) Convene a sanctuary science symposium. High

(1.3) Form a science consortium. Low

EBSM.2 Establish an Information Management System 

(2.1) Design and implement an information management system. High

(2.2) Design and implement a web portal for public access to databases. Low

EBSM.3 Understand Ecosystem Structure 

and Function

(3.1) Define and operationalize the term ecological integrity. High

(3.2) Develop programs to monitor and evaluate ecological integrity 

within the sanctuary. High

(3.3) Establish research programs directed at informing EBSM. High

(3.4) Develop models that afford a predictive capability to better understand sanctuary dynamics and to guide EBSM. Medium

EBSM.4 Protect Ecological Integrity

(4.1) Continue to convene the zoning working group of the advisory council to: (1) evaluate the adequacy of existing zoning schemes in SBNMS, 

(2) address the scientific requirements to meet the goals of EBSM, and if 

needed (3) develop a modified zoning scheme including consideration 

of fully protected reserves.

High

EBSM.5 Evaluate the Need and Feasibility 

of Modifying the Sanctuary Boundary

(5.1) Evaluate the need and feasibility for modifying the sanctuary boundary.

Low
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 209

accessible to sanctuary staff, scientists, decision makers and 

the public. By setting up a database on an in-house server, 

SBNMS will expand the range and uses of existing data.

Strategies (2) To Establish an Information Management 

System

(2.1) Design and implement an information management 

system. The system will need to meet specified requirements 

related to data input, data access by various users, metadata, 

analysis, etc. It will afford internal use by SBNMS staff and 

subsequent access by the public (see Strategy EBSM 2.2).

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

Activities:

2.1.1 Establish a quality assurance/quality control 

program. The program will ensure the integrity and 

quality of the data from collection to archiving.

Status: Planned

2.1.2 Establish a full-time data manager. A data management specialist is needed to manage and administer this system.

Status: Planned, 2009

(2.2) Design and implement a web portal for public access 

to databases. This tool will make data accessible to the 

public within a reasonable timeframe, while maintaining 

the security of the NOAA network.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2009

EBSM.3 Objective—Understand Ecosystem

Structure and Function

Background. Ecosystem structure refers to the arrangement 

of ecosystem components (physical and biological) over 

spatial and temporal scales. Ecosystem function refers to the 

processes of the ecosystem such as predation, succession 

and competition that in turn can mediate ecosystem structure. EBSM requires knowledge of what components make 

up the sanctuary ecosystem and what processes influence 

the arrangement of the components.

Strategies (4) To Understand Ecosystem Structure and 

Function

(3.1) Define and operationalize the term ecological integrity. As a concept, ecological integrity is location and scale 

dependent; it implies a sound or whole condition in both an 

intuitive and technical sense. It refers to the structural status 

and functioning of an ecological system (e.g., SBNMS). It 

considers human interactions and is the central concept to 

applying EBSM.

[Note: A draft definition of ecological integrity has been 

proposed by the Zoning Working Group for advisory council consideration. “Ecological integrity is defined as the 

degree to which the system is structurally intact and functionally resilient within the context of historical baselines. 

Structurally intact means that the native parts of the system 

are maintained as well as their relationships. Functional 

resilience is the system’s ability to resist changes caused by 

human or environmental perturbations, or should change 

occur, to recover over time”.]

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

3.1.1 Develop an operational definition of ecological 

integrity that can be evaluated and monitored 

over time. The definition requires sufficient objectivity and specificity, such that its measurement 

can be quantified and the determination of status 

can be unequivocal.

Status: Ongoing

3.1.2 Develop metrics for monitoring and evaluating 

ecological integrity. This activity involves developing biological and socio-economic indices 

based on the definition that are sufficiently robust 

for routine application, yet reliable across some 

set scale of the sanctuary and in the face of environmental variability.

Status: Ongoing

3.1.3 Develop appropriate measures of biological diversity and identify those processes that mediate 

patterns of diversity. This activity aims to evaluate various measures of diversity and to determine 

which ones most appropriately reveal the effectiveness of management actions.

Status: Ongoing

(3.2) Develop programs to monitor and evaluate ecological 

integrity within the sanctuary. The suite of metrics developed will be monitored periodically to reveal the status of 

diversity measures, key ecological processes and human 

uses in the sanctuary.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

3.2.1 Develop an ecological monitoring program that 

will discern changes in the natural systems of the 

sanctuary and which will afford a comprehensive 

understanding of the site’s ecological integrity.

One objective of the monitoring program is to 

determine the efficacy of any zones implemented 

in the sanctuary for purposes of EBSM.

Status: Ongoing

3.2.2 Develop a human-use monitoring program to 

fully understand the types and level of use of the 

sanctuary, the spatial and temporal distribution 

of use, the use adjacent to currently closed areas 

and the impacts of regulations on use patterns.

The program should provide adequate spatial resolution to reconstruct with statistical confidence the 

distribution of human impacts relative to habitat. 

The program should discern socio-economic 

impacts and incorporate traditional knowledge so 

that social capital can be an integral component 
210 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

of EBSM. Monitoring could be done by automated information systems (AIS), vessel monitoring 

systems (VMS), radar, refinement of vessel trip 

reports (VTR), call-in systems and standardized 

shipboard surveys. Activities will be implemented in cooperation with NOAA Fisheries Service, 

USCG and the affected public.

Status: Ongoing

3.2.3 Establish an integrated ocean observing system in 

the sanctuary to collect real-time information at 

multiple depths on oceanographic and biological 

variables identified to aid EBSM. The observing 

system could be a subset of the Gulf of Maine 

Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS) and would 

be implemented remotely through a combination 

of component surface and seafloor sensors and 

satellites.

Status: Ongoing

(3.3) Establish research programs directed at informing 

EBSM. Research programs will complement monitoring 

programs by investigating ecological processes that explain 

the patterns identified from monitoring. The science advisory 

working group should advise on questions to be answered 

by various research programs (see Strategy EBSM 1.1).

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

3.3.1 If appropriate, develop collaborative research 

programs with recreational and commercial fishing organizations. Collaborative programs will

help answer specific questions about the ecology 

of the sanctuary and its use. Potential examples 

include the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership 

(MFP) Fishermen’s Initiative for Scientific Habitat 

and Ecosystem Research (FISHER) project within 

the SBNMS.

Status: Ongoing

3.3.2 Classify and map benthic habitats. The SBNMS 

currently has high-resolution multi-beam imagery 

of the entire sanctuary. However, benthic habitats 

have not been classified or mapped based on the 

multi-beam data and ground-truthing data (e.g., 

video, sediment sampling and other means). Habitat classification and mapping would greatly facilitate planning and resource management efforts.

Status: Ongoing

3.3.3 Conduct research to understand movements of 

organisms relative to seascape features within 

the sanctuary and movement between the sanctuary and surrounding waters. This effort would 

include completing ongoing research, including 

cooperative research to tag and track Atlantic cod 

and expand the research to include other species.

Status: Ongoing

3.3.4 Conduct research to understand the effects of 

natural disturbance (e.g., storm and tidal events) 

on seascapes and seafloor habitats. Topographic complexity is mediated by natural as well as 

anthropogenic disturbance. This research will 

discern the characteristics of natural disturbance, 

such as the maximum depth affected by storm 

waves.

Status: Planned, 2009

3.3.5 Quantify pollutant loadings to sanctuary waters 

and apply findings to EBSM. See objectives and 

strategies in the Water Quality action plan for 

related context.

Status: Planned, 2010

(3.4) Develop models that provide a predictive capability to 

better understand sanctuary dynamics and to guide EBSM.

Models are powerful tools for synthesizing and visualizing 

data from monitoring and directed research and for simulating past, current or future conditions in SBNMS. As our 

knowledge of the marine environment is often limited by 

the difficulties and costs associated with both vessel-based 

and underwater research, it is important to maximize the 

predictive utility of the data we do gather and characterize 

the uncertainty surrounding our samples. These tasks are 

best addressed through modeling, which allows managers 

to utilize empirical data to form conclusions and quantify 

the associated level of uncertainty.

Because threats to sanctuary resources are often immediate, 

managers often need to make decisions based on the best 

available data. Models can help to identify directions for 

future research that will reduce uncertainty in areas important to decision-making. Models are useful in guiding both 

sanctuary-sponsored research and proposals from the greater research community towards the creation of substantive 

policy.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2011

Activities:

3.4.1 Develop a dynamic ecosystem model linking 

patterns of habitat and species diversity with 

ecological processes. The science advisory working group and advisory council will review the 

model and make recommendations to the sanctuary superintendent on its limits and capabilities.

Status: Planned, 2011

3.4.2 Develop a model(s) that predict(s) larval recruitment, dispersal and connectivity between habitats 

within, and to and from habitats external to, the 

sanctuary. The model should clarify the role that 

SBNMS plays in larval recruitment by identifying 

sources, sinks, rates of movement and concentrations of larvae using data from various sources.

Status: Planned, 2011

3.4.3 Develop an internal oceanographic circulation 

model for the sanctuary that interfaces with other 

models to tie together local, regional and larger-scale patterns. Development of this model is 

essential to understand and predict egg and larval 
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 211

transport, and the fate and effect of nutrients and 

pollutants.

Status: Planned, 2011

EBSM.4 Objective—Protect Ecological

Integrity

Background. The primary goal of EBSM is to protect the 

ecological integrity of the sanctuary. No single action is sufficient to protect the integrity of the system short of making 

the entire sanctuary a no-take wilderness area, which is not 

the intention. The purpose of this objective is to implement 

a set of complementary strategies that together will ensure 

the integrity of the ecosystem.

Strategy (1) To Protect Ecological Integrity

(4.1) Continue to convene the zoning working group of the 

advisory council established in 2005 to: (1) evaluate the 

adequacy of existing zoning schemes in SBNMS, (2) address 

the scientific requirements to meet the goals of EBSM and, 

if needed (3) develop a modified zoning scheme including consideration of fully protected reserves. The zoning 

working group will review and evaluate data and information, as it becomes available through various venues (e.g., 

Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat process, sanctuary efforts) 

and will make recommendations to the advisory council. 

The advisory council will evaluate the recommendations 

and advise the sanctuary superintendent regarding the 

adequacy of existing zoning measures. The working group 

will be asked to make its recommendations within two years 

of the publication date of the Federal Register Notice notifying the public of the availability of the final management 

plan. [See Strategy EA 2.1] Appendix Q provides details 

on the membership and charge of the zoning marking 

group. Appendix R provides information on existing marine 

resources management zones that overlap the sanctuary.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

EBSM.5 Objective—Evaluate the Need

and Feasibility of Modifying the Sanctuary

Boundary

Background. The southern end of Jeffreys Ledge is included 

within the boundary of the SBNMS, whereas the majority 

of Jeffreys Ledge lies outside of the sanctuary. Jeffreys Ledge 

is an important habitat and resource area for many of the 

same species that frequent the sanctuary, but is a profoundly 

different habitat type. The seafloor habitat of Jeffreys Ledge 

consists primarily of bedrock rather than the sand, gravel, 

and mud habitats that principally comprise the SBNMS. 

Those differences aside, marine mammals will in the course 

of a feeding season frequent both the sanctuary and Jeffreys 

Ledge in search of forage species particularly herring. 

Large pelagic fish do the same as do many of the groundfish species. The two geographic areas are ecologically 

intertwined and could be considered one integral system. 

Based on this rationale, much public comment during scoping called for expanding the boundary of the sanctuary to 

include Jeffreys Ledge.

The SBNMS is well-suited as a sanctuary in that it was established in an area used preferentially by humpback whale 

juveniles and mature females (Robbins, 2007). These classes 

typically play important roles in large mammal population 

dynamics (Robbins, 2007), the first because of its sensitivity 

to environment and/or population density and the second 

because of its importance to population growth. While 

humpback whales presently have broad legislative protection in the U.S. waters of the GoM, the sanctuary provides 

an opportunity for focused management, including research, 

monitoring and enforcement. However, despite the appropriateness of its location, the size of SBNMS does not 

encompass the range of any individual humpback whale.

Proposals have been made to extend the SBNMS boundaries to the north to include more of Jeffreys Ledge (as noted 

above). However, Robbins (2007) indicates that the choice of 

areas would not have equal results where humpback whales 

are concerned. Adults move between all of the GoM areas 

studied, but the areas of particular importance to SBNMS 

whales were the Great South Channel and western Georges 

Bank. An extension to the south would incorporate the most 

common alternate summer habitat of SBNMS humpback 

whales, as well as an important habitat for juveniles and an 

area of routinely high humpback whale density (Figure 45a 

this document). Extension to the north would encompass 

fewer humpback whales, but a slightly different demographic than is presently observed in the sanctuary. Although both 

areas lie adjacent to the SBNMS, the relative importance of 

each area should be considered when evaluating the need 

for sanctuary boundary modification.

During management plan preparation, suggestions have 

been made to extend the sanctuary boundary to the east and 

north to include all or more of the “Level 3” habitat closed 

area established within the Western Gulf of Maine Closure 

Area (WGoMCA) (Figure 15). This area is closed indefinitely 

on a year-round basis to all bottom-tending mobile gear, 

bottom-tending gillnets, clam and scallop dredges, and 

shrimp trawls and includes a sizeable portion (approximately 50%) of Jeffreys Ledge. The WGoMCA currently overlaps 

22% of the sanctuary along the eastern boundary and is 

serving as a relatively unimpacted reference site for sanctuary research. Refer to the sidebar “Seafloor Habitat Recovery 

and Monitoring Project” in the section on Resources State in 

the Sanctuary.

In considering sanctuary boundary modification to include 

the “Level 3” portion of the WGoMCA, the following relationships could apply. Total boundary length and boundaryto-area ratio are smaller for conservation strategies that 

emphasize a single protected area versus those that allocate the same amount of habitat area among two or more 

sites (Cooke and Auster, 2006). A single large protected 

area in the sanctuary might be favored over several smaller 

ones for a number of reasons (Fogarty, 1999; Dayton et al., 

2000), including reduced socio-economic impact of habitat protection. Smaller boundary-to-area ratios also tend to 
212 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

reduce movement rates of mobile organisms from inside an 

area to outside (Polacheck, 1990; Lindholm et al., 2001). 

Thus larger areas may offer more protection to their inhabitants, particularly if exploitation occurs right on the boundary, as is occurring in the sanctuary (Figure 88, 2001–2002 

survey period). On the other hand, multiple sites increase 

both redundancy and the likelihood of including greater 

biodiversity.

The examples provided above are not specific recommendations. Instead, the discussion serves as a framework for 

fostering dialogue and envisioning some criteria that might 

be considered in evaluating sanctuary boundary modification within the context of ecosystem-based sanctuary 

management.

Strategies (1) To Evaluate the Need and Feasibility of Modifying the Sanctuary Boundary

(5.1) Evaluate the need and feasibility of modifying the 

sanctuary boundary to be more effective in achieving EBSM. 

The purpose of this strategy is to determine whether said 

or pertinent other modifications in the sanctuary boundary 

are warranted to better achieve ecosystem-based sanctuary 

management.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2009

Table 39. Estimated costs for EBSM action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Ask the advisory council to establish a science advisory 

working group. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5

(1.2) Convene a sanctuary science symposium. 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 4.0

(1.3) Form a science consortium. 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

(2.1) Design and implement an information management 

system. 2.0 40.0 70.0 50.0 40.0 202.0

(2.2) Design and implement a web portal for public access to 

databases. 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

(3.1) Define and operationalize the term ecological integrity. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.2) Develop programs to monitor and evaluate ecological 

integrity within the sanctuary. 500.0 650.0 700.0 700.0 700.0 3250.0

(3.3) Establish research programs directed at informing EBSM. 30.0 60.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 250.0

(3.4) Develop models that afford a predictive capability to 

better understand sanctuary dynamics and to guide EBSM. 0.0 40.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 100.0

(4.1) Continue to convene the zoning working group of the 

advisory council to: (1) evaluate the adequacy of existing 

zoning schemes in SBNMS, (2) address the scientific requirements to meet the goals of EBSM, and if needed (3) develop 

a modified zoning scheme including consideration of fully 

protected reserves.

1.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0

(5.1) Evaluate the need and feasibility of modifying the sanctuary boundaries to include Jeffrey’s Ledge. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 533.5 803.5 873.5 813.5 804.5 3828.5

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 213

Table 40. Performance measures for EBSM action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

The ecological integrity of the SBNMS is restored as a subset of a healthy functioning Gulf of Maine ecosystem.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2010, personnel and projects will 

be in place to implement an ecosystembased management program.

A community ecologist and database 

management technician will be hired.

Program personnel dedicated to ecosystem-based 

management: 0

Protect 

Resources

By 2009, a science advisory working 

group will be convened to help develop 

a revised science plan.

A revised SBNMS science plan will be 

developed.

Revision of existing 

science plan: 0

Protect 

Resources

By 2010, management protocols are 

in place to ensure that the ecological 

integrity of 22%* of the sanctuary will 

be fully restored.

Ecosystem-based management indicators 

will be established and monitored.

Percent of the sanctuary 

that is fully restored: 0

Protect 

Resources

* The WGoMCA restricting the use of bottom mobile fishing gear and gillnets overlaps with approximately 22% of the eastern portion 

of the sanctuary.
214 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Ecosystem Alteration

Action Plan

Goal

The goal of the EA AP is to reduce or mitigate identifiable 

impacts on key sanctuary resources due to human activities.

Objectives

The EA AP has three objectives and associated strategies to 

reduce or prevent ecosystem alteration (Table 41).

•	EA.1—Reduce Ecological Impacts from the Laying of

Submarine Cables and Pipelines

•	EA.2—Reduce Alteration of Benthic Habitat by Mobile

Fishing

•	EA.3—Reduce Ecological Impacts of Biomass Removal by

Fishing

The estimated costs for implementation of the EA AP are 

indicated in Table 42. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 43.

Issue Statement

The Ecosystem Alteration (EA) Action Plan (AP) makes 

recommendations to reduce or mitigate anthropogenic 

perturbations in SBNMS, as distinguished from impacts due 

to natural disturbance. Anthropogenic or human imposed 

impacts include the laying of submarine pipelines and 

cables, fishing activities, pollution and degradation of water 

quality, ocean dumping and marine debris, disposal of 

dredged materials, introduction of exotic species, offshore 

mariculture and coastal development activities. This action 

plan focuses on the laying of pipelines and cables and fishing 

activities. Other sources of ecosystem alteration are treated 

variously in other action plans, such as for ecosystem based 

management, water quality and interagency cooperation.
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 215

EA.1 Objective—Reduce Ecological Impacts

from the Laying of Submarine Cables and

Pipelines

Background. Public scoping raised concerns over the appropriateness of laying submarine cables and pipelines in the 

sanctuary. The proximity of the SBNMS to Boston increases 

the probability that the sanctuary will face future cable or 

pipeline proposals. The laying of cables and pipelines results 

in permanent or long-term emplacement of equipment and 

materials on or in the seabed. The risk of ecosystem alteration posed by pipelines is often considered several orders 

of magnitude greater than that posed by fiber optic cables, 

because pipelines are not as easily buried as cables and 

because the material they carry could pose harm if leaked 

to the environment.

The laying of cables and pipelines is a prohibited activity in 

the SBNMS under the existing alteration of the seabed regulation. However, prohibited activities can be permitted on 

a case-by-case basis. In August of 2000, the NMSP issued 

an Authorization/Special Use Permit (SUP) to 360Networks, 

Inc. [dba 360atlantic (USA) Inc.] to allow the laying of a 

high-capacity fiber optic cable to traverse approximately 

12.1 miles (19.8 kilometers) within the sanctuary. The high 

resolution, multi-beam topography map of the sanctuary 

was utilized to route the cable through soft sediments. An 

environmental impact statement was prepared prior to the 

issuance of the permit. In 2002, 360Networks Inc. filed for 

bankruptcy. The cable was later purchased by Columbia 

Ventures Corporation [dba Columbia Ventures US Acquisition LLC (“CVC USA”)] and is currently permitted to that 

firm.

[Note: The spatial extent of impacts from the laying of the 

fiber optic cable in SBNMS has been assessed and compared 

to the spatial extent of impacts from a single 4.5m width 

scallop dredge towed at 2.5m per second fished in the sanctuary. The total spatial extent of the area impacted by the 

laying of the fiber optic cable (0.0594 sq km) is the equivalent to 88 minutes spent fishing with a standard scallop 

dredge in the GoM. This represents 0.0027% of the sanctuary area. By comparison, work by Auster et al., (1996) for 

the entire GoM suggests that for 78% of the sanctuary area, 

i.e., excluding the WGoMCA overlap within the sanctuary, 

nearly every square kilometer is dragged by mobile fishing 

gear at least once per year on average. Refer to Figure 111a 

in this document for corroborating findings specific to the 

SBNMS. (see Objective EA.2)].

Strategies (1) To Reduce Ecological Impacts from the Laying 

of Cables and Pipelines

(1.1) Establish minimum criteria for special use permit 

applications for the laying of cables and pipelines. The 

following conditions for issuance of a permit should apply 

for the laying of cables or pipelines within SBNMS:

•	Appropriate mitigation and pre- and post-monitoring to

assess impacts to sanctuary resources will be performed 

by an independent contractor hired by the sanctuary at 

permittee expense.

•	The Environmental Impact Statement required of the applicant for a permit should ensure that cable and pipeline 

routing does not hinder pre-existing compatible uses.

•	The sanctuary shall have the option of having the cable

or pipeline removed at permittee expense, rather than 

leaving it in situ at end of serviceable life and in cases of 

permit violation.

•	The applicant should be required to post a performance

bond to ensure that permit safeguards are met.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2008

EA.2 Objective—Reduce Alteration of

Benthic Habitat by Mobile Fishing

Background. Review of scientific literature and preliminary 

results of related studies indicates that bottom mobile gears 

(scallop dredges and groundfish otter trawls) commonly 

fished in the SBNMS impose the greatest anthropogenic 

impact on benthic habitats. This impact is evidenced by the 

Table 41. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for EA action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

EA.1 Reduce Ecological Impacts 

from the Laying of Submarine Cables 

and Pipelines 

(1.1) Establish minimum criteria for special use permit applications for the 

laying of cables and pipelines. Low

EA.2 Reduce Alteration of Benthic 

Habitat by Mobile Fishing 

(2.1) Develop a process to establish reference areas that serve as benchmarks 

for discerning human and natural impacts on habitat alteration. High

(2.2) Develop a science plan to assess and mitigate benthic habitat alteration. High

EA.3 Reduce Ecological Impacts of 

Biomass Removal by Fishing Activity

(3.1) Minimize bycatch and discard of all species, in all fisheries (commercial 

and recreational), by all gear types. High

(3.2) Determine the effects of biomass removal of targeted species by commercial and recreational fishing on the ecological integrity of the sanctuary. High

(3.3) Develop a management strategy with NOAA Fisheries Service and the 

NEFMC to evaluate and protect an optimal forage base to maintain the ecological integrity of the sanctuary.High
216 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

loss or dispersal of physical features (e.g., piled boulder reefs 

and sand waves), or the loss of structure-forming organisms 

(e.g., hydroids, sponges, anemones, and bryozoans). Generally, these alterations have led to changes in the biomass, 

species diversity, age and size composition and productivity 

of the associated biota (Jennings and Kaiser, 1998; Collie, et 

al. 2000); changes that substantially alter the structure and 

function of biological communities.

Key factors affecting such changes include the type of 

bottom fishing gear, level of fishing effort, the spatial distribution of the fishing effort and the physical and biological 

characteristics of the bottom where fishing is conducted 

(McGee, 2004; Stevenson, 2004). Once a benthic habitat has been degraded by initial fishing pressure, it is not 

necessarily continuously degraded by continued fishing 

pressure. Although continued pressure does not allow the 

habitat to recover, it might retain sufficient productivity to 

remain viable as a commercial fishery (M. Kaiser, University 

of Wales, presentation to EA WG, 2004), but not fulfill all of 

its prior ecological functions.

Among specific benthic habitats, hard bottom (boulder and 

gravel) and mud substrata appear to be the most sensitive to 

the removal of physical and biological structure by mobile 

fishing gear, with coarse sand demonstrating the least 

impact (McGee, 2004; Stevenson, 2004). In SBNMS, the 

make-up of substratum type is approximately 38% boulder 

and gravel, 28% mud and 34% sand (SBNMS, unpublished 

data). By this measure, approximately two-thirds (66%) of 

the sanctuary’s benthic habitat is particularly vulnerable to 

the disturbance of bottom mobile fishing gear.

Typically, winter storms with strong winds from the northeast 

generate sufficient bottom currents to re-suspend sediments 

only at depths less than 85 m (NOAA, 2006). The majority 

(75%) of SBNMS is below the zone of natural perturbation 

by storm events. This means that direct physical disturbance 

of benthic habitats in the majority of the sanctuary occurs by 

anthropogenic activities (e.g., cable laying, bottom mobile 

fishing gear) rather than natural causes.

Groundfishing Effort within SBNMS. Substantial changes 

have occurred to groundfish fisheries since SBNMS was 

designated in 1992. At the time of designation, there was 

no limit to the number of days a vessel could fish. In 2004, 

most small groundfish fleet permit vessels were reduced to 

approximately 53 groundfish days-at-sea (DAS); that number 

was reduced to approximately 48 DAS in 2006.

Effort reduction actions taken by NOAA Fisheries Service 

and the NEFMC have likely decreased the frequency with 

which bottom otter trawl vessels fish the sanctuary. This 

could decrease the frequency with which some bottom 

habitats are trawled. Alternatively, DAS reductions could 

cause the larger vessels that currently bypass the sanctuary to fish closer to shore to reduce transit time. This could 

increase their fishing activities in the sanctuary.

Fishing restrictions have also reduced the spatial area available to bottom otter trawlers and probably provide a greater 

degree of protection to certain key habitats. However, the 

deep mud habitat (greater than 85 meters depth) is particularly sensitive and vulnerable to constant disturbance by 

bottom trawling and is not well represented within the areas 

closed to bottom impact gear.

A series of ‘rolling closures’ limit groundfishing in all or parts 

of SBNMS during certain specified months. The Western 

Gulf of Maine Closure Area (WGoMCA) prohibits bottom 

otter trawling and scallop dredging year-round in approximately 22% of the sanctuary. The Western GoM Habitat 

Closure, an area contained within the WGoMCA, provides 

additional restrictions.

While the substantive steps taken by NOAA Fisheries Service 

and the NEFMC to rebuild over-fished groundfish stocks in 

the WGoM may have the additional benefit of reducing 

benthic habitat alteration by mobile bottom fishing gears in 

the sanctuary, these measures are not entirely adequate to 

protect the structure and functional integrity of biological 

communities in the sanctuary.

For example, research conducted by the sanctuary within 

the “sliver” (i.e., area of sanctuary that overlaps with the 

WGoMCA) indicates that recovery from fishing of biological communities associated with mud seafloor habitat 

occurs on the order of a decade. And yet, seasonal “rolling 

closures” overlapping the sanctuary allow bottom dragging 

over sanctuary mud habitats annually. The rate of perturbation that occurs under rolling closures does not protect the 

structure and integrity of the biological communities associated with this habitat in the sanctuary. However, the rolling 

closures may be effective as a management tool to rebuild 

groundfish stocks.

Strategies (2) To Reduce Alteration of Benthic Habitat by 

Mobile Fishing

(2.1) Develop a process to establish reference areas that 

serve as benchmarks for discerning human and natural 

impacts on habitat alteration. There currently are no places 

within the sanctuary that can serve as true reference areas 

in the absence of direct human impacts. The WGoMCA, 

while serving as a relatively unimpacted site, is still subject 

to some fishing activities (Figure 107d). The lack of reference 

areas compromises NOAA’s ability to effectively manage, 

because there is no undisturbed, ‘research’ or ‘control’ area 

to serve as a baseline for differentiating the effects of human 

activities from natural disturbance. Reference areas are also 

needed to understand the processes of habitat recovery and 

the associated mechanisms of biological succession that lead 

to the establishment of mature benthic communities. [Note: 

This strategy will be addressed by the outcome of Strategy 

EBM 4.1, which addresses establishing a zoning working 

group to consider issues including reference areas.]

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(2.2) Develop a science plan to assess and mitigate benthic 

habitat alteration. Conduct and/or encourage research 

resulting in a greater understanding of benthic habitat 

alteration and ways to mitigate impacts from mobile bottom 

fishing gears. The research should be directed at determin-
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 217

ing how benthic habitats and their associated biological 

communities are structured and function in the presence 

and absence of fishing.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

2.2.1 Continue to conduct and encourage additional 

research on the impacts of bottom mobile gears 

on ecosystem alteration compared to other 

anthropogenic impacts and natural disturbance.

Status: Ongoing

2.2.2 Continue to conduct and encourage research to 

determine spatial patterns of fishing effort in the 

sanctuary, identify changes in effort over time 

and space, and assess how those changes may 

have impacted sanctuary resources.

Status: Ongoing

2.2.3 Conduct and/or encourage research to determine how changes in benthic habitat impact the 

recruitment and survival of commercial and noncommercial species.

Status: Planned, 2008

2.2.4 Encourage research on the development or 

improvement of low-impact mobile bottom fishing gear that is ‘environmentally sustainable’. 

Gear mitigations that leave benthic habitats and 

their associated physical and biogenic structure 

largely intact are more likely to be compatible 

with the mission, goals and objectives of the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2008

EA.3 Objective—Reduce Ecological Impacts

of Biomass Removal by Fishing Activity

Background. Biomass removal includes the targeted capture 

of commercial species above legally set minimum size/age 

thresholds; the bycatch and discard of unintended species 

caught across all size/age classes; and, the removal of 

species that function as important prey within the ecosystem. Biomass removal also includes structure-forming invertebrates comprising biogenic habitats damaged by fishing. 

The degree of ecosystem alteration by fishing depends on the 

scale of total biomass removal, the species-specific survival 

rate of the bycatch discarded, and the relative abundance of 

those species constituting both catch and bycatch.

Current information is inadequate to sufficiently understand the specific effects of biomass removal by fishing on 

the structuring and functioning of biological communities 

within SBNMS. However, it is highly likely that extraction 

has caused severe declines or shifts in some, but perhaps 

not all, ecosystem components and reduced the ecological 

integrity of the sanctuary. A fishery-independent, long-term, 

standardized database collected on the eastern Scotian Shelf 

off Nova Scotia revealed that during the past four decades, 

coherent, community-level reduction in body size, biomass 

and physiological condition have occurred in the resident 

demersal fish species (Choi et al., 2004). One of the leading hypotheses offered by the authors to explain the poor 

health of the resident groundfish was energy depletion in 

the system associated with the enormous biomass removal 

due to fishing.

Predators. The selective removal of top predators in large 

numbers (with attendant reduction in size and age structure 

of the species population) by commercial and recreational 

fishing has cascading effects on trophic (food web) dynamics that reshape the structure of biological communities and 

reduce ecological integrity. This effect is well documented 

in the scientific literature generally (e.g., Pauly et al., 1998; 

Tegner and Dayton, 1999) and the North Atlantic specifically (Myers and Worm, 2003; Pauly and McLean, 2003; 

Lotze and Milewski, 2004; Frank et al., 2005). The pervasive 

and disproportionate removal of larger, older fish among 

groundfish species in the GoM is indicated as a source of 

ecosystem dysfunction (e.g., Jackson et al., 2001; Steneck 

et al., 2004). In this larger context it is crucial to recognize 

that, while being commercially valuable, groundfish species 

function as ecologically important predators.

Atlantic cod act as keystone predators and formerly dominated northern hemisphere marine ecosystems (Frank et al., 

2005). As a marketable commodity, this species has been 

heavily exploited for centuries, particularly so in the last 50 

years. The modeling of cod biomass on Canada’s Scotian 

Shelf using historical records indicates that adult biomass 

today is a mere remnant (4%) of what it was in 1852, in an 

area known to have been fished since at least 1539 (Rosenberg et al., 2005). Stellwagen Bank has been fished for cod 

since at least 1614 (Claesson and McKenzie, 2005), and cod 

stocks there today are over-fished by current standards.

Examination of fish size-structure in SBNMS over a 38-year 

period (1963–2000) revealed that the maximum length of 17 

species of commercially and biologically important groundfish species all showed decreasing trends. For seven of the 

species (white hake, goosefish, winter flounder, silver hake, 

cod, yellowtail flounder, and haddock), decreases in maximum length ranged from 15% to 49%; maximum length 

of cod decreased by 27% (Crawford and Cook, in preparation). When later data were added (2001–2005), there was 

improvement in the abundance of large individuals of cod 

and haddock that is consistent with lower fishing mortality. 

Other species (particularly the flatfishes) showed signs of a 

reversing trend in maximum size but are still of concern. 

Prey. Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), American sand 

lance [sand eel] (Ammodytes dubius) and Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) are key prey components of the 

SBNMS food web. The harvest of these prey species and 

the unintended impacts such removals might have on the 

local abundance of higher trophic level predators is likely 

consequential (Overholtz and Link, 2006). These predator species include marine mammals (numerous of which 

are threatened or endangered), seabirds, and medium and 

large fishes (e.g., cod [Gadus morhua], Atlantic bluefin tuna 

[Thunnus thynnus]). Many of these predators are drawn to, 
218 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

and depend heavily on, the forage base that the sanctuary 

affords.

While managed fisheries for Atlantic herring and Atlantic 

mackerel exist in the GoM, there is no directed management of American sand lance in the western North Atlantic, 

nor does a commercial fishery for sand lance exist in that 

area (Overholtz et al., 2000). Because these prey species 

are important forage for whales, sea birds and popular fish 

species (Overholtz and Link, 2006), their being available 

and abundant in the sanctuary bears greatly on ecosystem 

function and the successful provision of ecosystem services 

(among them whale watching, commercial, charter/party 

boat, and recreational fishing).

Local depletion of Atlantic herring as a critical food source 

attracting and sustaining sanctuary wildlife is not a primary 

consideration in the development of regional fishery management plans. Trophic interactions and total consumption 

requirements of dependent wildlife are not explicitly considered in stock assessment models underlying these plans, 

rather predation is subsumed within the natural mortality 

rate. Yet the consumption of herring by upper trophic level 

predators (marine mammals, seabirds and piscivorous fish) 

in the GoM may have exceeded the estimate of natural 

mortality used in stock assessment models by more than 

fourfold in 1991 (Read and Brownstein, 2003).

While the amount of herring harvested from the sanctuary 

varies greatly year-to-year, landings can be relatively large 

(1mil.–17mil. lbs.) (NMFS/NEFSC VTR data, 1997-2005). 

Refer to Section IV. Resource States - Reduced Forage Base 

in this document for an expanded rationale why fishing for 

herring in the sanctuary is a concern. The sanctuary’s goal is 

not management of the herring stock, but rather the goal is 

to avoid disruption and depletion of prey fields by fisheries 

in this local area of critically important foraging habitat. This 

goal extends to sand lance as well.

Sand Lance. Sand lance availability is dependent on environmental conditions and predator-prey interactions, which 

can be highly variable and difficult to predict (Fogarty et 

al., 1991; Nelson and Ross, 1991). The availability of sand 

lance is associated with the species mix and abundance of 

its principal larval predators - herring and mackerel (Sherman et al., 1981). Herring has exhibited a dramatic increase 

in population in recent years, and it is uncertain how the 

ecosystem-shift favoring small pelagic species factors into 

the rate of predation on sand lance. While two species of 

sand lance frequent Massachusetts waters (Winters and 

Dailey, 1988), Ammodytes dubius predominates offshore 

within the sanctuary (L. Kaufman, Boston Univ., personal 

communication, 2006). 

There is the possibility that sand lance spawn in the sanctuary, where they deposit their eggs in sand habitats. What 

is seen as cyclic availability commonly attributed to coastwide movement, may partly be due to variations in year-class 

strength associated with local inter-annual spawning and 

recruitment success. While the principal offshore species 

of sand lance differ between the western (A. dubius) and 

eastern North Atlantic (A. marinus), their known biology is 

similar. Although sand lance larvae drift with currents, once 

metamorphosed at around six months, sand lance do not 

show extensive horizontal movements, but tend to remain 

associated with a particular patch of substrate (Gauld and 

Hutcheon, 1990; Pedersen et al., 1999), where they are 

susceptible to local depletion by fishing.

The sand lance (A. marinus) is the target of the largest singlespecies fishery in the North Sea with the total allowable catch 

(TAC) being set at 1 million tons per year (ICES, 1998). The 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has identified 

sand lance (A. dubius) as one of the major unexploited fish 

resources of the northwest Atlantic (http://www.dfo-mpo.

gc.ca/zone/underwater_sous-marin/SandLance/sandlanc_e.

html). While there is yet no fishery for sand lance in the 

GoM, if one were to develop the sanctuary area would 

certainly be targeted because of its historical high level of 

sand lance abundance. Sand lance occur within the SBNMS 

at higher levels of abundance than in any other area of the 

southern GoM (Figure 46 of the document).

The facts that (1) metamorphosed sand lance do not make 

extensive horizontal movements and are susceptible to 

local depletion, that (2) they are a keystone prey species and 

a principal component of the sanctuary ecosystem forage 

base important to dermersal and predatory pelagic fishes, 

seabirds and marine mammals, and that (3) they are an 

important predictor of the relative abundance of important 

cetacean species (endangered humpback and fin whales 

and protected minke whales) which frequent the sanctuary, 

all make it prudent to consider prohibiting fishing for sand 

lance in the sanctuary. The sanctuary merits and requires a 

higher standard of resource protection than other parts of 

the GoM, and the lack of a current fishery for sand lance 

should be seen as an advantage where important protection 

of an entire food web can be taken at no economic cost.

Bycatch. Bycatch is the unintentional capture of non-target 

species of fish, marine mammals, turtles, sea birds and 

invertebrates. Bycatch and discarding is a major component 

of the impact of fisheries on marine ecosystems and a significant source of collateral biological damage. Not only are 

the stocks of discarded species affected, but entire trophic 

webs and habitats may be disrupted to the point of greatly 

altering their structure and function at the community and 

ecosystem levels (Alverson and Hughes, 1996; Crowder 

and Murawski, 1998; Morgan and Chuenpagdee, 2003). 

The conservation problems associated with bycatch are well 

documented by the scientific community (e.g., Alversen et 

al., 1994; Hall, 1996; Kaiser and de Groot, 2000; Kelleher, 

2005).

An analysis of discarded bycatch in the USA in 2002-2003 

indicates that the shrimp and bottom trawl fisheries were 

responsible for 72 percent of the total discards by gear type, 

and the crustacean and demersal (groundfish) fisheries were 

responsible for 86 percent of the discards by target species 

type (Harrington et al., 2005). These gear types and target 

species types are prevalent among the fisheries prosecuted 

in the SBNMS. The northeast fisheries discard to landings 

ratio was 0.49 overall, among the highest in the nation, 
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 219

while the northeast groundfish discard to landings ratio 

was 1.790 (Harrington et al., 2005). This ratio indicates that 

discards of groundfish (e.g., spiny dogfish, skates, monkfish, 

hake) on a tonnage basis amounted to almost two times the 

landed catch.

Unfortunately, high bycatch rates can be found in fisheries that are currently struggling to rebuild, such as the New 

England groundfish fishery (Murawski et al., 1997), and 

some of the discard can be due to management requirements, not just fishing practices (Harrington et al., 2005). The 

most pressing and effective means of addressing problems 

of bycatch and associated ecosystem impacts is eliminating over-capitalization and over-fishing (Pauly et al., 2002). 

The most successful programs include clear financial incentives for fishermen to minimize bycatch by reducing costs or 

increasing value (Branch et al., 2005; Gilman et al., 2005). 

Change to more selective fishing gear continues to be an 

essential element of bycatch reduction programs.

More selective gear can mean higher-value landings for 

fishermen at potentially lower costs (Clucas and James, 

1997; Crowder and Murawski, 1998). Examples of gear 

changes that improve catch value and reduce bycatch in 

certain circumstances are the conversion of trawl fisheries 

to traps, switching from dragging to longlining in selected 

areas (NMFS, 2003), and the mandated use of larger mesh 

throughout the net or in panels to release certain sizes or 

species (Kelleher, 2005). Different gear modifications can 

have strikingly different impacts on catch rates for both 

bycatch and target species (Hall and Mainprize, 2005). 

The use of more selective gear requires specific incentives 

to improve selectivity and disincentives to limit unwanted 

levels of bycatch.

Strategies (3) To Reduce Ecological Impacts of Biomass 

Removal by Fishing Activity

(3.1) Minimize bycatch and discard of all species, in all 

fisheries (commercial and recreational), by all gear types.

Bycatch of target and non-target species should be minimized in the SBNMS to help restore species populations, 

food web complexity and the structure and function of 

biological communities.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2010

Activities:

3.1.1 Promote cooperative research with fishing organizations and fishery management agencies into 

methods to greatly reduce or eliminate all types 

of bycatch through gear modification.

Status: Planned, 2010

3.1.2 Convene periodic workshops to gather, assess and 

disseminate information concerning the ability of 

particular gear modifications to achieve desired 

goals in bycatch reduction.

Status: Planned, 2010

3.1.3 Ask the advisory council to form a working group 

to recommend criteria for ‘environmentally’ 

sustainable fishing gear.

Status: Planned, 2010

3.1.4 Develop and implement outreach and education programs, in partnership with relevant fishery organizations to promote environmentally 

sustainable gear methodologies as determined by 

SBNMS.

Status: Planned, 2010

3.1.5 Explore incentives to encourage fishermen to 

demonstrate the use of environmentally sustainable gear, such as through purchase assistance, 

operating subsidies or providing other means of 

acquisition.

Status: Planned, 2010

3.1.6 Coordinate with fishery management agencies, 

fishing groups and nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s) to develop a ‘study fleet’ of all 

vessel types fishing in the sanctuary. The purpose 

of the fleet would be to understand the differential 

rate of capture and composition of bycatch, and 

how the bycatch differs spatially and temporally. 

Data could be made available directly to the sanctuary or through a third party entity that would 

protect the individual identity of the contributors.

Status: Planned, 2010

(3.2) Determine the effects of biomass removal of targeted 

species by commercial and recreational fishing on the 

ecological integrity of the sanctuary. NOAA Fisheries 

Service has employed closed areas, effort reduction and 

gear modifications as tools to rebuild stocks of marketable 

species. These tools directly address population level effects 

of fishing as measured by rates of mortality, growth, reproduction and recruitment, for example. There is little to no 

understanding of how the removal of commercially and 

ecologically important fish/shellfish species, notably groundfish and lobsters, impacts the structure and functioning of 

biological communities within the sanctuary ( e.g., how is 

biological diversity mediated by predation and competition, 

what habitat-related species assemblages constitute climax 

communities, etc.).

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2010

Activities:

3.2.1 Establish historical baselines for fish populations 

in the sanctuary to develop the historical context 

for the area’s marine ecology and to assess the 

degree of ecosystem alteration. Determination 

of baselines will require archival research and 

study of the historical ecology of the sanctuary 

area back to colonial times and will draw on five 

primary sources: (1) early exploration narrative 

accounts, (2) scientific survey logbooks, (3) U.S. 

Fish Commission publications, (4) monthly fishery 

statistical bulletins for the northwest Atlantic, and 

(5) fishermen accounts and interviews.

Status: Ongoing
220 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

3.2.2 Coordinate with NOAA Fisheries Service and 

NEFMC in their attempts to rebuild and manage 

viable species populations of commercial fish/

shellfish in the sanctuary area. Work to ensure 

that stock rebuilding efforts also help restore the 

biological communities associated with these 

species and the ecological integrity of the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2009

3.2.3 Coordinate with NOAA Fisheries Service and 

NEFMC to conduct/encourage research into the 

characteristics (e.g., species, size, number, and 

degree of discard) of fish caught by recreational 

fishing within the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2009

(3.3) Develop a management strategy with NOAA Fisheries 

Service and the NEFMC to evaluate and protect an optimal forage base to maintain the ecological integrity of the 

sanctuary. Forage species such as Atlantic herring, squid, 

sand lance (sand eels) and Atlantic mackerel are an essential 

trophic resource for larger fishes, marine mammals and sea 

birds. Historically these prey species have been seasonally 

abundant in the sanctuary and have attracted numerous 

major predator species. The abundance of these predator 

species (e.g., large whales, bluefin tuna and cod) is central 

and crucial to supporting commercial fishing, ecotourism 

and recreation in the sanctuary. Directed fisheries on these 

prey species may be decreasing local abundance of both 

prey and predators, thereby degrading the ecological integrity of SBNMS and diminishing the sanctuary’s fuller utility.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

3.3.1 Recommend that NOAA Fisheries Service consider implementing a permanent ban on the exploitation of sand eels (Ammodytes spp.) within the 

SBNMS.

Status: Planned, 2008

3.3.2 Monitor and assess the results of Amendment 1 

to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan 

as it relates to reduced prey availability due to 

extraction from the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2008

3.3.3 Conduct/encourage research to determine the 

functional importance of prey species within the 

sanctuary environment and to ascertain how the 

fisheries for prey species affect the ecological 

integrity of the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2008

3.3.4 Conduct/encourage research to understand the 

inter-relationships between, and the population 

dynamics of, sand lance, mackerel and herring 

within the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2008

3.3.5 Conduct/encourage research to understand the 

inter-annual variability in abundance of sand 

lance and what environmental factors drive this 

variability within the sanctuary.

Status: Planned, 2008

Table 42. Estimated costs for EA action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Establish minimum criteria for permit applications for the 

laying of cables and pipelines. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.1) Develop a process to establish reference areas that serve 

as benchmarks for discerning human and natural impacts on 

habitat alteration.

1.0 2.0 15.0 2.0 2.0 22.0

(2.2) Develop a science plan to assess and mitigate benthic 

habitat alteration. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.1) Minimize bycatch and discard of all species, in all fisheries (commercial and recreational), by all gear types. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.2) Determine the effects of the biomass removal of targeted 

species by commercial and recreational fishing on the ecological integrity of the sanctuary.2.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 42.0

(3.3) Develop a management strategy with NOAA Fisheries 

Service and the NEFMC to evaluate and protect an optimal 

forage base to maintain the ecological integrity of the sanctuary.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 3.0 12.0 27.0 13.0 13.0 68.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 221

Table 43. Performance measures for EA action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

Ecosystem alteration resulting from human activities is reduced.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2009, the sanctuary will complete 

study on the relative impact of mobile 

bottom gear on seafloor habitats 

compared to other anthropogenic 

impacts and natural disturbances over 

a decade. 

SBNMS will finalize report on the results 

of the Seafloor Habitat Recovery Monitoring Program (SHRMP).

Years of results from 

SHRMP: 6 of 10 planned

Protect 

Resources

By 2011, 50% of the bottom otter-trawl 

and dredge fishermen in the sanctuary 

will be using fishing gear that reduces 

bycatch and habitat impacts.

SBNMS will partner with NMFS and 

NEFMC to keep track of the number of 

commercial fishing vessels using reducedimpact gear.

Percent of bottom ottertrawl and dredge fishermen using reducedimpact gear: 0*Protect 

Resources

By 2009, the key forage species in the 

sanctuary, sand lance (sand eels) and 

Atlantic herring, will be protected from 

local depletion.

SBNMS will document results of consultation with NMFS NERO and NEFMC on 

steps taken to prevent local depletion of 

key forage species within the sanctuary.

Controls to prevent local 

depletion of key forage 

species within the sanctuary: 0

Protect 

Resources

* It is understood that gear currently in use in these fisheries represents a reduction in impact relative to the recent past. However, the 

baseline is calculated with respect to current conditions and efforts to improve upon them.
222 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Water Quality

Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Water Quality (WQ) Action Plan (AP) makes recommendations to address water quality concerns within 

SBNMS. Point and non-point sources of pollution, both 

sea and shore-based, may be degrading the quality of the 

sanctuary’s waters. NOAA must ensure that the quality of 

water within its boundary and in surrounding areas does no 

harm to the site’s living marine and cultural resources. The 

following two needs were identified: to assess water quality 

and circulation to characterize baseline conditions, and to 

reduce pollutant discharges and waste streams that may be 

negatively impacting sanctuary resources.

Goal

The goal of the WQ AP is to monitor, assess and maintain 

water quality in the sanctuary for the protection of living 

and cultural resources and to foster cooperation with crossjurisdictional partners that are charged with understanding, 

protecting and enhancing water quality.

Objectives

The WQ AP has two objectives and associated strategies 

to assess and improve water quality in the sanctuary (Table 

44).

•	WQ.1—Assess Water Quality and Circulation

•	WQ.2—Reduce Pollutant Discharges and Waste Streams

That May Affect the Sanctuary

The estimated costs for implementation of the WQ AP are 

indicated in Table 45. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 46.
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 223

WQ.1 Objective—Assess Water Quality and

Circulation

Background. The sanctuary’s water quality monitoring 

program (albeit limited) has been in place for several years 

primarily to determine whether the MWRA outfall, which 

began operating in September 2000, was causing increased 

nutrient loading and eutrophication in the sanctuary. The 

MWRA outfall discharges over 300 million gallons daily; 

it is located twelve miles offshore of the mouth of Boston 

Harbor and nine miles from the western boundary of the 

sanctuary. Several other waste water treatment facilities 

discharge into Massachusetts Bay to the north and west of 

the sanctuary as well. In 2001, SBNMS added four stations 

to MWRA’s existing five stations within the sanctuary to 

leverage resources and standardize information for integration with ongoing monitoring. The four additional stations 

are sampled in August and October, coincident with two of 

the six MWRA surveys conducted each year.

The water quality sampling includes measurements of 

physical variables (salinity, temperature, density), nutrients, 

chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen, as well as phytoplankton 

and zooplankton. The four additional sanctuary stations are 

strategically placed to detect nutrient inputs to the sanctuary from the GoM (notably discharges from the Merrimack 

River) to the north and from the MWRA outfall to the west. 

The data contribute to inferences about fine scale ocean 

circulation patterns and water column productivity in 

SBNMS, and are used in the 3-dimensional model that has 

been developed by MWRA to understand how the system 

might respond to increased or decreased levels of nutrients, 

dilution of outfall discharge and dispersion.

Much of the pollution reaching the sanctuary comes from 

non-point sources or from distant point sources that are not 

easy to control. Air pollution from power plants, some as far 

away as the Midwest, discharge a variety of chemicals onto 

the Massachusetts Bay, some of which are accumulated by 

organisms. In addition, the sanctuary area is heavily traveled 

by commercial and recreational vessels and cruise ships 

that discharge wastes during their voyages. Other sources 

of contamination include clean dredged material dumped 

under EPA permit at the MBDS located adjacent to the sanctuary’s western boundary, and disturbances during the laying 

of underwater pipes and cables (only one of which crosses 

the sanctuary). Of concern are the cumulative impacts of 

these multiple sources that may affect the resources of the 

sanctuary.

Strategies (3) To Assess Water Quality and Circulation

(1.1) Develop and Implement a Water Quality Monitoring 

Plan. A water quality monitoring plan for SBNMS will: (1) 

highlight priority areas for implementation of a monitoring 

program, (2) review current oceanographic modeling and 

new technologies that may provide additional supporting 

information, (3) integrate data into models to assess the 

health of the sanctuary and (4) identify the need to translate scientific data into information for managers and the 

public.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

1.1.1 Work with the advisory council to establish a 

science and technical working group of the advisory council to advise the advisory council, which 

will in turn advise the sanctuary superintendent, 

on water quality issues. The working group will 

review the existing monitoring program and related 

collaborations, identify specific monitoring questions and help the sanctuary develop a monitoring 

and research plan. The plan will: (1) evaluate the 

MWRA outfall and other sources of contaminants 

and pollutants; (2) present the results and analysis of the current monitoring program and incorporate findings into recommended management 

actions, as appropriate; (3) coordinate water quality monitoring with other monitoring and research 

activities within the sanctuary and the sanctuary 

system (e.g., system-wide monitoring); (4) develop 

a monitoring program to sample sanctuary waters 

after episodic pollution events (such as a MWRA 

failure and/or storm-water overflows); (5) examine 

the cause and effect relationship between shorebased point source discharges and impacts to the 

Table 44. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for WQ action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

WQ.1 Assess Water Quality and 

Circulation 

(1.1) Develop and Implement a Water Quality Monitoring Plan. High

(1.2) Characterize the contaminant loading to the sanctuary from sources. Low

(1.3) Encourage research and monitoring of endocrine disrupters and their 

effects on sanctuary resources. Low

WQ.2 Reduce Pollutant Discharges 

and Waste Streams That May Affect 

the Sanctuary 

(2.1) Reduce threats to sanctuary water quality from vessel wastewater 

discharges (other than ballast water). High

(2.2) Reduce ballast water exchanges in the sanctuary. High

(2.3) Reduce impacts of municipal and other shore-based waste water 

streams. Low

(2.4) Develop contingency plans to address actions and responsibilities to 

Remediate catastrophic water quality events in the sanctuary and support 

programs that prevent water pollution events.

Medium
224 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

sanctuary ecosystem, including discussion of air 

deposition and non-point source urban runoff, 

and (6) evaluate the use and utility of models (e.g., 

harmful algal blooms [HAB], Bays Eutrophication 

Model [BEM]).

Status: Planned, 2008

(1.2) Characterize the contaminant loading to the sanctuary from respective sources. Monitoring programs are 

most effective when they are designed around specific 

questions. Without understanding the loading of nutrients, 

metals, organic chemicals and other pollutants from respective sources (air, vessels, outfalls, and other activities), it is 

difficult to develop a monitoring program that will provide 

useful results and identify ways to answer some of the more 

challenging ecosystem-based questions.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2010

(1.3) Encourage research and monitoring of endocrine 

disrupters and their effects on sanctuary resources. Current 

research indicates that endocrine disruptors (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], pesticides) may pose detrimental effects on 

sanctuary resources and suggests the need for vigilance 

and continued research. Endocrine disruptors may enter 

the sanctuary through numerous sources, including sewage 

outfalls, runoff and air deposition.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2011

WQ.2 Objective—Reduce Pollutant

Discharges and Waste Streams That May Affect

the Sanctuary

Background. Recognizing that the sanctuary is home to 

many endangered marine mammals, seabird, turtle and fish 

species, and is a place where fish are caught for human 

consumption and where visitors seek recreation, it is critical 

to protect water quality. The first two strategies that follow 

discuss efforts to reduce water pollution threats from vessel 

discharges that are part of regular vessel operation. The 

third strategy addresses sanctuary involvement in the reduction of threats from sewage effluents and other shore-side 

wastewater streams. The fourth strategy focuses on response 

to or prevention of catastrophic events, such as oil and other 

hazardous spills or releases of raw sewage.

Strategies (4) To Reduce Pollutant Discharges and Waste 

Streams That May Affect the Sanctuary

(2.1) Reduce Threats to sanctuary water quality from vessel 

wastewater discharges (other than ballast water). The sanctuary is an area of special national significance and has the 

responsibility to maintain the highest possible water quality. 

Any contribution of pollutants from waste streams constitutes potential threats to the safety of sanctuary resources. 

Understanding the potential impacts of these waste streams 

is critical in the development of best management practices 

for water quality.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

2.1.1 In addition to disseminating information on 

the current sanctuary regulations addressing 

discharge of black water, oily bilge water, hazardous chemicals, solid wastes, and fish wastes in 

excess of quantities produced by traditional 

fishing methods within the sanctuary, encourage vessels transiting sanctuary waters to abstain 

from other discharge through voluntary compliance. Include a reporting component within the 

guidelines for vessels to provide documentation 

on discharge locations.

Status: Planned, 2009

2.1.2 Seek designation of the sanctuary as a No 

Discharge Area (NDA) under relevant law.

Status: Planned, 2009

2.1.3 Develop an outreach campaign with industry and 

recreation organizations to encourage ‘green’ or 

environmentally sustainable boating and cruising.

The objective is to obtain compliance on a voluntary SBNMS NDA for all waste streams except 

engine cooling water.

Status: Planned, 2010

2.1.4 Support development of pump-out facilities for 

both large and small vessels and support creative 

solutions in ports and harbors that host vessels 

that visit the sanctuary.

Status: Ongoing

2.1.5 Develop a directed research program that examines the cause and effect relationship between 

discharges/waste water streams and impacts to 

the ecosystem.

Status: Planned, 2011

(2.2) Reduce ballast water exchanges in the sanctuary.

Current efforts in the Northeast are focusing on a regional 

ballast water management plan which includes identification of scientifically based alternative ballast water exchange 

zones, actions for ports and harbors and increased pressures 

for compliance with current voluntary ballast water management efforts. Because of the potential introduction of exotic 

species and other threats to the ecological integrity of the 

sanctuary, it is important to reduce (if not outright prohibit) 

ballast water exchanges in and near the sanctuary.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

2.2.1 Encourage prevention of introductions of invasive 

species through development of ballast water 

exchange guidelines for the sanctuary through 

memorandum of understanding with cruise lines 

and the shipping industry and other shipping 

related sources.

Status: Planned, 2009

(2.3) Reduce impacts of municipal and other shore-based 

waste water streams. The MWRA outfall is the largest 
VII. Action Plans—Ecosystem Protection 225

anthropogenic point source of nutrient inputs to the Massachusetts Bay system. While scientific studies indicate that 

effluent discharges from the MWRA outfall are not a nutrient concern to Massachusetts Bay and SBNMS, there is 

discussion and concern over levels of chlorine discharge in 

the immediate area of the outfall diffusers. Added demands 

on this system, and/or the addition of new sewage outfalls 

into Massachusetts Bay; however, may introduce additional 

nutrients and pollutants that could affect the sanctuary. 

Cumulative impacts of all waste streams are also unknown 

at this time and should be monitored.

MWRA’s NPDES permit requires an annual report to the 

sanctuary reviewing any effects on sanctuary resources by 

the MWRA outfall effluent. Any new or expanded waste 

streams entering Massachusetts Bay, which might affect sanctuary resources, will need a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit and should incorporate 

sanctuary monitoring and reporting components developed 

in consultation with the sanctuary.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2010

Activities:

2.3.1 Review and comment on all NPDES requests for 

municipal wastewater streams that may impact 

sanctuary waters, and require sanctuary monitoring and reporting components to any NPDES 

permit.

Status: Planned, 2009

2.3.2 Continue to provide representation on the MWRA 

Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel 

(OMSAP) to track actions that may have impacts 

on the sanctuary.

Status: Ongoing

(2.4.) Develop contingency plans to address actions and 

responsibilities to remediate catastrophic water quality 

events in the sanctuary and support programs that prevent 

water pollution events. The sanctuary has worked with the 

USCG and NOAA’s Hazardous Materials Office to develop 

contingency plans for oil spills and other hazardous material spills that may occur in SBNMS (see Strategies IC 2.2 and 

2.3). Continued coordination in this effort is essential for the 

future protection of sanctuary water quality and resources in 

the event of a spill.

Other significant and possibly catastrophic events may 

occur involving other pollutants, most significantly the 

MWRA outfall and the release of partially treated or raw 

sewage. MWRA’s emergency response plan for the outfall 

covers the possibility of catastrophic failure from natural 

hazards, including coastal storms (e.g., hurricanes, tornadic 

events, northeasters and earthquakes).

[Note: The cumulative effects of even small events may also 

have a detrimental effect on sanctuary water quality, including such activities as lightering (the transfer of petroleumbased matter, which is illegal in the sanctuary) and small 

vessel collisions with the accompanying release of stored 

fuel products. In these cases, prevention is the preferred 

route as opposed to containment and cleanup.]

Priority: Medium

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.4.1 Continue to work with the USCG and NOAA 

Hazardous Materials Office in the updating of 

oil spill and hazardous material spill contingency 

plans for the sanctuary.

Status: Ongoing

2.4.2 Work with MWRA to develop a sanctuary component to its emergency response plan for the 

outfall and make this information transparent to 

the public.

Status: Planned, 2009

Table 45. Estimated costs for WQ action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Develop and implement a water quality monitoring plan 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0

(1.2) Characterize the contaminant loading to the sanctuary 

from sources. 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 55.0

(1.3) Encourage research and monitoring of endocrine disrupters and their effects on sanctuary resources. 0.0 15.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 65.0

(2.1) Reduce threats to sanctuary water quality from vessel 

wastewater discharges (other than ballast water). 0.0 10.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

(2.2) Reduce ballast water exchanges in the sanctuary. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.3) Reduce impacts of municipal and other shore-based waste 

water streams. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.4) Develop contingency plans to address actions and responsibilities to remediate catastrophic water quality events in the 

sanctuary and support programs that prevent water pollution 

events.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 15.0 55.0 50.0 35.0 10.0 165.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
226 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 46. Performance measures for WQ action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

Water quality in the sanctuary is monitored, assessed, and improved for the protection of living marine and cultural resources.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2010, 50% of documented commercial passenger vessels will adhere to 

new guidelines on reducing discharges 

in the sanctuary.

SBNMS will track the number of companies that adhere to guidelines by contacting them directly.Commercial passenger 

vessels adhering to guidelines: 0

Water Quality

By 2009, data from the water quality 

monitoring program will be made available to the public via internet by at most 

six months after collection.

SBNMS will track the time elapsed 

between collection of water quality 

monitoring data and posting of same data 

online.

Water quality monitoring 

data available to public: 

0

Water Quality

By 2009, a science and technical working group will be convened to help 

develop a water quality monitoring 

plan.

A SBNMS water quality monitoring plan 

will be developed.

Existing water quality 

monitoring plan: 0

Water Quality

By 2010, the sanctuary will be designated as a No Discharge Area (NDA)NDA status will be achieved. Provisions to control 

vessel wastewater 

discharges in sanctuary: 

0

Water Quality

By 2010, ballast water exchange guidelines to prevent introduction of invasive 

species will be established.

SBNMS will enter into formal agreements 

with cruise line and shipping interests that 

transit the sanctuary.

Provisions to control 

ballast water exchanges 

in sanctuary: 0

Water Quality
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 227

The marine mammal fauna of SBNMS are diverse and 

have significant ecological, aesthetic and economic 

value to the communities of New England. For many of 

these species, some of which are threatened or highly 

endangered, waters of the sanctuary serve as primary 

habitat for critical activities that include feeding and 

nursing. The sanctuary is a high-use area for commercial 

and recreational vessel traffic that can cause disturbance 

to or collide with whales, and commercial fisheries in 

the sanctuary are identified entanglement risks.

Three action plans underscore public scoping concerns 

regarding marine mammal protection in the sanctuary. 

The Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance (MMBD) 

Action Plan establishes a framework to address the 

potential for marine mammal harassment and behavioral 

disturbance resulting from whale watching, tuna fishing, aircraft overflights and noise pollution. The Marine 

Mammal Vessel Strike (MMVS) Action Plan identifies 

means to assess and reduce marine mammal vessel collision that cause serious injury and mortality. The Marine 

Mammal Entanglement (MME) Action Plan characterizes 

the threat of marine mammal entanglement with fishing 

gear. Each plan formulates methods to work with user 

groups and cross-jurisdictional partners to minimize 

risk.

Marine Mammal Protection

1. Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance

2. Marine Mammal Vessel Strike

3. Marine Mammal Entanglement
228 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance

Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance (MMBD) 

Action Plan (AP) makes recommendations to reduce the 

risk of behavioral disturbance and harassment of marine 

mammals resulting from the following activities: whale 

watching, tuna fishing, aircraft overflights and noise pollution. SBNMS serves as a major feeding ground for seven 

species of endangered, threatened and protected whales 

and smaller cetaceans. The sanctuary is also a high use area 

for commercial and recreational vessel traffic and, consequently, a high-risk area for marine mammal disturbance by 

human-induced activities within and around the sanctuary.

Goal

The goal of the MMBD AP is to strengthen the protection of 

marine mammals, particularly the threatened and endangered large whales, by assessing and minimizing behavioral 

disturbance and harassment and by fostering cooperation 

with agencies having cross-jurisdictional responsibilities 

that affect them.

Objectives

The MMBD AP has three objectives and associated strategies to reduce the risk of behavioral disturbance and harassment of marine mammals (Table 47).

The objectives are as follows:

•	MMBD.1—Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by Vessels

•	MMBD.2—Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by Noise

•	MMBD.3—Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by Aircraft

The estimated costs for implementation of the MMBD AP 

are indicated in Table 48. The performance measures are 

listed in Table 49.
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 229

MMBD.1 Objective—Reduce Marine Mammal

Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by

Vessels

Background. This objective is principally directed at the 

activities of vessels less than 300 gross tons, which include 

whale watching, certain commercial fishing (e.g., tuna 

harpoon and trolling), and recreational vessels that actively 

seek to approach whales. This does not imply that larger 

vessels are of no concern, and they are addressed more 

directly under the Marine Mammal Vessel Strike action 

plan. Noise disturbance is addressed under MMBD.2.

There are more than fifteen commercial whale watch 

companies operating in SBNMS, with more than twenty 

boats departing multiple times daily from April through 

November. Commercial whale watching has the potential 

to be the most effective means of providing experiential 

education to visitors in the sanctuary and, thereby, further 

the sanctuary’s conservation and outreach goals. More than 

a million people visit the sanctuary yearly aboard these platforms, which is approximately the same number of people 

that annually visit the New England Aquarium (NEAQ) in 

Boston.

There is increasing concern regarding the short-and longterm impacts of whale watching on the targeted large 

whales. Impact studies worldwide have shown: changes in 

ventilation rate (Baker, 1988), avoidance behavior (Donovan, 1986), changes in habitat use (Corkeron, 1995) and 

abandonment of key habitat (Glockner-Ferrari and Ferrari, 

1990) in relation to whale watching. There is also the risk 

of whales being struck by vessels that approach too close. 

These concerns are compounded by the increase in popularity of whale watching, not just on commercial vessels, 

but privately owned recreational vessels as well.

In an attempt to minimize the impacts of whale watching, 

NOAA established regional guidelines in the Northeast in 

1985. The guidelines were published in 1999 and remain 

in effect today; the guidelines are voluntary and difficult 

to enforce. A recent study conducted over several years in 

the sanctuary indicates that compliance with the guidelines 

is extremely low across the commercial whale watch fleet 

(Wiley et al., 2006). Because the fleet did not adhere to the 

guidelines, it was not possible to determine if the guidelines were effective. The high degree of non-compliance, 

however, indicates that whale watching ‘guidelines’ cannot 

be relied upon as a voluntary measure to reduce the risk of 

behavioral disturbance within the sanctuary.

While the compliance study was directed at commercial 

whale watch vessels, behavioral disturbance is understood to be a larger problem including whale watching by 

privately-owned vessels as well. Recreational vessels are 

often sighted in close proximity to whales. The fast speed 

at which these vessels can travel impairs the operator’s ability to respond quickly and safely to surfacing whales. The 

vessel’s low height above the water reduces the horizon 

for observation and, therefore, is more susceptible to glare, 

which further impedes timely detection.

Other activities that may contribute to behavioral disturbance of large whales, based on reports and observations of 

whale watch naturalists, include tuna fishing and recreational vessels moving through bubble clouds and bubble nets 

made by feeding humpback whales, and close approaches 

by recreational watercraft. Tuna fishermen have stated that 

they target whales and whale watching boats in the sanctuary because of the possible presence of sand lance and 

herring on which baleen whales and tuna feed (pers comm. 

MMBD WG, 2004).

Table 47. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for MMBD action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

MMBD.1 Reduce Marine Mammal 

Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by Vessels 

(1.1) Develop and implement management measures that mitigate behavioral 

disturbance and risk to whales due to vessel speed and close approach. High

(1.2) Develop a process to consider prohibiting vessels from transiting through 

humpback whale bubble clouds and/or nets. High

(1.3) Conduct risk assessment on other activities that could disturb marine 

mammals. Low

(1.4) Develop a research program to better understand vessel interactions with 

whales. High

MMBD.2 Reduce Marine Mammal 

Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by Noise 

(2.1) Establish a Marine Noise Consortium to identify noise sources and possible effects. High

(2.2) Develop a marine acoustics research program to establish baseline noise 

levels and long-term noise budgets. High

(2.3) Develop a policy framework for investigating and mitigating noise 

impacts within SBNMS. High

MMBD.3 Reduce Marine Mammal 

Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by Aircraft 

(3.1) Identify information gaps and gather data on overflight activities to determine whether they disturb marine mammals. Low

(3.2) Develop outreach advisories with NOAA Fisheries Service to inform the 

aviation community regarding overflight in proximity to whales. Low
230 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Strategies (4) To Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral 

Disturbance and Harassment by Vessels

(1.1) Develop and implement management measures that 

mitigate behavioral disturbance and risk to whales due to 

vessel speed and close approach. Marine mammals within 

the SBNMS are the focus of both commercial and recreational whale watching. SBNMS will consider regulating whale 

watching in the sanctuary based on the following concerns: 

(1) past incidents in which commercial whale watch vessels 

and private boaters have struck whales; (2) complaints that 

vessel operations appeared to disrupt patterns of normal 

behavior (e.g., separating mothers from dependent calves, 

preventing whales from surfacing in ‘bubble clouds’ made 

during foraging bouts, etc.), and (3) the documented noncompliance with NOAA whale watching guidelines by the 

commercial whale watch fleet.

Regulations seem warranted because the sanctuary was 

created in large part to safeguard Stellwagen Bank’s historic 

importance as a feeding area and nursery for threatened and 

endangered whales. Existing technology has proven reliable 

and effective in measuring vessel speed and distance relative to whales and can be used in enforcement. Regulation 

by SBNMS would be conducted in cooperation and consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service NERO.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

1.1.1 Establish criteria for speed controls/restrictions.

Document, analyze and assess information pertinent to understanding the relationship between 

vessel speed and whale strike. Consider amending 

sanctuary regulations to include resource protection measures associated with vessel speed.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.1.2 Establish criteria for close approach. Document, 

analyze and assess information pertinent to risk to 

whales due to close approach of vessels. Consider amending sanctuary regulations to include 

resource protection measures associated with 

close approach distance.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.1.3 Establish a SBNMS Naturalist Certification 

program. Sanctuary-certified naturalists on 

commercial whale watch vessels would provide 

the sanctuary with a corps of trained experts, who 

can provide sanctuary outreach to a large segment 

of the public. Development of a sanctuary-certified 

naturalist program would benefit from the cooperation and involvement of education partners and 

the whale watch industry in project design and 

implementation. Sanctuary naturalist certification 

would create added market value for participating 

companies.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.1.4 Establish a SBNMS Commercial Whale Watch 

Operator Certification program. The safe operation of commercial whale watch vessels in proximity to endangered/threatened whales is needed 

to guard against behavioral disturbance and vessel 

strike. The development of a sanctuary-certified 

operator program would be based on the cooperation and involvement of vessel captains/owners 

to benefit from their experience, critical skills 

and knowledge. Sanctuary operator certification 

would create added market value for participating 

companies.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.1.5 Consider establishing a SBNMS Commercial 

Whale Watch Special Use Permit (SUP). The SUP 

would require that all permittees acquire and 

hold both the SBNMS Commercial Whale Watch 

Naturalist Certificate and the SBNMS Commercial 

Whale Watch Operators Certificate. If the sanctuary were to adopt whale watch regulations, the SUP 

would allow permittees limited close approach to 

whales in a manner similar to that prescribed in 

the current NOAA whale watch guidelines.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.1.6 Consider establishing a SBNMS Education Partnership Accord with commercial whale watch 

companies whose vessels operate under the 

SBNMS Commercial Whale Watch SUP. The 

SBNMS Education Partnership Accord would 

provide the means to leverage and promote 

sanctuary outreach through cooperative product 

branding and cross-merchandizing with participating whale watch companies operating under 

terms of the SBNMS SUP. The program would 

be conducted under the symbol-use authorizing 

provisions of the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act, in cooperation with the non-profit National 

Marine Sanctuary Foundation. Outreach products 

could potentially include, but not be limited to, 

CDs, books, posters, logo mementos and apparel, 

etc. Standards for content and quality assurance 

would be established by the NMSP, in consultation with DOC.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.1.7 Investigate the possibility of establishing a 

SBNMS Small-Grants Whale Watch Education/

Outreach program. A competitive, annual smallgrants program would be explored for sanctuarycertified naturalists working on vessels operating 

under the SBNMS Commercial Whale Watch 

SUP. The grants would be awarded as an incentive to improve education and outreach aboard 

sanctuary certified whale watch boats.

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.2) Develop a process to consider prohibiting vessels 

from transiting through humpback whale bubble clouds 

and/or nets. Vessels transiting bubble clouds or bubble nets 

may strike large whales or disrupt critically important feeding behaviors. Whales actively engaged in capturing elusive 
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 231

prey by these behaviors may be inattentive to other activities 

in their environment and could be particularly susceptible 

to being struck by a transiting vessel.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

(1.3) Conduct risk assessment on other activities that could 

disturb marine mammals. Additional activities that have the 

potential to affect critical whale behaviors include motorized personal watercraft and kayaks in proximity to whales, 

and planes and airships. Many of these activities have been 

managed in other areas (e.g., Alaska, Hawaii). The sanctuary should assess and understand their possible impacts 

and, if necessary, manage these activities in SBNMS.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2010

(1.4) Develop a research program to better understand vessel 

interactions with whales. Research can provide necessary 

information to inform future protective efforts by the sanctuary. [Note: Information on short-and long-term impacts of 

vessels and their associated noise on whales is particularly 

needed (see Objective MMBD.3—Establish Protocols for 

Noise Disturbance in the Vicinity of Whales).]

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

1.4.1 Monitor the number of whale watch vessels (e.g., 

commercial and recreational) using the sanctuary to determine trends in whale watching activity over time. Continue to conduct standardized 

trackline survey studies to monitor the spatial and 

temporal distribution of whales and vessels in the 

sanctuary.

Status: Ongoing

1.4.2 Encourage species recognition and individual 

identification studies of whales, as such studies 

provide an opportunity to determine the longterm impacts of behavioral disturbance.

Status: Ongoing

1.4.3 Encourage partner institutions and agencies to 

consider how existing data and shared scientific 

interests might be better applied to understanding 

the impacts of behavioral disturbance on whales.

Status: Ongoing

1.4.4 Investigate research strategies to determine shortterm and cumulative impacts of human activities 

on whales, including but not limited to assessing 

harassment and disruption of marine mammals 

(i.e., to better define approach protocols).

Status: Ongoing

1.4.5 Investigate non-invasive tagging programs to 

provide a more continuous record of whale 

behavior.

Status: Ongoing

MMBD.2 Objective—Reduce Marine Mammal

Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by

Noise

Background. People and marine animals use sound in the 

sea to accomplish many tasks. Because light travels relatively short distances in the ocean, sound is often used for 

such basic activities as finding food or a mate, navigating and communicating. For that reason, the oceans are 

filled with sound generated by a variety of natural sources, 

including not only marine life but also abiotic sources such 

as breaking waves, earthquakes, wind and rain. Underwater sound is also generated by a variety of anthropogenic 

sources, such as vessels, military sonar, oil and gas drilling 

and some oceanographic research technologies. The background ‘omnipresent’ sound in the ocean is called ambient 

noise. The primary sources of ambient noise vary with the 

frequency. For example, vessels primarily generate noise 

between 20-500 Hz, whereas ambient noise between 500-

100,000 Hz is mostly due to spray and bubbles associated 

with breaking waves.

Current knowledge about the effects of sound on marine 

animals relies heavily on experimentation with small 

numbers of individuals in captivity and/or post-hoc evaluation of mortality events in the wild, in which cause-andeffect is often impossible to determine. Due to their charismatic nature, their use of sound for communication, and 

their protected status, marine mammals have been the focus 

of increasing levels of attention and controversy associated 

with the possible adverse effects of noise in the marine environment. Marine mammals have been shown to manifest 

behavioral changes in the presence of certain types of noise 

(Erbe C., 2002; Frankel and Clark, 2002; Patenaude et al., 

2002; Richardson and Wursig, 1997). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can impact cetaceans by masking biologically important sounds (e.g., intraspecific communication 

and localization of prey resources), provoking avoidance or 

attraction, causing temporary or permanent hearing damage 

and, in extreme cases, death (Yost, 1994; Richardson et al., 

1995).

In its 2003 report (one of three devoted to sound sources 

and marine mammals), the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) Committee on the Potential Impacts of Ambient 

Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals concluded that 

concern surrounding anthropogenic sound and marine 

mammals was warranted, given: (1) the threatened and 

endangered status of many marine mammals; (2) the identified importance of sound in the lives of marine mammals; 

(3) the potential for harm from excessive noise; and (4) the 

paucity of data with regards to the amount of sound introduced into the oceans by human activity and its potential 

impact on marine mammals (National Research Council of 

the National Academies, 2003).

The NRC’s report recommended the establishment of ‘noise 

budgets’, defined as the sum of the relative contributions 

made by identified sound sources to the total sound field 

(National Research Council of the National Academies, 
232 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

2003). The report further recommended that ‘noise budget’ 

determinations for various parts of the ocean should include 

representations of seasonal and spatial/temporal differences. 

Finally, the NRC specifically identified the need to define 

the sound contribution of different vessel types within the 

major category of shipping. While the report’s focus was 

global, many of its insights and recommendations are applicable at the sanctuary level to provide a local understanding 

of the issue. Insights achieved at the local level can then be 

used to inform the larger issue at national and international 

levels.

Numerous anthropogenic sources of underwater sound 

produced both within and in the waters surrounding 

SBNMS contribute to the sanctuary’s ambient noise budget. 

Commercial, recreational, military and research vessels 

all contribute to ambient underwater noise in the sanctuary, whether directly through their marine operations (e.g., 

engines, props and electronics) or indirectly through the 

activities they perform (e.g., towing and dredging). Whales 

are known to aggregate in and near the existing traffic separation scheme (i.e., shipping lanes to and from the Port of 

Boston) and their long-term acoustic exposure to vessel traffic may represent a source of chronic impact. The operations of fishing vessels regularly overlap the distribution of 

cetaceans in the sanctuary and may be an additional source 

of repeated acoustic disturbance. In addition, some vessels, 

such as commercial and private whale watching boats, 

preferentially expose large whales to noise as a byproduct 

of routine and frequent close approaches, creating another 

opportunity for chronic exposure. Finally, because lowfrequency sounds from industrial and commercial activities 

taking place or proposed within the waters of Massachusetts 

and Cape Cod Bays, and even the greater GoM, can retain 

their intensities over long distances, such activities contribute or will contribute to the levels of low frequency sound 

in the sanctuary.

Characterizing the status of the sanctuary’s acoustic environment and identifying potential threats to sanctuary resources are essential, both to meeting the NMSA objectives for 

each site and to developing partnerships both within NOAA 

and between agencies to implement ecologically-holistic, 

ecosystem-based management of sanctuary resources. The 

following strategies provide the framework to assess and 

mitigate anthropogenic noise in SBNMS occurring at levels: 

(1) where behavioral disturbance is clearly evident; and (2) 

when behavioral disturbance is not apparent, but where 

animals have habituated to detrimental noise levels.

Strategies (3) To Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral 

Disturbance and Harassment by Noise

(2.1) Establish a Marine Noise Consortium to identify noise 

sources and possible effects. The sanctuary will sponsor 

a Marine Noise Consortium (or work with other potential 

sponsoring agencies or institutions) to examine and promulgate research on noise in and around the sanctuary and its 

effects on marine mammals. Recognizing the need for independent targeted research and for maintaining the scientific 

integrity of data sets, members of the Marine Noise Consortium would agree to partner with the sanctuary and would 

make raw data available through an established data-use 

policy.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(2.2) Develop a marine acoustics research program to 

establish baseline noise levels and long-term noise budgets.

Measure and evaluate baseline values and variation in 

background noise levels from sources (activities) within 

or propagating into the sanctuary. The marine acoustic 

research program should be an extension of the sanctuary’s 

current ocean observing system (2005) for large scale monitoring and mapping of noise within SBNMS, identifying 

noise sources and evaluating potential impact on marine 

mammals.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.2.1 Install and monitor a hydrophone array on the 

seafloor covering at least 50% of the sanctuary 

area and maintain and manage the resulting data 

set to: (1) determine current noise levels; (2) 

monitor and document long-term noise budgets; 

and (3) provide a record of noise levels coincident 

with critical events such as ship strikes and cetacean strandings to evaluate the potential impact 

from specific noise sources on marine mammals.

Status: Ongoing

2.2.2 Implement a tagging program to evaluate the 

potential for acoustic exposure and animal 

responses to acoustic stimuli.

Status: Ongoing

(2.3) Develop a policy framework for investigating and 

mitigating noise impacts within SBNMS. Given increased 

scientific and public concern over the impact of anthropogenic sounds on marine mammals, develop a marine 

acoustics policy framework for SBNMS that: (1) addresses 

the potential for harm to marine mammals from excessive 

noise; (2) contends with the paucity of data on the amount 

of sound introduced into the oceans by human activity and 

its associated impacts on marine mammals; (3) identifies 

opportunities for collaboration with sound producers (e.g., 

vessel owners/operators) in mitigating and/or monitoring 

their impacts on sanctuary resources; and (4) highlights the 

possible utility of sanctuaries as case studies for establishing 

domestic and international policies pertaining to noise in 

the marine environment.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

MMBD.3 Objective—Reduce Marine Mammal

Behavioral Disturbance and Harassment by

Aircraft

Background. Submarine sound levels generated by aircraft 

overflight depend on receiver depth underwater and altitude, aspect and strength of the noise source. The auditory 
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 233

systems of baleen whales are thought to be sensitive to lowfrequency underwater sounds, based on the predominantly 

low frequency of their calls, their auditory anatomy and 

their observed reactions to various low frequency sounds 

(Ketten, 2000).

In contrast, dolphins have insensitive underwater hearing 

below 1 kHz, but acute hearing at frequencies greater than 

10 kHz. Dolphins received levels of low-frequency tones 

18 meters below the sea surface from aircraft flying directly 

overhead at an altitude of 160 meters; these tones were well 

below their auditory thresholds and presumably inaudible 

(Ketten, 2000). Acoustic research associated with overflight 

noise should be directed at acoustic impacts on large baleen 

whales in the sanctuary.

SBNMS has no overflight restrictions and no studies on 

aircraft disturbance have been conducted in the sanctuary 

area. Overflight concerns include fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter and airship disturbance. The lack of overflight restrictions may result in undue disturbance to marine mammals.

Strategies (2) To Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral 

Disturbance and Harassment by Aircraft

(3.1) Identify information gaps and gather data on overflight activities to determine whether they disturb marine 

mammals. No studies on aircraft disturbance due to overflight have been conducted in the vicinity of SBNMS and no 

baseline data exist.

Priority: Low

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

3.1.1 Work with the FAA to produce a descriptive database to document and portray overflight patterns 

in the vicinity of SBNMS by planes, helicopters, 

airships and other aircraft.

Status: Planned, 2010

(3.2) Develop outreach materials or messages with NOAA 

Fisheries Service to inform the aviation community regarding overflight in proximity to whales. There are no sitespecific overflight regulations in SBNMS. However, the 

NOAA Northeast Regional Guidelines on approach to 

marine mammals cover both vessels and aircraft (see Background MMBD 1). The NOAA approach guidelines stipulate 

that aircraft should maintain a minimum altitude of 1,000 

feet over water. Additionally, the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 224.103 (c)) for North Atlantic right whales 

prohibit “approach (including by interception) within 500 

yards (460 meters) of a right whale by vessel, aircraft, or any 

other means.” The NOAA approach guidelines and regulations are not reflected in FAA publications.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

3.2.1 NOAA National Ocean Service and NOAA Fisheries Service should approach the FAA to change 

FAA Overflight Regulations Title 14, Part 91 

Subpart B (Flight Rules) section 91.119 (c). The 

flight rule reads: “(c) Over other than congested 

Table 48. Estimated costs for MMBD action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Develop and implement management measures that mitigate behavioral disturbance and risk to whales due to vessel 

speed and close approach

35.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 235.0

(1.2) Develop a process to consider prohibiting vessels from 

transiting through humpback whale bubble clouds and/or 

nets.

0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 6.0

(1.3) Conduct risk assessment on other activities that could 

disturb marine mammals. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(1.4) Develop a research program to better understand vessel 

interactions with whales. 0.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 100.0 625.0

(2.1) Establish a Marine Noise Consortium to identify noise 

sources and possible effects. 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0

(2.2) Develop a marine acoustics research program to establish 

baseline noise levels and long-term noise budgets. 65.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 150.0 965.0

(2.3) Develop a policy framework for investigating and mitigating noise impacts within SBNMS. 75.0 75.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 225.0

(3.1) Identify information gaps to gather additional data on 

overflight activities to understand the potential disturbance of 

marine mammals.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.2) Develop outreach materials or messages with NOAA 

Fisheries Service to inform the aviation community regarding 

overflight in proximity to whales.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 180.0 556.0 556.0 480.0 305.0 2,077.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
234 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

3.2.2 Work with pilot associations to include SBNMS 

notation and current NOAA Fisheries Service 

Northeast Region overflight guidelines on aeronautical charts and information materials.

Status: Planned, 2010

3.2.3 Evaluate the need for sanctuary regulations to 

govern the operation of airplanes, helicopters, 

airships, and other aircraft in the presence of 

marine mammals.

Status: Planned, 2010

areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, 

except over open water or sparsely populated 

areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, 

vehicle, or structure.” FAA should consider revising the rule, for example, to delete the word ‘or’ 

following the word ‘vehicle’ and insert “or marine 

mammal, except where more restrictive regulations prevail.” The agency differences in minimum 

overflight altitude also need to be addressed and 

resolved.

Status: Planned, 2010

Table 49. Performance measures for MMBD action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

The behavioral disturbance and harassment of marine mammals by human activities is minimized.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2010, the sanctuary will develop and 

implement a whale watching management program that reduces the risk of 

behavioral harassment.

Management measures will be in effect 

that could include regulatory controls, 

certification requirements, special use 

permitting and partnership accords.

Number of management 

measures: 1 (approach 

guidelines and MMPA 

and ESA)

Protect 

Resources

By 2009, SBNMS will complete 

implementation of a noise-monitoring program covering 50-85% of the 

sanctuary, with a representative noise 

budget subsequently being calculated 

within two-five years.

SBNMS will deploy up to ten Automatic 

Recording Units (ARUs) for at least 12 

months with data collected, managed, 

and analyzed.

Number of ARUs : 0 Site 

Characterization

By 2011, SBNMS will complete most 

fieldwork and analyses associated with 

non-invasive whale tagging projects.

Data analyses will provide a more continuous record and understanding of whale 

behavior relative to vessels and noise.

Number of completed 

studies: 0

Protect 

Resources
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 235

Marine Mammal Vessel Strike

Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Marine Mammal Vessel Strike (MMVS) Action Plan 

(AP) makes recommendations to reduce the risk of collision 

between vessels and marine mammals that cause injury or 

mortality to the animals, harm to operators and damage to 

vessels. Ship strikes represent one of the two major threats 

that are likely to prevent the recovery of critically endangered North Atlantic right whales and endangered humpback whales. Efforts in the U.S. have attempted to slow 

vessel speeds and to create an ‘early warning system’ to 

inform mariners of locations of right whales. Despite efforts 

to date, vessel strikes continue to kill and injure right whales 

at a level that compromises the species’ survival. Concern 

in recent years has intensified as marine traffic has come to 

involve larger and faster vessels.

Goal

The goal of the MMVS AP is to assess the occurrence and 

potential of collision to marine mammals; determine the 

means to mitigate collision through research, education and 

appropriate management; and foster cooperation with crossjurisdictional agency partners that affect marine mammals.

Objectives

The MMVS AP has three objectives and associated strategies 

to reduce collision, and the potential for collision, to marine 

mammals by commercial ships as well as those vessels 

not actively engaged in approaching whales for viewing 

(Table 50). [Note: Vessels actively engaged in viewing are 

discussed in Objective MMBD.1.]

•	MMVS.1—Reduce Risk of Vessel Strike between Large

Commercial Ships and Whales

•	MMVS.2—Reduce Risk of Vessel Strike through Speed

Restrictions

•	MMVS.3—Support and Develop Research Programs to

Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strike

The estimated costs for implementation of the MMVS AP are 

indicated in Table 51. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 52.
236 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Background. Data from Jensen and Silber (2003) indicate 

that the SBNMS area is a ‘hot spot’ for vessel strikes along 

the eastern seaboard of the United States, with approximately nine percent (26/292) of the world-wide data 

reported from the sanctuary area (including Cape Cod Bay 

and Boston Harbor).1 In SBNMS, reported vessel collisions 

occur with four endangered species (humpback, finback, sei 

and North Atlantic right whales) and one protected species 

(minke whales). Most strikes involve humpback whales 

(39%, 13/33) and fin whales (27%, 9/33).2 Notably, vessel 

strikes are the leading cause of human-induced mortality in 

critically endangered right whales (Knowlton et al., 2001).

Vessel strikes in the sanctuary are reported throughout 

the year. However, 76% (25/33) occur between May and 

August, a time when whales and opportunistic observations 

increase; 39% (13/33) of these reported strikes resulted in 

mortality or serious injury. Commercial whale watch vessels 

were involved in 27% (9/33) of the strikes; private recreational boats were involved with 12% (4/33); and, large 

commercial ships (e.g., container ship or ferry) struck 9% 

(3/33) (Jensen and Silber, 2003). Observations of ship struck 

whales, other than those actually hit by commercial whale 

watching vessels, are not biased by observations made 

possible by observers on whale watching trips because most 

1 These numbers do not include information from supplemental 

sources.

2 Investigations of the sanctuary working group on this issue identified additional vessel strike events that occurred between 1984 

and 2003 that were not included in Jensen and Silber (2003). 

Therefore this analysis is based on 33 events, as opposed to the 

26 contained in Jensen and Silber (2003). These data are presented 

in Exhibit MMVS.1 of the Marine Mammal Vessel Strike Working 

Group report posted on the sanctuary website.

records are generated from beach cast carcasses or carcasses 

floating at sea.

Possible factors contributing to vessel strikes include: (1) the 

density of whales and vessels; (2) the ability of whales and 

vessel operators to detect each other; and (3) the ability of 

whales or vessel operators to maneuver to avoid collisions. 

Any type of vessel is capable of causing a fatal strike, but 

the intensity of the collision depends on the size (tonnage) 

of the vessel and the speed at which it is traveling.

Where vessel type is known, the majority of reported whale 

collisions on a world-wide basis are from the U.S. Navy/

USCG (14.9% of the 292 strikes) and commercial whale 

watch boats (14.2% of the 292 strikes) (Jensen and Silber, 

2003). These data are affected by disproportionate reporting. For example, it is standard operating practice for the 

U.S. Navy and USCG to report a strike, and commercial 

whale watch vessel operators or passengers are more likely 

to be aware of, and report, a collision than other sources.

Apart from this information, there is a paucity of specific 

data regarding vessel collisions with whales, as the vast 

majority of strikes go undetected or unreported. When 

whale mortality is recognized as resulting from vessel strike, 

(i.e., as determined by necropsy of a beached whale) identifying the specific vessel or vessel type is difficult.

MMVS.1 Objective—Reduce the Risk of

Vessel Strike between Large Commercial Ships

and Whales

Background. Large commercial ships—defined as those 

vessels with a weight of greater than 300 gross tons, or tugs 

and barges with a combined weight of more than 300 gross 

tons—represent a distinct class of vessels. Large commercial 

Table 50. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for MMVS action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

MMVS.1 Reduce the Risk of Vessel 

Strike between Large Commercial 

Ships and Whales 

(1.1) Consult with NOAA Fisheries Service on their proposed strategy to reduce 

ship strike to North Atlantic right whales and evaluate how such measures 

would affect the sanctuary.

High

(1.2) Develop, demonstrate and evaluate the SBNMS Information and Reporting Center. High

(1.3) Determine the conservation benefit of reconfiguring the existing Traffic 

Separation Scheme (TSS) within the sanctuary to reduce the risk of ship strike 

to whales.

High

MMVS.2 Reduce the Risk of Vessel 

Strike through Speed Restriction on 

Vessels 

(2.1) Institute year-round voluntary speed restrictions for all vessels operating 

in the sanctuary. High

MMVS.3 Support and Develop 

Research Programs to Reduce the 

Risk of Vessel Strike

(3.1) Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to support their ongoing database of 

all known vessel strikes in and around the sanctuary. High

(3.2) Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to institute a toll free number to 

enable callers to anonymously report vessel strikes in the sanctuary. Medium

(3.3) Investigate research strategies to determine responses of whales to 

approaching vessels. High

(3.4) Conduct year-round monitoring to identify type, size, route and speed of 

vessels in the sanctuary. High

(3.5) Investigate use of forward-looking sonar or other real-time detection 

technologies. Low
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 237

ships are separated from other vessel types due to issues of 

maneuverability (i.e., their inability to take sudden actions 

to avoid collisions with whales).

Strategies (3) To Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strike between 

Large Commercial Ships and Whales

(1.1) Consult with NOAA Fisheries Service on their 

proposed strategy to reduce ship strike to North Atlantic 

right whales and evaluate how such measures would affect 

the sanctuary. North Atlantic right whales are critically 

endangered and should be accorded special consideration. 

NFS has developed a Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction 

Program to reduce collision risk between right whales and 

commercial ships while minimizing adverse impacts on the 

shipping industry. Possible plans involving SBNMS include 

a nearby “area to be avoided” on the eastern side of Cape 

Cod Bay during the winter and early spring, and speed 

limitations for all vessels 65 feet and over in an area north 

of Race Point (including a portion of the sanctuary) from 1 

April to 15 May.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

1.1.1 SBNMS should review the adequacy of risk reduction measures contained in the NOAA Fisheries 

Service vessel strike risk reduction plan for North 

Atlantic right whales. If review finds the plan inadequate to reduce risk to right whales in SBNMS, 

then the sanctuary should make recommendations 

to strengthen risk reduction measures.

Status: Ongoing

(1.2) Develop, demonstrate and evaluate the SBNMS 

Information and Reporting Center. The SBNMS should 

create a pilot project to assess the feasibility of developing the SBNMS Marine Mammal Information and Reporting 

Center (MMIRC) based on use of the Automatic Identification System (AIS). The project would: (1) investigate the 

ability of the MMIRC to identify and provide information 

to ships entering the SBNMS; (2) identify the actions of the 

vessels based on the information provided; (3) assess the 

adequacy of whale sighting and reporting information; and 

(4) evaluate the efficacy of the MMIRC for reducing the risk 

of vessel/whale collisions. If the pilot project determines the 

MMIRC to be an effective way of reducing risk of collision, 

the sanctuary should consider establishing the program as 

an ongoing management tool.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.3) Determine the conservation benefit of reconfiguring the existing Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) within the 

sanctuary to reduce the risk of ship strike to whales. An 

effective way to reduce vessel collisions with whales is to 

separate them in space and/or time. Moving the TSS in the 

sanctuary from high whale use areas to low use areas would 

achieve that objective.

Priority: High

Status: Completed3

3Refer to vessel strike subsection on p. 114 for explanation.

Activities:

1.3.1 Conduct analyses to determine whether safer 

routes could be recommended for large commercial ship passage through the SBNMS. Identify 

routing to reconfigure the existing TSS into the Port 

of Boston and, thereby, reduce potential whale 

strikes by large commercial vessels transiting the 

sanctuary.

Status: Completed

1.3.2 Collaborate with the NOS General Counsel 

International, NOAA Fisheries Service and the 

USCG to develop a proposal to the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) to reconfigure the 

current TSS and reduce the potential for whale 

strikes by large commercial vessels transiting the 

sanctuary.

Status: Completed

MMVS.2 Objective—Reduce the Risk of

Vessel Strike by Speed Restrictions

Background. Fast moving vessels pose inherent risks to 

marine mammals and other sanctuary resources. The SBNMS 

wants to consider a range of ways to restrict vessel speed to 

prevent interactions with and damage to those resources. 

The sanctuary also wants to evaluate a range of speeds that 

may be appropriate under different conditions while recognizing that vessel safety considerations are important. 

When right whales and, in some instances, other endangered whales are known to be present in an area, NOAA 

Fisheries Service and the USCG issue notices to mariners 

requesting that they travel at 10 knots or less. Such notices 

are based on knowing the presence of endangered whales 

and are ephemeral as whales move.

The SBNMS is considering developing generic voluntary 

speed restrictions that would apply to all vessels operating 

within the sanctuary. These would likely allow for faster 

speeds than specific guidance when endangered whales are 

known or likely to be present. At those times, the more 

restrictive speed limits would apply. Voluntary SBNMS 

restrictions would augment measures by (1) NOAA Fisheries 

Service (i.e., measures to reduce interactions between North 

Atlantic right whales and large commercial ships), and (2) 

possible SBNMS speed controls/restrictions addressing 

marine mammal behavioral disturbance by whale watching 

and other vessels (see Strategy MMBD 1.1). The sanctuary 

would review and evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary speed restriction at the end of five years or sooner if 

new information becomes available.

Strategy (1) To Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strike across all 

Vessel Categories

(2.1) Institute year-round voluntary speed restrictions for 

all vessels operating in the sanctuary. Examination of available data on vessel speeds representing customary practice 

in the sanctuary indicates that 20 knots is an approximate 

mean maximum cruising speed for most whale watch 

vessels, commercial fishing boats, party and charter fishing 
238 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

vessels, and many of the larger personal recreation boats. 

Data examined include 20-year records maintained by the 

Whale Center of New England for the commercial whale 

watch fleet and recent preliminary evaluation of Automatic 

Identification System vessel tracks for large commercial 

vessels collected by SBNMS. 

A voluntary recommendation to reduce all vessel speeds 

throughout the year in SBNMS waters would serve to complement proposed regulations by NOAA Fisheries Service 

as analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) to Implement the Operational Measures of the North 

Atlantic Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy and 

NOAA Fisheries Service and USCG notices to mariners. The 

proposed regulations would apply to non-federally owned 

or operated vessels that are over 65 feet in length. Speed 

reductions would be largely restricted to areas and time 

periods in Northeast waters when right whales, based on 

visual sighting records, are predicted to be most prevalent.

Two of the proposed Seasonal Management Areas in the 

ship strike proposed regulations overlap the SBNMS, and 

would result in speed restrictions within a maximum of 63% 

of the sanctuary during 2 months of the year and have no 

coverage in the sanctuary during 7.5 months of the year. The 

SBNMS’s collaborative passive acoustic research efforts with 

NOAA Fisheries Service (NEFSC and NERO) and Cornell 

University’s Bioacoustics Research Program is providing 

increasing evidence that right whales predictably utilize 

sanctuary waters during periods and within areas for which 

proposed speed restrictions would not apply. In addition, 

the SBNMS is concerned with risks of injury associated 

with smaller vessel traffic operating at higher overall speeds 

and largely outside of the recently shifted TSS. Thus, yearround generic guidelines for all vessels operating within the 

sanctuary would supplement NOAA Fisheries Service’s ship 

strike strategy within sanctuary waters.

The voluntary speed restriction complements a suite of 

possible management actions that if implemented would 

lower the risk of collision further. These include: (1) requiring vessels to reduce speed within proximity of whales (see 

Strategies MMBD 1.1 and MMVS 1.1); (2) prohibiting vessels 

from transiting through humpback whale bubble clouds and/

or nets (see Strategy MMBD 1.2); (3) realigning the TSS in 

the sanctuary (see Strategy MMVS 1.3); and, (4) vessel speed 

restrictions implemented through NOAA Fisheries Service’s 

North Atlantic Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy. 

Implementation of this voluntary speed restriction would be 

by means of Strategy POE 1.2.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

MMVS.3 Objective—Support and Develop

Research Programs to Reduce the Risk of

Vessel Strikes

Background. There is a paucity of detailed data regarding 

vessel collisions with whales. In order to minimize the risk 

of collision to whales, it is important that the sanctuary gain 

a greater understanding of the nature of the risk to both the 

Table 51. Estimated costs for MMVS action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Consult with NOAA Fisheries Service on their proposed 

strategy to reduce ship strike to North Atlantic right whales and 

evaluate how such measures would affect the sanctuary.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(1.2) Develop, demonstrate and evaluate the SBNMS Information and Reporting Center. 20.0 15.0 25.0 10.0 10.0 80.0

(1.3) Determine the conservation benefit of reconfiguring the 

existing TSS within the sanctuary to reduce the risk of ship 

strike to whales.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.1) Institute year-round voluntary speed restrictions for all 

vessels operating in the sanctuary. 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0

(3.1) Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to support their ongoing database of all known vessel strikes in and around the sanctuary.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.2) Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to institute a toll free 

number to enable callers to anonymously report vessel strikes 

in the sanctuary.

0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

(3.3) Investigate research strategies to determine responses of 

whales to approaching vessels. 0.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 100.0 625.0

(3.4) Conduct year-round monitoring to identify type, size, 

speed, and route of vessels in the sanctuary. 50.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 150.0

(3.5) Investigate use of forward-looking sonar or other real-time 

detection technologies. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 75.0 221.0 226.0 211.0 136.0 869.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 239

Table 52. Performance measures for MMVS action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

The occurrence of vessel collisions with marine mammals is minimized.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2010, SBNMS will monitor 100% of 

large ships (>300 gross ton) traversing 

the Sanctuary, including their location, 

speed, time of arrival at and departure 

from port.

SBNMS will track ship traffic traversing the 

sanctuary using Automatic Identification 

System (AIS) data and analyze compliance with ship strike mitigation strategies 

(NMFS.)

Percent of large ships 

being monitored: 0

Living Marine 

Resources

By 2008, SBNMS will propose new routing measures for large ships to reduce 

by 50% or more the risk of ship strikes 

to large whales in the Traffic Separation 

Scheme (TSS) for the Port of Boston

SBNMS will keep track of the development 

of new routing measures in collaboration 

with the U.S. Coast Guard and the IMO.

Present risk of ship 

strikes within the TSS (as 

measured by the number 

of whales seen in the 

TSS).

Living Marine 

Resources

By 2009, SBNMS will institute voluntary 

speed restrictions for all vessels operating in the sanctuary.

SBNMS will track vessel speed remotely 

by AIS and on-the-water monitoring.

Existing speed controls 

(other than whale watch 

approach guidelines): 0

Living Marine 

Resources

whales and vessels. This can be accomplished by investigating the behavior of whales, the behavior of ships, and their 

behavioral interaction.

Strategies (5) To Support and Develop Research Programs 

to Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strikes

(3.1) Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to support their 

ongoing database for all known vessel strikes in and around 

the sanctuary. It is necessary to continue monitoring and 

recording vessel strikes to determine trends and develop 

detailed baselines to assess effectiveness of management 

actions.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(3.2) Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to institute a 

toll free number to enable callers to anonymously report 

vessel strikes in the sanctuary. Currently, an 800-number is 

not available to the public to assist the reporting of vessel 

strikes.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2008

(3.3) Investigate research strategies to determine responses 

of whales to approaching vessels. Research is needed to 

understand how whale behavior relates to the probability 

of vessel collisions. Such information would help prescribe 

management approaches to mitigate the risk of vessels striking whales.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(3.4) Conduct year-round monitoring to identify type, size, 

route and speed of vessels in the sanctuary. The sanctuary 

will continue periodic trackline survey studies to monitor 

the spatial and temporal distribution of whales and all vessel 

types in the sanctuary; it will continue to implement its AIS 

to record speed and routing of large commercial ships in 

real time and to archive data acquired for systematic analysis; and it will monitor trends in vessel use (e.g., vessel types 

and numbers using the sanctuary, new vessel designs, etc.) 

over years.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(3.5) Investigate use of forward-looking sonar or other 

real-time detection technologies. This effort would notify 

vessels of whales in their path; however, potential issues 

of concomitant behavioral harassment would have to be 

addressed.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2010
240 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Marine Mammal Entanglement

Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Marine Mammal Entanglement (MME) Action Plan (AP) 

makes recommendations to reduce the risk of entanglement 

of marine mammals in fishing gear in the sanctuary. The 

concern extends to sea turtle and sea bird entanglement. 

The immediate effects of entanglement can include mortality, serious injury, minor injury, or possibly no injury. The 

long-term effects can include deteriorating health, behavioral disruptions, decreased reproductive ability, or may 

have no impact.

Goal

The goal of the MME AP is to assess and minimize the risk of 

entanglement of marine mammals, sea turtles and sea birds 

in the sanctuary; promote methods to successfully disentangle animals; foster cooperation with cross-jurisdictional 

agency partners; and educate sanctuary users regarding the 

issue.

Objectives

The MME AP has three objectives and associated strategies 

to improve the success of disentanglement efforts and to 

reduce the risk of entanglement of marine mammals (Table 

53).

•	MME.1—Aid Disentanglement Efforts

•	MME.2—Reduce Marine Mammal Interaction with Trap/

Pot Fisheries

•	MME.3—Reduce Marine Mammal Interaction with Gillnet Fisheries

The estimated costs for implementation of the MME AP are 

indicated in Table 54. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 55.
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 241

MME.1 Objective—Aid Disentanglement

Efforts

Background. Entanglement in fishing gear is a primary 

threat to endangered, threatened and protected whales in 

the western North Atlantic. While it is not always apparent 

where a whale became entangled, there is a high co-occurrence of baleen whales and fixed fishing gear within the 

sanctuary (Wiley et al., 2003). Since 1985, 57 confirmed 

large whale entanglements have been reported within the 

SBNMS boundaries including a five-mile buffer around the 

borders (Morin, personal communication, 2004; NFS Large 

Whale Entanglement Reports).

The marine mammal species reported to interact with fisheries include: baleen whales and trap (e.g., lobster, crab, and 

hagfish) and gillnet fisheries; small cetaceans (e.g., harbor 

porpoise or white-sided dolphin) and gillnet fisheries; and 

pinnipeds (e.g., harbor seals) and gillnet and trap fisheries. Because of potential impacts to marine mammals from 

entanglements, most fixed-gear fishermen (e.g., trap and 

gillnet fisheries) are required under Federal Take Reduction 

Plans to use modified gear and comply with time and area 

closures to reduce entanglements.

Approximately half (48-65%) of Gulf of Maine (GOM) 

humpback whales (Robbins and Mattila, 2001) and three 

quarters (76%) of critically endangered North Atlantic right 

whales (Knowlton et al., 2005) display scars indicative of 

past entanglement. Seabirds and sea turtles are also at risk. 

Entanglements can result in fatalities due to drowning, infection, restricted mobility, starvation and stress. Entanglement 

can potentially reduce the reproductive success of animals 

surviving the event (Robbins and Mattila, 2001).

In some cases, whales can be released from entanglements. 

This process is known as “disentanglement” and NOAA 

Fisheries Service authorized the Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement Network (ALWDN) to facilitate disentanglement success. The Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies 

(PCCS) holds a NOAA Fisheries Service permit (as part of 

ALWDN) to disentangle large whales and operates a disentanglement network with NOAA Fisheries Service along the 

entire eastern seaboard of the United States. Disentanglement success is highly dependent on vessels maintaining 

contact with or ‘standing-by’ entangled animals. Without 

such stand-by, disentanglement teams have great difficulty 

relocating animals reported as entangled, greatly increasing 

the cost and risk of the effort.

Seventy-four percent of entangled whale sightings originate 

from the commercial whale watch fleet. Other reporting 

groups include fishermen, aerial surveys and existing entanglement network members (D. Morin, personal communication, 2004). Disentanglement can be aided by sanctuary-specific efforts such as increasing sighting and reporting 

efficiencies, and by developing incentives (or requirements) 

that increase the likelihood that passing vessels will standby entangled whales.

Public scoping comments indicated that marine mammal 

entanglement in the SBNMS was a serious problem and 

suggested that fishermen should be involved in the mitigation process. The sanctuary will work in partnership with 

various agencies, industries and organizations to report and 

respond to entangled whales. This effort will increase the 

degree to which entangled whales within the SBNMS are 

sighted, reported, and assisted.

Strategies (3) To Aid Disentanglement Efforts

(1.1) Maximize the degree to which entangled animals in 

the sanctuary are sighted and reported. Animals can only 

be released from gear if they have been observed and then 

reported to the proper authorities. The sanctuary should 

develop policies and practices that encourage the sighting 

and reporting of entangled animals. In addition, a complete 

record of entanglements is needed to properly document 

the severity of the problem and to implement timely mitigation measures.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

1.1.1 Collaborate with NOAA Fisheries Service NERO 

and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 

(MADMF) to develop a mechanism that allows 

commercial whale watching vessels operating 

under the proposed SBNMS special use permit 

(see Activity MMBD 1.1.5), if that system is set 

up, to approach right whales within the 500-

Table 53. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for MME action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

MME.1 Aid Disentanglement Efforts 

(1.1) Maximize the degree to which entangled animals in the sanctuary are 

sighted and reported. High

(1.2) Maximize ability of vessels and aircraft to stand-by entangled animals. High

(1.3) Undertake activities leading to improved understanding and prevention 

of entanglement events in SBNMS and improvements in disentanglement 

technology.

Medium

MME.2 Reduce Marine Mammal 

Interaction with the Trap/Pot Fishery 

(2.1) Obtain gear modifications. High

(2.2) Serve as test-bed to develop and demonstrate low-risk fishing gear. Medium

MME.3 Reduce Marine Mammal 

Interaction with the Gillnet Fishery

(3.1) Obtain gear modifications. High

(3.2) Develop research programs. Medium
242 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

yard exclusion zone for the purpose of assessing 

possible entanglement and identifying individuals 

through photo-identification procedures.

Status: Planned, 2009

(1.2) Maximize ability of vessels and aircraft to stand-by 

entangled animals. Without adequate capacity to track the 

location of an entangled animal, visible contact with the 

animal may be lost, rendering disentanglement impossible.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

Activities:

1.2.1 Convene a meeting of the PCCS, NOAA Fisheries Service NERO, commercial whale watch 

operators, and naturalists to provide training and 

informational materials for standing by entangled 

whales.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.2.2 Provide incentives for commercial whale watch 

boats to stand-by an entangled whale for a minimum of 45 minutes as a means to ensure adequate 

documentation and to reduce the search area for 

the network responder. Incentives having potential market value for participating companies 

may include official certificates of appreciation, 

photographs of vessels standing by entangled 

whales, postings on the sanctuary website, etc.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.2.3 Develop a protocol by which research, state or 

federal government vessels or aircraft working in 

the SBNMS report their presence to the PCCS and 

are available to standby.

Status: Planned, 2008

1.2.4 Encourage NFS to continue Level One (‘eyes-onthe-water’) funding to train the public in order to 

aid disentanglement efforts through sighting and 

standing by entangled whales.

Status: Ongoing

1.2.5 Work with NOAA Fisheries Service and NEFMC 

to allow commercial fishing vessels to stand-by 

entangled whales without losing Days at Sea 

(DAS) time. Fishermen can play a critical role in 

the detection and stand-by of entangled whales in 

the sanctuary. However, new fishery management 

regulations to reduce fishing effort limit how much 

time a fisherman can spend at sea. A fisherman, 

who stands-by an entangled whale, is using his/

her time allotment of DAS, making such stand-by 

activity unlikely to occur. If time used by fishermen standing-by entangled whales did not count 

against their DAS allotment, participation by fishermen would be improved.

Status: Ongoing

(1.3) Undertake activities leading to improved understanding and prevention of entanglement events in SBNMS and 

improvements in disentanglement technology. Activities 

should be conducted to improve ability to identify gear 

types involved in specific entanglement events, provide 

data to support case documentation and lead to improvements in disentanglement technology. All activities involving gear marking would be conducted in collaboration with 

NOAA Fisheries Service to coordinate with systems already 

in place.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

1.3.1 Investigate a gear marking system to identify the 

type of gear in which whales are entangled.

Status: Planned, 2009

1.3.2 Work with the appropriate fishery management 

agencies to require that surface indicators of fishing gear are marked to aid in quick and unambiguous identification of gear type.

Status: Planned, 2010

1.3.3 Partner with PCCS, NOAA Fisheries Service and 

other parties to support research, development 

and demonstration of improved disentanglement 

technology.

Status: Planned, 2010

MME.2 Objective—Reduce Marine Mammal

Interaction with the Trap/Pot Fishery

Background. Trap/pot directed fisheries that co-occur with 

large numbers of baleen whales in the SBNMS are identified entanglement risks (Wiley et al., 2003a; 2003b). The 

American lobster and mixed species (e.g., whelk, hagfish 

and Jonah crab) trap/pot fisheries, a subset of which occurs 

within the SBNMS, are classified by NFS as Category I and 

II fisheries, respectively. Category I fisheries are those that 

have frequent mortality or serious injury of one or more 

species of marine mammals. Category II fisheries are those 

that have occasional mortality or serious injury of one or 

more species of marine mammals. Marine mammals that 

are known to or have the potential to interact with these 

fisheries include four species that utilize the sanctuary: 

finback whales, humpback whales, minke whales, and 

North Atlantic right whales—all of which are threatened or 

endangered, and/or protected.

[Note: When released by NFS, SBNMS should review the 

adequacy of the risk reduction measures contained in the 

final Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP). 

If the review indicates that the risk reduction measures 

are inadequate to reduce risk to large whales in SBNMS, 

the sanctuary should work through its membership to the 

ALWTRT process to make recommendations to strengthen 

the risk reduction measures.]

Strategies (2) To Reduce Marine Mammal Interaction with 

the Trap/Pot Fishery

(2.1) Obtain gear modifications. The goal of gear modification is to reduce the probability of entanglement and/

or reduce serious injury or mortality of large whales that 

become entangled in trap/pot fisheries. By restructuring 

the fishing gear or modifying the way it is used, the safety 
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 243

of marine mammals can be increased without restricting 

access of the fisheries to target resources (e.g., shellfish or 

finfish).

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

Activities:

2.1.1 Work with the appropriate fishery management 

agency(s) to promulgate new regulations requiring, within five years, all current and future trap/

pot fisheries to use sinking groundline within the 

SBNMS.

Status: Planned, 2008

2.1.2 Work with the appropriate fishery management 

agency(s) to promulgate new regulations requiring 600 lb breaking strength of buoy weak links 

in trap/pot gear fished in SBNMS. This measure 

would complement existing state and federal 

regulations applying to the Cape Cod Bay critical 

habitat for right whales.

Status: Planned, 2008

(2.2) Serve as test-bed to develop and demonstrate lowrisk fishing gear. The sanctuary should serve as a test-bed 

for developing and demonstrating innovative, low-risk 

fishing gear to reduce the risk of entanglements. Effective 

gear modification could then be exported to other areas of 

concern within the Gulf of Maine. For example, the GoM 

Ocean Observing System (GoMOOS) buoy data were used 

to provide current values in a study in the sanctuary that 

looked at the profiles and dynamics of ground-lines and 

end-lines, both as scaled-models in the laboratory and at 

full-scale in the field (Lyman and McKiernan, 2004).

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

2.2.1 Conduct surveys to determine areas of potential 

interaction between marine mammals and fisheries. This effort will serve as the foundation for a 

risk assessment of entanglement in the sanctuary, 

and identify high-risk areas where low-risk fishing 

gear should be tested.

Status: Ongoing

2.2.2 Help develop and demonstrate new low-risk technologies in collaboration with NOAA Fisheries 

Service, MADMF, fishermen and conservationists. The sanctuary could act as a testing ground 

for promising new risk-reduction technologies.

Status: Planned, 2010

2.2.3 Assess the feasibility of modifying vertical lines 

(e.g., breaking strength, number) to minimize the 

risk of entanglement.

Status: Planned, 2009

MME.3 Objective—Reduce Marine Mammal

Interaction with the Gillnet Fishery

Background. NOAA Fisheries Service observer data indicates that several species of pinnipeds (seals) and odontocetes (dolphins and porpoises) are taken incidentally by gillnets within SBNMS. Additionally, large whales are known 

to interact with gillnets; published and anecdotal evidence 

indicate that these entanglements occur within the SBNMS 

(Weinrich, 1999).

NOAA Fisheries Service classifies the northeast sink gillnet 

fishery as a Category I fishery. Category I fisheries are those 

which have frequent mortality or serious injury of one or 

more species of marine mammals. Known marine mammals 

killed or injured in gillnets include: North Atlantic right 

whales, humpback whales, Atlantic white-sided dolphins, 

common dolphins, harbor porpoise and several species of 

seals, all of which inhabit the SBNMS and some of which 

are endangered.

Approximately 40 day-boat, gillnet vessels departing from 

southern Maine to Plymouth, MA, fish primarily in the northern section of the sanctuary (gillnet fishermen’s estimate, 

MME Working Group Action Plan, 2004). Historically, gillnet fishing within SBNMS has occurred year-round, with 

the height of fishing activity during the summer months. 

Currently, federal fishing regulations restrict or prohibit gillnet fishing within SBNMS at various times of the year. In 

order to assess the entanglement risk, the sanctuary should 

work in partnership with various agencies, industries, and 

organizations to address and investigate the entanglement 

risk posed by the northeast sink gillnet fishery.

[Note: To date, NOAA Fisheries Service has not finalized 

the ALWTRP. SBNMS should review the adequacy of risk 

reduction measures contained in ALWTRP and the Harbor 

Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP). If the review indicates that the plans are inadequate to reduce risk to marine 

mammals in SBNMS, sanctuary staff should work through 

established Take Reduction Teams and with NOAA Fisheries Service to make recommendations to strengthen the risk 

reduction measures.]

Strategies (2) to Reduce Marine Mammal Interaction with 

Gillnet Fisheries

(3.1) Obtain gear modifications. The goal of gear modification is to reduce serious injury or mortality of marine 

mammals entangled by the northeast sink gillnet fisheries. In 

this way, the safety of marine mammals is increased without 

restricting access of the fisheries to their target resource.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

3.1.1 Work with NOAA Fisheries Service on an expedited basis to implement gillnet modifications 

as outlined in the Dynamic Area Management 

(DAM) requirements consistent with the modifications considered in the ALWTRP’s scheme. The 

modifications would apply to sinking groundlines, 
244 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

weak link breaking strength, and use of weak links 

in gillnet panels. The modifications should be 

required throughout the SBNMS on a year-round 

basis, not just seasonally.

Status: Planned, 2008

3.1.2 Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to develop an 

incentive program for gillnet fishermen to help 

them convert their gear to incorporate weak links 

and sinking groundlines.

Status: Planned, 2009

(3.2) Develop research programs. The sanctuary should 

serve as a test-bed for innovative research. For example, 

data from the GoMOOS buoy in the sanctuary were used to 

provide current values in a study that looked at the profiles 

and dynamics of groundlines and endlines both as scaledmodels in the laboratory and at full-scale in the field (Lyman 

and McKiernan, 2004). Gear modifications that appear to 

be functional in this type of controlled setting could be 

tested within the SBNMS for a more realistic assessment 

of its operation. Gear modifications found effective within 

the SBNMS could serve as an example to the Atlantic Large 

Whale Take Reduction Team for possible use on a regional 

scale.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

3.2.1 Assess the feasibility of using reduced-strength 

weak links (e.g., 600 lbs.) in gillnet panels.

Status: Planned, 2009

3.2.2 Investigate the feasibility of reducing the vertical profile of gillnets in the water column as an 

entanglement risk-reduction measure (e.g., tiedowns, fewer vertical meshes, replacing float line 

with lead line) in collaboration with gillnet fishermen and other agencies.

Status: Planned, 2009

3.2.3 Research whale behaviors in the water column 

to better understand the mechanism of entanglement.

Status: Ongoing

3.2.4 Evaluate the risk reduction contributed by harbor 

porpoise take-reduction measures versus fisheries management time-and-area closures.

Status: Planned, 2009

3.2.5 Assess the feasibility of modifying vertical lines 

(e.g., breaking strength, number) to minimize 

entanglement risk.

Status: Planned, 2009

3.2.6 Develop new low-risk technologies in collaboration with NOAA Fisheries Service, Massachusetts 

Dept. of Marine Fisheries (MADMF), fishermen 

and conservationists. The sanctuary could act as 

a testing ground for promising new risk-reduction 

technologies.

Status: Planned, 2010

3.2.7 Conduct surveys to identify areas of potential 

interaction between marine mammals and gill net 

fishing to identify temporal, seasonal, and effort 

trends. The survey should identify high-risk times 

and locations where low-risk fishing gear should 

be tested.

Status: Ongoing

Table 54. Estimated costs for MME action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Maximize the degree to which entangled animals in the 

sanctuary are sighted and reported. 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 40.0

(1.2) Maximize ability of vessels and aircraft to stand-by entangled animals. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(1.3) Undertake activities leading to improved understanding 

and prevention of entanglement events in SBNMS and improvements in disentanglement efforts.175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 175.0 875.0

(2.1) Obtain gear modifications. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.2) Serve as test-bed to develop and demonstrate low-risk 

fishing gear. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.1) Obtain gear modifications. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.1) Obtain gear modifications. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 175.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 185.0 915.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
VII. Action Plans—Marine Mammal Protection 245

Table 55. Performance measures for MME action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

The entanglement of marine mammals in commercial fishing gear is minimized and methods to successfully disentangle animals are 

operationalized.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2010, 85% of detected entangled 

whales will have vessels standing by 

until the disentanglement team arrival.

SBNMS will work with the Provincetown 

Center for Coastal Studies to track the rate 

of stand by.

Percent of entangled 

whales having vessels 

standing by until the 

disentanglement team 

arrival: 65

Living Marine 

Resources

By 2010, 100% of fixed gear fishermen 

using the sanctuary will be required to 

use gear that minimizes entanglement 

risk with marine mammals, as a result of 

coordination with NMFS.

SBNMS will partner with NMFS, USCG, 

and MEP to monitor the participation rate 

of commercial fishermen in programs 

aimed at replacing fishing gear with lowentanglement-risk gear.

Percent of fixed gear fishermen using the sanctuary that are required to 

use gear that minimizes 

entanglement risk with 

marine mammals: 0

Living Marine 

Resources
246 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Maritime heritage focuses on understanding the sanctuary’s past maritime landscape. SBNMS sits astride the 

gateway to historic ports that surround Massachusetts 

Bay, ports that have been centers of maritime activity 

in New England for over 400 years since the colonial 

period. The shipwrecks and submerged archaeological 

sites in the sanctuary are tangible connections to New 

England’s history; they are nonrenewable gateways 

to the past that need protection for current and future 

generations.

The Maritime Heritage (MH) Action Plan affirms NOAA’s 

dedication to conserving America’s maritime heritage by 

conducting scientific research, monitoring, exploration 

and educational programs. The action plan formalizes 

the foundation of a maritime heritage program at the 

sanctuary; addresses the need to systematically inventory, assess, and characterize historical resources; establishes a management framework for protecting maritime 

heritage resources while facilitating compatible use; 

focuses attention on interpreting maritime heritage to the 

public; and responds to historical resources which might 

be environmental threats.

Maritime Heritage Management

1. Maritime Heritage
VII. Action Plans—Maritime Heritage Management 247

Maritime Heritage

Action Plan

Issue Statement

The Maritime Heritage (MH) Action Plan (AP) makes recommendations for the inventory and assessment of historical 

resources, the management and protection of historical 

resources, and MH interpretation. The AP addresses sanctuary-specific historical resource assessment, management, 

protection, and MH outreach and education requirements; 

it fulfills the NOAA NMSP and the NOAA Maritime Heritage Program (MHP) strategic plans; and it complies with the 

President’s Preserve America Executive Order (E.O.13287) 

tasking NOAA with preserving and protecting historic 

resources in the agency’s care, including shipwrecks.

Goal

The goal of the MH AP is to inventory, assess, protect, 

manage, and interpret prehistoric and historic archeological 

resources in the sanctuary. Appropriate sites shall be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Objectives

The MH AP has five objectives and associated strategies to 

achieve its goal (Table 56).

•	MH.1—Establish a Maritime Heritage Program

•	MH.2—Inventory, Assess, and Characterize Historical

Resources

•	MH.3—Protect and Manage Historical Resources

•	MH.4—Develop and Implement a MH Outreach and

Education Program

•	MH.5—Assess Shipwrecks and other Submerged Objects

for Potential Hazards

The estimated costs for implementation of the MH AP are 

indicated in Table 57. The performance measures are listed 

in Table 58.

To date, four shipwrecks at three sites in the sanctuary are 

listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
248 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 56. Objectives, associated strategies, and priorities for MH action plan.

Objective Strategy Priority

MH.1 Establish a Maritime Heritage 

Program 

(1.1) Develop the foundation and infrastructure for a MH program and integrate the MH program into existing sanctuary programs. High

(1.2) Identify and pursue additional sources of funding beyond the NMSP. High

(1.3) Identify and form partnerships, relationships, and MOU with entities that 

have specialized knowledge and abilities that support the documentation and 

interpretation of the sanctuary’s MH.

Medium

MH.2 Inventory, Assess and Characterize Historical Resources 

(2.1) Characterize prehistoric and historic use patterns to assist with the location of historical resources through the identification and collection of historical, archaeological, and anthropological documentation.

High

(2.2) Conduct systematic field surveys to locate, identify, and inventory historical resources. High

(2.3) Assess historical resources for their NRHP eligibility and nominate 

appropriate sites to the NRHP. High

(2.4) Characterize historical resources within SBNMS. High

MH.3 Protect and Manage Historical 

Resources

(3.1) Implement a management system that protects historical resources while 

allowing for uses compatible with resource protection. High

(3.2) Implement an assessment protocol to assign sanctuary historical resources to the appropriate category. High

(3.3) Identify partnerships and relationships for site monitoring and compliance of historical resources permits and regulations. Medium

(3.4) Develop and implement an interpretive enforcement program. High

(3.5) Develop and implement a mooring buoy system on historical resources 

in collaboration with affected parties and regional scuba diving charter operators.Medium

(3.6) Implement the NMSP Permitting Guidelines for archaeological research 

(i.e., survey and inventory permit and archaeological research permit). High

(3.7) Develop and implement collection and conservation policies for artifacts 

previously recovered from SBNMS before and after designation. Low

MH.4 Develop and Implement a 

Maritime Heritage Outreach and 

Education Program

(4.1) Identify and partner with regional museums, through MOU/Agreements, 

to conduct MH exhibits and other outreach programs. High

(4.2) Develop and implement an artifact documentation and curation program 

through partnerships and relationships with local or regional maritime museums.Low

MH.5 Assess Shipwrecks and Other 

Submerged Objects for Potential 

Hazards

(5.1) Establish an inventory of shipwrecks and submerged objects, inside 

and outside of SBNMS boundaries that may pose environmental threats to 

resources.

Medium

(5.2) Coordinate information exchanges pertaining to shipwrecks and other 

submerged objects as environmental threats with NOAA’s HAZMAT division and the NMSP for the development of the SHIELDS and RUST database 

systems.

Medium

(5.3) Identify shipwrecks and other submerged sites to be examined with 

remote sensing technology and report findings to state and federal trustees. Medium

(5.4) Establish a monitoring program for shipwreck and submerged sites that 

have been located and are considered a threat to SBNMS. Develop protocols 

for site evaluation and a timeline for future site monitoring.

Medium
VII. Action Plans—Maritime Heritage Management 249

MH.1 Objective—Establish a Maritime

Heritage Program

Background. SBNMS holds a rich variety of historical 

resources. In the past, fishermen in the sanctuary have 

recovered paleontological remains representing a period 

when portions of Stellwagen Bank were dry land during the 

last ice age approximately 14,000 years ago. These findings suggest that there is also the potential for discovering 

prehistoric cultural remains. However, most of the known 

historical resources consist of historic shipwrecks.

Spanning the mouth of Massachusetts Bay, SBNMS represents the current and historic gateway to several of America’s oldest ports. Vessels entering and leaving Gloucester, 

Salem, Boston, Plymouth and Provincetown traversed the 

sanctuary’s waters. As such, historical records indicate that 

several hundred vessels sank in the vicinity of the sanctuary.

The extent of SBNMS’s archaeological inventory is just 

beginning to be known. Archaeological research has utilized 

remote sensing technology to locate historical resources. 

Local researchers have also divulged the locations of several 

sites, including the Portland, Frank A. Palmer, and Louise B. 

Crary. In total over a dozen shipwrecks have been located, 

many of which are potentially eligible for or listed on the 

NRHP.

The NMSP is placing increased emphasis on the development of MH programs to inventory, assess, manage, and 

protect heritage sites within the sanctuaries. This AP initiates 

a comprehensive MH program that will systematically fulfill 

the NMSA mandate, while fostering cooperative relationships with other groups conducting similar or compatible 

research.

NMSP regulations (§ 922.3 Definitions) define historical 

resource as, “Any resource possessing historical, cultural, 

archaeological or paleontological significance, including sites, contextual information, structures, districts, and 

objects significantly associated with or representative of 

earlier people, cultures, maritime heritage, and human activities and events. Historical resources include “submerged 

cultural resources,” and also include “historical properties,” 

as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act, as 

amended, and its implementing regulations, as amended.”

Strategies (3) To Establish a Maritime Heritage Program

(1.1) Develop the foundation and infrastructure for a MH 

program and integrate the MH program into existing sanctuary programs. This effort will provide a framework for the 

development, operation and future expansion of SBNMS’s 

maritime heritage program pursuant to the NMSA and in 

coordination with the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). This includes at the least a full-time maritime 

archaeologist on staff and the familiarization of all SBNMS 

staff with MH.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(1.2) Identify and pursue additional sources of funding 

beyond the NMSP. Due to limited funding, it is necessary 

to pursue external sources of funding to support MH efforts 

such as: exhibitry; historical, anthropological and archaeological research; archaeological fieldwork; outreach and 

education; and, curation and conservation.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(1.3) Identify and form partnerships, relationships, and 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with entities that 

have specialized knowledge and abilities that support the 

documentation and interpretation of the sanctuary’s MH. 

Developing relationships will facilitate the documentation 

and interpretation of the sanctuary MH by bringing together 

advanced technologies and abilities not otherwise available 

to the sanctuary.

Priority: Medium

Status: Ongoing

MH.2 Objective—Inventory, Assess and

Characterize Historical Resources

Background. The NHPA requires federal agencies, such as 

NOAA, to inventory historic and archaeological resources 

under their jurisdiction and to nominate potentially eligible 

sites to the NRHP. SBNMS will follow the guidelines of the 

NHPA and the NMSA to methodically research, survey, 

document, assess, and characterize the heritage resources 

within its jurisdiction.

Strategies (4) To Inventory, Assess and Characterize Historical Resources

(2.1) Characterize prehistoric and historic use patterns to 

assist with the location of historical resources through the 

identification and collection of historical, archaeological, 

and anthropological documentation. Prior to conducting 

expensive fieldwork to locate historical resources, SBNMS 

will expand its knowledge of human use patterns to refine 

its search methodology.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.1.1 Establish relationships and partnerships with 

foreign, federal, tribal, state, local, non-governmental and private organizations and individuals 

to identify historical resources within SBNMS.

Status: Ongoing

2.1.2 Conduct historical, archaeological, and anthropological research to identify potential historical 

resource locations, including soliciting oral histories and information from divers, researchers, and 

fishermen.

Status: Ongoing

2.1.3 Establish a spatial database to inventory, assess 

and characterize historical resources.

Status: Ongoing

(2.2) Conduct systematic field surveys to locate, identify and inventory historical resources. Utilizing research 

conducted in Strategy 2.1, potential historical resources will 

be investigated using appropriate methodologies.
250 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

2.2.1 Establish partnerships and relationships with 

federal, tribal, state, local, non-governmental and 

private organizations and individuals to utilize the 

most sophisticated and appropriate technologies 

available to conduct historical resource surveys.

Status: Ongoing

2.2.2 Record archaeological site positions in the historical resources database and NOAA’s Archaeological Database (ARCH).

Status: Ongoing

2.2.3 Periodically reassess known archaeological sites 

to record changes to the site from biological and/

or anthropogenic processes.

Status: Ongoing

(2.3) Assess historical resources for their NRHP eligibility 

and nominate appropriate sites to the NRHP. The NHPA 

requires federal agencies, such as NOAA, to inventory 

historic and archaeological resources under their jurisdiction and to nominate potentially eligible sites to the NRHP.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(2.4) Characterize historical resources within SBNMS.

Characterization synthesizes the results of the inventory and 

assessment to understand the overall significance of historical resources in the sanctuary and how they relate to broad 

patterns of history.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

MH.3 Objective—Protect and Manage

Historical Resources

Background. One of the purposes and policies of the NMSA 

is “to enhance public awareness and understanding, appreciation, and wise and sustainable use of the marine environment and the natural, historical, cultural, and archaeological resources of the National Marine Sanctuary System.” To 

carry out this policy, SBNMS will develop and implement a 

maritime heritage management system to provide archaeological sites an increased level of protection from human 

impacts. To the extent compatible with the primary goal of 

resource protection, use of these resources will be facilitated 

by allowing access to appropriate sites and by mitigating the 

impacts of human uses through permitting.

Strategies (7) To Protect and Manage Historical Resources

(3.1) Implement a management system that protects historical resources while allowing for uses compatible with 

resource protection. The management system will consist 

of two parts based on specific goals and criteria. Sanctuary 

historical resources will be categorized, on a case-by-case 

basis, as a ‘historic site’ or a ‘heritage preserve’ as follows:

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

Activities:

3.1.1 Establish historic sites. A site must be a sanctuary 

historical resource that may be eligible for or listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places. The site 

must be structurally stable, durable and capable 

of hosting increased visitation without adversely 

impacting the site’s structural or archaeological 

integrity. Public access will be facilitated to the 

extent practicable and to the extent compatible 

with maritime heritage resource protection.

Adequate measures will be developed to protect 

historic sites from activities that have high potential for harming the sites’ archaeological or structural integrity. At a minimum, voluntary guidelines 

for site avoidance will be issued for traditional 

and experimental fishing operations. Amendment 

of sanctuary regulations will be considered to 

include resource protection measures for historic 

sites.

Status: Planned, 2009

3.1.2 Establish heritage preserves. A site must be a 

sanctuary historical resource and be listed on the 

NRHP. Human activities must have a high potential for negatively impacting the site’s archaeological and/or structural integrity. Additional protection for exceptional historical resources having a 

high degree of fragility and archaeological integrity will be provided.

Heritage preserves will delimit an area around 

exceptional historical resources within which 

human activities that have a high potential for 

harming the sites’ archaeological or structural 

integrity will be restricted or prohibited. Amendment of sanctuary regulations will be considered 

to include resource protection measures for heritage preserves.

Status: Planned, 2009

(3.2) Implement an assessment protocol to assign sanctuary historical resources to the appropriate category.

SBNMS will develop a rigorous site assessment protocol 

to determine the maritime heritage management category 

(established in Strategy 3.1) in which a newly discovered 

sanctuary historical resource should be placed.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2009

(3.3) Identify partnerships and relationships for site monitoring and compliance of historical resource permits and 

regulations. The constant on-the-water presence of state 

and federal law enforcement agencies, researchers, divers, 

whale watchers and fishermen extends the sanctuary’s 

surveillance capabilities.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2009

(3.4) Develop and implement an interpretive enforcement program. Interpretive law enforcement will inform 

users about the sanctuary and its regulations through the 

distribution of educational outreach information. A greater 

MH focused enforcement effort should lead to consistent 

enforcement awareness and compliance in the sanctuary.
VII. Action Plans—Maritime Heritage Management 251

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(3.5) Develop and implement a mooring buoy system on 

historic sites in collaboration with affected parties and 

regional scuba diving charter operators. Mooring buoys 

may be emplaced to protect historic sites from anchor 

damage and facilitate safe scuba diving.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned, 2009

(3.6) Implement the NMSP Permitting Guidelines for 

archaeological research (i.e., survey and inventory permit 

and archaeological research permit). Permits are a management tool to ensure protection of historical resources.

Priority: High

Status: Planned, 2008

(3.7) Develop and implement collection and conservation 

policies for artifacts previously recovered from SBNMS 

before and after designation. Policies need to be developed 

that clarify the disposition of these artifacts and their conservation.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2009

MH.4 Objective—Develop and Implement a

Maritime Heritage Outreach and Education

Program

Background. MH presents a unique avenue to educate 

the public about broader cultural themes and traditions of 

the GoM through the use of websites, exhibits, and other 

outreach tools. (For additional outreach and education strategies, see the Outreach and Education AP.)

Strategies (2) To Develop and Implement a MH Outreach 

and Education Program

(4.1) Identify and partner with regional museums, through 

MOU/Agreements, to conduct MH exhibits and other 

outreach programs. Partnerships will provide a means for 

information-sharing to the public and user groups on the 

importance of resource protection and stewardship ethics.

Priority: High

Status: Ongoing

(4.2) Develop and implement an artifact documentation 

and curation program through partnerships and relationships with local or regional maritime museums. This 

program will solicit information from the public and document artifacts previously recovered from the SBNMS.

Priority: Low

Status: Planned, 2009

MH.5 Objective—Assess Shipwrecks and

Other Submerged Objects for Potential

Hazards

Background. SBNMS is required to identify, assess and 

monitor MH sites that may pose an environmental threat 

to resources inside and outside of the sanctuary. Information pertaining to submerged sites as environmental threats 

is provided to: (1) NOAA’s Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) 

division; (2) the NMSP for the development of the Sanctuaries Hazardous Incident Emergency Logistics Database 

System (SHIELDS); and (3) the Resources and Under Sea 

Threats (RUST) database systems.

Strategies (4) To Assess Shipwrecks and Other Submerged 

Objects for Potential Hazards

(5.1) Establish an inventory of shipwrecks and submerged 

objects, inside and outside of SBNMS boundaries that may 

pose environmental threats to resources. This effort will 

coordinate with affected and associated parties while taking 

into account that some of these threats might be historical 

resources.

Priority: Medium

Status: Ongoing

Activities:

5.1.1 Review documentation from established databases.

Status: Ongoing

5.1.2 Identify, develop, and collaborate with partners 

doing similar research.

Status: Ongoing

5.1.3 Interview researchers, divers, and fishermen.

Status: Ongoing

(5.2) Coordinate information exchanges pertaining to 

shipwrecks and other submerged objects as environmental threats with NOAA’s HAZMAT division and the NMSP 

for the development of the SHIELDS and RUST database 

systems. The SHIELDS and RUST database systems are being 

developed to provide a clearinghouse for all submerged 

environmental threats.

Priority: Medium

Status: Ongoing

(5.3) Identify shipwrecks and other submerged sites to be 

examined with remote sensing technology and report findings to state and federal trustees. Once suspected environmental threats are identified SBNMS will investigate these 

sites with remote sensing technology.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned

(5.4) Establish a monitoring program for shipwreck and 

submerged sites that have been located and are considered 

a threat to SBNMS. Develop protocols for site evaluation 

and a timeline for future site monitoring. Monitoring of 

suspected environmental threats will provide the sanctuary with a baseline by which changes to these sites can be 

assessed and appropriate action taken before environmental 

damage.

Priority: Medium

Status: Planned
252 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Table 57. Estimated costs for MH action plan.

Strategy

Estimated Cost ($000)* Total 

Estimated 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 5 Year Cost

(1.1) Develop the foundation and infrastructure for a MH 

program and integrate the MH program into existing sanctuary 

programs.

100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 400.0

(1.2) Identify and pursue additional sources of funding beyond 

the NMSP. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(1.3) Identify and form partnerships, relationships, and MOU 

with entities that have specialized knowledge and abilities that 

support the documentation and interpretation of the sanctuary’s 

MH.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.1) Characterize prehistoric and historic use patterns to assist 

with the location of historical resources through the identification and collection of historical, archaeological, and anthropological documentation.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.2) Conduct systematic field surveys to locate, identify, and 

inventory historical resources. 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 250.0

(2.3) Assess historical resources for their NRHP eligibility and 

nominate appropriate sites to the NRHP. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(2.4) Characterize historical resources within the SBNMS. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.1) Implement a management system that protects historical 

resources while allowing for uses compatible with resource 

protection.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.2) Implement an assessment protocol to assign sanctuary 

historical resources to the appropriate category. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.3) Identify partnerships and relationships for site monitoring 

and compliance of historical resource permits and regulations. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.4) Develop and implement an interpretive enforcement 

program

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 50.0

(3.5) Develop and implement a mooring buoy system on 

historical resources in collaboration with affected parties and 

regional scuba diving charter operators

1.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 27.0

(3.6) Implement the NMSP Permitting Guidelines for archaeological research (i.e., survey and inventory permit and archaeological research permit).

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(3.7) Develop and implement collection and conservation policies for artifacts previously recovered from SBNMS before and 

after designation. 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(4.1) Identify and partner with regional museums, through 

MOU/Agreements, to conduct MH exhibits and other outreach 

programs. 

0.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 55.0

(4.2) Develop and implement an artifact documentation and 

curation program through partnerships and relationships with 

local or regional maritime museums.

0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 30.0

5.1) Establish an inventory of shipwrecks and submerged 

objects, inside and outside of SBNMS boundaries that may 

pose environmental threats to resources.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(5.2) Coordinate information exchanges pertaining to shipwrecks and other submerged objects as environmental threats 

with NOAA’s HAZMAT division and the NMSP for the development of the SHIELDS and RUST database systems.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(5.3) Identify shipwrecks and other submerged sites to be 

examined with remote sensing technology and report findings 

to state and federal trustees.

0.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 6.0

(5.4) Establish a monitoring program for shipwreck and 

submerged sites that have been located and are considered a 

threat to SBNMS. Develop protocols for site evaluation and a 

timeline for future site monitoring.

0.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 45.0

Total Estimated Annual Cost 152.0 183.0 190.0 144.0 149.0 818.0

*Cost estimates exclude federal labor costs.
VII. Action Plans—Maritime Heritage Management 253

Table 58. Performance measures for MH action plan.

Desired Outcome(s) For This Action Plan

Prehistoric and historic archaeological resources are managed and protected.

Performance Measures Means of Evaluation Baseline NMSP Measure

By 2010, five of the eligible historical resources will be nominated to the 

National Register of Historical Places 

(NRHP).

SBNMS will keep track of the percent of 

eligible resources that are nominated to 

the NRHP.

Number of historical 

resources nominated to 

the NRHP: 4

Shipwrecks

By 2010, as part of the Maritime Heritage (MH) management program, all 

located historical resources will be 

categorized through SBNMS site assessment protocol. 

SBNMS will track the number of identified 

shipwrecks that have been categorized 

through the MH management program.

Number of classified 

shipwrecks: 0

Shipwrecks
254 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment
255

VIII. 

Draft

Environmental

Assessment

The ultimate purpose of the revised draft 

management plan is to update NOAA’s 

approach to managing, protecting and restoring the resources of the sanctuary. This section 

presents the environmental assessment that 

provides analyses and supporting documentation for the agency to determine whether the 

preferred alternative, revision of the management plan, is warranted.
256 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need

Need for action

Congress designated the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary (sanctuary or SBNMS) through 

the Oceans Act of 1992 (November 4, 1992; Public Law 

102-587 at section 2202). In 1993, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued final regulations and released a final management plan and environmental impact statement (EIS) to implement this designation 

(NOAA 1993). 

Section 304(e) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) requires NOAA to review its management plans for 

national marine sanctuaries every five years and to evaluate 

the substantive progress toward implementing the management plans and goals for each sanctuary, especially the 

effectiveness of site-specific management techniques (16 

U.S.C. 1434(e)). Pursuant to this requirement, NOAA initiated its five-year management plan review (MPR) in 1998, 

in cooperation with members of the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council. The MPR was delayed two years due to a change 

in sanctuary management and was continued in 2002 with 

an additional round of scoping meetings in the fall of 2002. 

The State of the Sanctuary Report, published in June 2002, 

set the stage for the scoping meetings and public comment 

period that ended on October 18, 2002. 

The MPR revealed that many of the initial goals and objectives of the 1993 management plan had been met; however, 

in some areas these goals and objectives were non-specific 

and general in scope and/or based on limited scientific 

knowledge. New information about the natural and cultural resources of the sanctuary and the human uses of the 

resources made it apparent to NOAA that the plan is out-ofdate and outmoded. NOAA decided to incorporate this new 

knowledge by developing a new approach to management. 

Consequently, NOAA developed a new vision, mission, and 

statement of goals and objectives to guide management. In 

addition, NOAA has revised the content and formatting 

requirements for national marine sanctuary management 

plans. These structural elements were not employed in the 

1993 management plan. 

Purpose for taking action

The ultimate purpose of the revised draft management plan 

is to update NOAA’s approach to managing, protecting, 

and restoring the resources of the sanctuary pursuant to the 

purposes and policies of the NMSA, which are:

(1) to identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries 

areas of the marine environment which are of special 

national significance and to manage these areas as the 

National Marine Sanctuary System;

(2) to provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated 

conservation and management of these marine areas, and 

activities affecting them, in a manner which complements 

existing regulatory authorities; 

(3) to maintain the natural biological communities in 

the national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and, 

where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, 

populations, and ecological processes; 

(4) to enhance public awareness, understanding, 

appreciation, and wise and sustainable use of the marine 

environment, and the natural, historical, cultural, and 

archeological resources of the National Marine Sanctuary 

System;

(5) to support, promote, and coordinate scientific research 

on, and long-term monitoring of, the resources of these 

marine areas;

(6) to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary 

objective of resource protection, all public and private 

uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited 

pursuant to other authorities; 

(7) to develop and implement coordinated plans for 

the protection and management of these areas with 

appropriate Federal agencies, State and local governments, 

Native American tribes and organizations, international 

organizations, and other public and private interests 

concerned with the continuing health and resilience of 

these marine areas; 

(8) to create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve 

and manage these areas, including the application of 

innovative management techniques; and

(9) to cooperate with global programs encouraging 

conservation of marine resources.

Description of Proposed Action and

Alternatives

The original 1993 Final Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement described a number of alternatives 

for the management framework of the sanctuary, including 

differing boundary options, regulatory options, and management regimes. Extensive analyses of possible environmental and socioeconomic impacts were conducted for each 

alternative before the current boundaries, regulations, and 

management regime were selected. The 1993 plan can be 

viewed online at http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/management.

For this revision, NOAA considered the options of preparing an entirely new management plan or minimally revising 

the current management plan. As discussed in the “Need 

for Action” section, awareness of new issues affecting sanctuary management and the fulfillment of most of the prior 

plan’s objectives necessitated the development of a new 

plan. Additionally, NOAA decided that this revision would 

be a non-regulatory management plan that establishes a 

policy framework for future management actions. 

This environmental assessment provides analyses and 

supporting documentation for the agency to determine 

whether a Finding of No Significant Impact is warranted. 

For this determination, only two alternatives are being 

considered: leaving the current management plan in place 

or revising the current management plan to reflect those 

changes, as noted above. The preferred alternative is to 
VIII. Draft Environmental Assessment 257

revise the management plan. A discussion of each of the 

alternatives follows.

No-action alternative

This alternative would maintain the 1993 management plan 

despite its outdated format and inclusion of completed tasks, 

along with the nominal list of goals and objectives. The noaction alternative does not infer a secession of management 

in the sanctuary. Management actions described in the 

existing management plan, such as regulations, educational 

and research activities, and enforcement actions, would 

continue. 

Alternative 1—Preferred Alternative

This alternative proposes a revision of the current management plan. The revised plan updates the vision, goals, and 

objectives to better reflect the new paradigm of sanctuary management within the National Marine Sanctuary 

Program (NMSP); removes old tasks and incorporates new 

and planned management strategies and activities (Section 

II); reformats the document so it is in line with the preferred 

format; lays out performance measures with which to better 

evaluate the sanctuary management’s effectiveness; and 

lays the groundwork for potential future regulatory actions 

addressing high priority issues.

Specifically, changes made to the management plan 

include:

•	An updated description of natural and cultural resources

(Sections III and IV);

•	A new vision and mission statement (Section VII);

•	An updated statement of goals and objectives to reflect

the new vision and mission statements and current status 

of sanctuary resources and efforts;

•	A restructuring of the management plan into a series of

action plans (based on resource conservation issues) in 

keeping with the templates of current sanctuary management plans (Section VII); and

•	A new set of outcomes and performance indicators

included (Section VII);

Action plans (APs) are detailed five-year plans that address 

an issue or problem in the sanctuary. Action plans are 

issue-driven, not program- or thematically-driven, and are 

composed of a collection of strategies sharing common 

management objectives. They provide an organized structure and process for implementing strategies, including a 

description of the requisite activities, organizations involved, 

and requirements necessary for either full or partial implementation. The following action plans form the backbone 

of the proposed revised management plan:

Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure Action Plan

(ADMIN AP)

The ADMIN AP provides recommendations to strengthen 

the sanctuary’s base-level staffing, facilities infrastructure 

and program support to effectively meet the basic needs of 

sanctuary management. Emphasis is placed on the human 

and physical infrastructure and financial resource requirements of the site.

Interagency Cooperation Action Plan (IC AP)

The IC AP addresses public scoping comments concerning clarification of overlapping agency responsibilities, 

and interagency coordination and effectiveness. This AP 

provides the framework to help clarify the roles, responsibilities, and relationships among associated agencies in 

order to strengthen resource protection within the sanctuary 

as well as improve interagency communication.

Public Outreach and Education Action Plan (POE AP)

The POE AP makes recommendations to resolve issues 

including low name recognition of the sanctuary, need 

for better information dissemination through leveraged 

partnerships and public education through programming 

support. The POE AP is predicated on developing outreach 

and education tools that serve to help achieve sanctuary 

management goals and objectives.

Compatibility Determination Action Plan (CD AP)

One of the purposes of the NMSA is to facilitate those uses 

of the sanctuary that are compatible with the primary objective of resource protection. The CD AP addresses issues 

raised by public scoping comments concerning the need to 

clarify, justify, and recommend an approach NOAA should 

take in performing compatibility analyses of human uses 

of the sanctuary. This AP describes a framework for how 

to develop a compatibility analysis. It does not make any 

determination regarding the appropriateness of any specific 

sanctuary use, current or potential, nor does it recommend 

any actions that affect the outcome of other APs recommended by other working groups.

Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management Action Plan

(EBSM AP)

The EBSM AP includes recommendations for comprehensive 

ecosystem protection, restoration and protection of biological diversity, zoning including no-take zones, ecosystembased management practices and consideration of boundary modification. The AP does not propose any regulatory 

changes.

Ecosystem Alteration Action Plan (EA AP)

The EA AP includes recommendations to reduce or mitigate anthropogenic perturbations in the sanctuary, as distinguished from impacts due to natural disturbance. Anthropogenic, or human imposed impacts, include the laying of 

submarine pipelines and cables, fishing activities, pollution and degradation of water quality, ocean dumping and 

marine debris, disposal of dredged materials, introduction 

of exotic species, offshore mariculture and coastal development activities. This action plan focuses on the laying of 

pipelines and cables and fishing activities. Other sources 

of ecosystem alteration are treated variously in other action 

plans, such as for ecosystem based management, water qual-
258 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

ity and interagency cooperation. The AP does not propose 

any regulatory changes. 

Water Quality Action Plan (WQ AP)

The WQ AP includes recommendations to address water 

quality concerns within the sanctuary. Point and nonpoint sources of pollution, both sea and shore-based, may 

be degrading the quality of the sanctuary’s waters. NOAA 

must ensure that the quality of water within its boundary 

and in surrounding areas does no harm to the site’s living 

marine and cultural resources, i.e., pursuant to section 

922.142(a)(i) and (ii) of the regulations. The following two 

needs were identified: to assess water quality and circulation 

to characterize baseline conditions, and to reduce pollutant discharges and waste streams that may be negatively 

impacting sanctuary resources. The AP does not propose 

any regulatory changes.

Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance Action Plan

(MMBD AP)

The MMBD AP includes recommendations to reduce the 

risk of behavioral disturbance and harassment of marine 

mammals resulting from the following activities: whale 

watching, tuna fishing, aircraft overflights and noise pollution. The sanctuary serves as a major feeding ground for 

seven species of endangered, threatened and protected 

whales and smaller cetaceans. The sanctuary is also a high 

use area for commercial and recreational vessel traffic and, 

consequently, a high-risk area for marine mammal disturbance by human-induced activities within and around the 

sanctuary.

Marine Mammal Vessel Strike Action Plan (MMVS AP)

The MMVS AP includes recommendations to reduce the 

risk of collision between vessels and marine mammals that 

cause injury or mortality to the animals, harm to operators 

and damage to vessels. Ship strikes represent one of the two 

major threats that are likely to prevent the recovery of critically endangered North Atlantic right whales and endangered humpback whales. Efforts in the U.S. have attempted to slow vessel speeds and to create an ‘early warning 

system’ to inform mariners of locations of right whales in 

and near shipping channels. Despite efforts to date, vessel 

strikes continue to kill and injure right whales at a level that 

compromises the species’ survival. Concern in recent years 

has intensified as marine traffic has come to involve larger 

and faster vessels.

Marine Mammal Entanglement Action Plan (MME AP)

The MME AP includes recommendations to reduce the risk 

of entanglement of marine mammals in commercial fishing 

gear in the sanctuary. The concern extends to sea turtle and 

sea bird entanglement. The immediate effects of entanglement can include mortality, serious injury, or minor injury 

that when combined with other factors may have significant 

consequences. The long-term effects can include deteriorating health, behavioral disruptions, or decreased reproductive ability.

Maritime Heritage Management Action Plan (MHM AP)

The MHM AP includes recommendations for the inventory 

and assessment of historical resources, the management and 

protection of historical resources, and MH interpretation. 

The AP addresses sanctuary-specific historical resource 

assessment, management, protection, and MH outreach 

and education requirements; it fulfills the NOAA NMSP 

and the NOAA Maritime Heritage Program (MHP) strategic 

plans; and it complies with the President’s Preserve America 

Executive Order (E.O.13287) tasking NOAA with preserving and protecting historic resources in the agency’s care, 

including shipwrecks.

Affected Environment

The existing management plan and environmental impact 

statement for the Sanctuary (NOAA 1993) contains a 

complete description of the sanctuary environment, including natural and cultural resources and human uses. Section 

I: Sanctuary Setting of the revised management plan updates 

the information provided in the 1993 plan with substantial 

new findings and information. These documents are incorporated by reference into this environmental assessment 

and briefly summarized below. 

Boundary

The sanctuary boundary encompasses 638 square nautical miles (approximately 2181 square kilometers) of ocean 

waters and the submerged lands thereunder, over and 

surrounding the submerged Stellwagen Bank and additional 

submerged features, at the mouth of Massachusetts Bay. 

The boundary encompasses the entirety of Stellwagen Bank; 

Tillies Bank to the northeast of Stellwagen Bank; and southern portions of Jeffreys Ledge to the north of Tillies Bank. 

Portions of the sanctuary are co-terminus with the state 

waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The entire 

sanctuary lies in federal waters (Figure 9). See Appendix R 

for a listing of boundary coordinates.

Sanctuary Resources

The sanctuary’s complex seafloor topography influences 

current flow and site productivity. Site productivity is 

seasonal with the overturning and mixing of ocean waters 

from deeper strata producing a complex and rich system of 

overlapping midwater and benthic habitats. This heightened seasonal productivity supports 22 species of marine 

mammals, 34 species of seabirds, and over 80 fish species.

The sanctuary serves as a critical feeding ground for numerous whales and other marine mammals, several of which 

are endangered. It may also be an important nursery area 

for certain of these species. The sanctuary’s multiple habitat 

types support a high diversity of fish species and an impressive assemblage of invertebrates. And, its rich forage base 

provides productive habitat for a wide variety of coastal and 

pelagic seabirds.

For a full description of sanctuary resources see Section II.
VIII. Draft Environmental Assessment 259

Environmental Consequences

No-action alternative

Taking no action would result in no change of the current 

management regime of the sanctuary. The 1993 management plan/environmental impact statement contains a full 

analysis of the environmental impacts of each alternative 

discussed therein. Taking no action would result in no additional socioeconomic impacts to those already associated 

with the operation of the sanctuary. The existing management plan/environmental impact statement contains a full 

analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of each alternative 

discussed therein.

Alternative 1: Proposed action

The revised management plan would make no boundary 

or regulatory changes; however, existing non-regulatory 

programs would be updated and enhanced, and new ones 

would be launched. NOAA expects this would have a 

positive environmental effect, by increasing protection of 

resources through interagency cooperation, by reaching 

more people and expanding the stewardship message of 

the sanctuary. The revised plan itself does not enable any 

of these activities listed in the action plans to take place; 

they could take place without the revision under current 

regulatory and statutory authority, as well as under the 

current management plan. The sanctuary management 

plan proposes to develop processes to consider future regulatory actions, which would include the appropriate NEPA 

analysis and formal public input at appropriate times in the 

future. The environmental impacts of each action plan are 

described below.

Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure Action Plan

The ADMIN AP would provide the framework for the 

organizational structure and functions of the sanctuary to 

address marine resource protection, research and monitoring, exploration, evaluation, and education and outreach. 

This administrative framework also would ensure that sanctuary management activities are coordinated between disciplines at the sanctuary and with activities administered at 

the NMSP level. Because of its administrative nature, this 

AP would not result in significant positive or negative environmental impacts. In addition, actions described in this 

AP would all meet the NOAA requirements for a categorical 

exclusion under NEPA1

, which is further indication of the 

absence of significant environmental impacts.

Interagency Cooperation Action Plan

The IC AP would clarify the roles, responsibilities, and relationships among associated agencies in order to strengthen 

resource protection, research and education/outreach within the sanctuary as well as improve interagency communication. Because of its consultative nature, this AP would 

not result in significant positive or negative environmental 

impacts. In addition, actions described in the AP would all 

1 NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 §6.03c.3(i)

meet the NOAA requirements for a categorical exclusion 

under NEPA2, which is further indication of the absence of 

significant environmental impacts.

Public Outreach and Education Action Plan

The IC AP would clarify the roles, responsibilities, and relationships among associated agencies in order to strengthen 

resource protection, research and education/outreach within the sanctuary as well as improve interagency communication. Because of its consultative nature, this AP would 

not result in significant positive or negative environmental 

impacts. In addition, actions described in the AP would all 

meet the NOAA requirements for a categorical exclusion 

under NEPA3, which is further indication of the absence of 

significant environmental impacts.

Compatibility Determination Action Plan

The CD AP would describe how NOAA would determine 

the compatibility of human uses of sanctuary resources. This 

AP would establish a framework and process to develop a 

compatibility analysis. It would not make any determination regarding the appropriateness of any specific sanctuary 

use, current or potential. All actions ensuing from this AP 

will undergo the appropriate NEPA analysis when NOAA 

has developed the proposal enough to evaluate potential 

impacts. To consider potential environmental impacts of 

this AP would be purely speculative. This AP would not, in 

and of itself, result in significant positive or negative environmental impacts.

Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management Action Plan

The EBSM AP could result in beneficial impacts to the environment by addressing the need for comprehensive ecosystem protection; conservation of biological diversity; zoning 

in the sanctuary, including no-take zones; ecosystem-based 

management practices; and boundary modification. All 

actions ensuing from this AP will undergo the appropriate 

NEPA analysis when NOAA has developed the proposal 

enough to evaluate potential impacts. To consider potential 

environmental impacts of this AP would be purely speculative. This AP would not, in and of itself, result in significant 

positive or negative environmental impacts. 

Ecosystem Alteration Action Plan

The EA AP could result in beneficial impacts to the environment by addressing ecosystem alteration(s) that result from 

human activities. In particular, this AP will focus on reducing 

impacts to the ecosystem from the laying of cables and pipelines, reducing habitat alteration by mobile fishing gear and 

reducing ecosystem impacts of biomass removal by fishing 

activity. All actions ensuing from this AP will undergo the 

appropriate NEPA analysis when NOAA has developed the 

proposal enough to evaluate potential impacts. To consider 

potential environmental impacts of this AP would be purely 

speculative. This AP would not, in and of itself, result in 

significant positive or negative environmental impacts.

2 NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 §6.03c.3(i)

3 NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 §6.03c.3(i)
260 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Water Quality Action Plan

The WQ AP would describe how NOAA would address 

water quality within the sanctuary. Concerns of particular importance addressed by this AP are the development 

of a better understanding and assessment of water quality 

and circulation, and a reduction of pollutant discharges and 

waste streams that may be negatively impacting sanctuary resources. Actions described in this AP could result in 

beneficial impacts to the environment by potentially reducing harmful discharges in the sanctuary. All actions ensuing 

from this AP will undergo the appropriate NEPA analysis 

when NOAA has developed the proposal enough to evaluate potential impacts. To consider potential environmental 

impacts of this AP would be purely speculative. This AP 

would not, in and of itself, result in significant positive or 

negative environmental impacts.

Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance Action Plan

The MMBD AP would describe how NOAA would address 

the potential harassment, including behavioral disturbance, 

of marine mammals resulting from the following activities: whale watching, fishing, aircraft overflights, and noise 

generation. Actions described in this AP could result in 

beneficial impacts to the environment by minimizing the 

incidence of behavioral disturbance to the marine mammals 

that frequent the waters of the sanctuary. All actions ensuing from this AP will undergo the appropriate NEPA analysis 

when NOAA has developed the proposal enough to evaluate the potential impacts in a meaningful way. To consider 

potential environmental impacts of this AP would be purely 

speculative. This AP would not, in and of itself, result in 

significant positive or negative environmental impacts.

Marine Mammal Vessel Strike Action Plan

The MMVS AP would describe actions NOAA would take to 

minimize collisions between marine mammals and vessels, 

which can cause injury or mortality to marine mammals and 

humans, and damage to vessels. Actions described in this 

AP could result in beneficial impacts to the environment 

by decreasing the occurrence of marine mammal vessel 

strikes in the sanctuary. All actions ensuing from this AP 

will undergo the appropriate NEPA analysis when NOAA 

has developed the proposal enough to evaluate potential 

impacts. To consider potential environmental impacts of 

this AP would be purely speculative. This AP would not, in 

and of itself, result in significant positive or negative environmental impacts.

Marine Mammal Entanglement Action Plan

The MME AP would describe actions NOAA would take to 

minimize the entanglement of marine mammals in commercial fishing gear. Actions described in this AP could result 

in beneficial impacts to the environment by decreasing the 

occurrence of marine mammal entanglements in the sanctuary. All actions ensuing from this AP will undergo the 

appropriate NEPA analysis when NOAA has developed the 

proposal enough to evaluate potential impacts. To consider 

potential environmental impacts of this AP would be purely 

speculative. This AP would not, in and of itself, result in 

significant positive or negative environmental impacts

Maritime Heritage Management Action Plan

The MHM AP would address three primary issues relating 

to the sanctuary’s MHR: the need for inventory and assessment; the lack of a plan for management and protection; and 

the lack of interpretation. This AP describes actions NOAA 

would take to prevent threats to maritime heritage resources 

and, indirectly, to the surrounding area. All actions ensuing 

from this AP will undergo the appropriate NEPA analysis 

when NOAA has developed the proposal enough to evaluate the potential impacts in a meaningful way. To consider 

potential environmental impacts of this AP would be purely 

speculative. This AP would not, in and of itself, result in 

significant positive or negative environmental impacts.

Conclusion

The preferred alternative, if implemented, will not result 

in significant positive or negative environmental impacts. 

Therefore, it qualifies for a categorical exclusion from the 

requirement to conduct an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

List of preparers

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Hélène Scalliet, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver 

Spring, MD

Benjamin Cowie-Haskell, Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, Scituate, MA
261

IX. 

Sources

Cited
262 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Abookire, A.A., J.F. Piatt, and MD. Robards, 2000. Nearshore 

fish distributions in an Alaskan estuary in relation to 

stratification, temperature and salinity. Estuarine Coastal 

and Shelf Science, 51, 45-59.

Adey, W.H., and R.S. Steneck, 2001. Thermogeography over 

time creates biogeographic regions: a temperature/space/

time-integrated model and an abundance-weighted test 

for benthic marine algae. Journal of Phycology, 37, 677-

698.

Aebisher, N.J., J.C. Coulson, and J.M. Colebrook, 1990. Parallel 

long-term trends across four marine trophic levels and 

weather. Nature, 347, 753-755.

Agler, B.A., R.I. Schooley, S.E. Frohock, S.K. Katona, and I.E. Seipt, 

I.E., 1993. Reproduction of photographically identified fin 

whales, Balaenopteran physulus, from the Gulf of Maine. 

Journal of Mammalogy, 74, 577-587.

Ainley, D.G., 1980. Birds as marine organisms: a review. In: 

Pelagic Distributions of Marine Birds off the Northeastern 

United States (CalCOFI Report, 21, 48-52). NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-27, Woods Hole, 

MA.

Algonquin (Algonquin Gas Transmission Company and Duke 

Energy LLC), 2000. Environmental Report Accompanying 

FERC Section 7C Application. Resource Report 2. 

HubLine Project, Beverly to Weymouth, Massachusetts. 

October 2, 2000.

Algonquin, 2005. Environmental Report, Accompanying FERC 

Section 7c Application. Filed with the FERC License 

Application for the Northeast Gateway Project.

Allen, G.R. and R. Steene, R., 1999. Indo-Pacific Coral Reef Field 

Guide. Tropical Reef Research, Singapore.

Alversen, D., M. Freeberg, S. Murawski, and J. Pope, 1994. A 

global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO 

Fisheries Technical Paper 339, Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 233 pp.

Alverson, D. and S. Hughes, 1996. Bycatch: from emotion to 

effective natural resource management. Reviews in Fish 

Biology and Fisheries, 6, 443-462.

American Bird Conservancy, 2004. ABC Green List. American 

Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA. Available from http://

www.abcbirds.org/greenlist.htm (accessed March 2005).

Amott, S.A. and L. Pihl, L., 2000. Selection of prey size and prey 

species by I-group cod Gadus morhua: effects of satiation 

level and prey handling times. Marine Ecology-Progress 

Series, 198, 225-238.

Anderson, J.G.T. and C.M. Devlin, 1999. Restoration of a multispecies seabird colony. Biological Conservation, 90, 175-

181. 

Anderson, J.L. and R.S. Gregory, 2000. Factors regulating survival 

of northern cod (NAFO 2J3KL) during their first 3 years of 

life. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 349-359.

Andrew, R. K., B.M. Howe, J.A. Mercer and M.A. Dzieciuch, 

2002. Ocean ambient sound: comparing the 1960s with 

the 1990s for a receiver off the California coast. Acoustics 

Research Letters Online (ARLO), 3, 65-70.

Annual Newsletter of the Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement 

Network, Presentations and Publications from the 

Network. 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of 

Marine Mammals, 12-16 December, 2005, San Diego, 

CA.

Arkema, K.K., S.C. Abramson, and B.M. Dewsbury, 2006. Marine 

ecosystem-based management: from characterization to 

implementation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 

4, 525-532.

Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, S.C. LaRosa, R.A. Cooper, and L.L. 

Stewart, L.L., 1991. Microhabitat utilization by the 

megafaunal assemblage at a low relief outer continental 

shelf site – Middle Atlantic Bight, USA. Journal of 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science, 11, 59-69.

Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, R.W. Langton, L. Watling, P.C. 

Valentine, C.L.S. Donaldson, E.W. Langton, A.N. Shepard, 

and I.G. Babb, 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., R.J. Malatesta, and C.L.S. Donaldson, 1997. 

Distributional responses to small-scale habitat variability 

by early juvenile silver hake, Merluccius bilinearis.

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 50, 195-200.

Auster, P.J, 1998. Species profile: Life Histories and Environmental 

Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrate: Toutog 

and Cunner. Performed for coastal ecology group, United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways. United 

States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Research and Development, National Wetlands Research. 

Washington, DC and Vicksburg, VA.

Auster, P.J., C. Michalopoulos, P.C. Valentine, and R.J. Malatesta, 

1998. Delineating and monitoring habitat management 

units in a temperate deep-water marine protected area. In: 

Science & Management of Protected Areas Association, 

Wolfville, NS, Canada, 169-185.

Auster, P.J. and R. Langton, 1999. The effects of fishing on fish 

habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 22, 150-

187.

Auster, P.J. and N.L. Shackell, 2000. Marine protected areas for 

the temperate and boreal Northwest Atlantic: the potential 

for sustainable fisheries and conservation of biodiversity. 

Northeastern Naturalist, 7, 419-434.

Auster, P.J., 2001. Defining thresholds for precautionary habitat 

management actions in a fisheries context. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21, 1-9.

Auster, P.J., K. Joy, and P.C. Valentine, 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., 2002. Representation of biological diversity of the 

Gulf of Maine Region at Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary (Northwest Atlantic): Patterns of Fish Diversity 

and Assemblage Composition. Managing Protected Areas 

in a Changing World. S. Bondrup-Nielson et al., eds., 

Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, 

Wolfville, NS, Canada, 1096-1125.

Auster, P.J., J. Lindholm, and P.C. Valentine, 2003a. Variation in 

habitat use by juvenile Acadian redfish, Sebastes fasciatus. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 68, 381-389.

Auster, P.J., J. Lindholm, S. Schaub, G. Funnell, L.S. Kaufman, 

and P.C. Valentine, 2003b. Use of sand wave habitats by 

silver hake. Journal of Fish Biology, 62, 143-152.

Auster, P.J., 2004. Biological Diversity at Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary. Presented at the Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary Ecosystem Alteration 

Working Group Meeting. Boston, MA, April 26-27.

Auster, P.J., 2005. Are deep-water coral important habitats for 

fishes? In: Cold-water Corals and Ecosystems. Freiwald A. 
IX. Sources Cited 263

and J.M. Roberts, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 

p. 747-760.

Auster, P.J. and J. Lindholm, 2005. The ecology of fishes on deep 

boulder reefs in the western Gulf of Maine. In: Diving For 

Science 2005. Proceedings of the American Academy of 

Underwater Sciences, Connecticut Sea Grant, Groton, CT, 

p. 89-107.

Auster, P.J., R. Clark, and R.E.S. Reed, 2006. Marine Fishes. In: An 

Ecological Characterization of Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary Region (Chapter 3). National Center for 

Coastal Ocean Science, NOAA Technical Memorandum, 

Silver Spring, MD.

Auster, P.J. and J. Link, in preparation. Compensation and 

recovery of feeding guilds in a northwest Atlantic shelf fish 

community. To be submitted to Marine Ecology Progress 

Series.

Bachere, E. and H. Grizel, 1982. Study of Haplosporidium sp. 

(Haplosporida-Haplospori-diidae) parasite of the oyster 

Ostrea edulis. Revue des Travaux de l’Institut des Pêches 

Maritimes, 46, 226-232. 

Baker, S., 1998. Behavioral response of humpback whales to 

vessels in Glacier Bay. In: Proceedings of the Workshop 

to Review and Evaluate Whale Watching Programs and 

Management Needs, 14-16 November, Monterey, CA.

Balch, W.M., 1981. An Apparent Lunar Tidal Cycle of 

Phytoplankton blooming and community Succession in 

the Gulf of Maine. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology 

and Ecology, 55, 65-77.

Balch, W.M., P.M. Holligan, and K.A. Kilpatrick, 1992. 

Calcification, photosynthesis and growth of the bloomforming coccolithophore, Emiliania huxleyi. Continental 

Shelf Research, 12, 1353-1374.

Ball, B., G. Fox, and B. Munday, 1999. Long and short term 

consequences of a Nephrops otter trawl fishery on the 

benthos and environment of the Irish Sea. ICES Journal of 

Marine Science, 57, 1315-1320.

Ballance, L.T., D.G. Ainley, and G.L. Hunt, Jr., 2001. “Seabird 

Foraging Ecology”. In: Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences. 

J.H. Steele, S.A. Thorpe and K.K. Turekian, eds., vol. 5, 

Academic Press, London, United Kingdom, p. 2636-

2644.

Baraff, L.S., P.J. Clapham, D.K. Mattila, and R.S. Bowman, 1991. 

Feeding-behavior of a humpback whale in low-latitude 

waters. Marine Mammal Science, 7, 197-202.

Barber, R., 1979. Archeology and Palaenotology, Summary 

and Analysis of Cultural Resources Information on the 

Continental Shelf from the Bay of Fundy to Cape Hatteras, 

Final Report. Institute for Conservation Archaeology, 

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Barnes, R.D.,1974. Invertebrate Zoology. W.B. Saunders, 

Company., Philadelphia, PA. 870 pp.

Barnes, P.W. and J.P. Thomas, eds., 2005. Benthic Habitats and the 

Effects of Fishing. American Fisheries Society Symposium 

41, Bethesda, MD. 890 pp.

Battelle Ocean Sciences, 1987. Draft Environmental Impact 

Report for the Identification of Dredged Material Deposal 

Sites in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts. Prepared under 

contract to Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Management, Division of Waterways.

Beach, D.W., and M.T. Weinrich, 1989. Watching the whales: Is 

an educational adventure for humans turning out to be a 

threat for an endangered species? Oceanus, 32, 84-88.

Benfield, M.C. and P.H. Wiebe, 2003. Zooplankton sampling 

with nets and trawls. In: Encyclopedia of Ocean, p. 

3237-3252.

Berkeley, S.A., C. Chapman, and S.M. Sogard, 2004a. Maternal 

Age as a Determinant of Larval Growth and Survival in 

a Marine Fish, Sebastes Melanops. Ecology, 85, 1258-

1264.

Berkeley, S.A., M.A. Hixon, R.J. Larson, and M.S. Love, 2004b. 

Fisheries Sustainability via Protection of Age Structure and 

Spatial Distribution of Fish Populations. Fisheries, 29, 

23-32.

Bertrand, S., A. Bertrand, R. Guevara-Carrasco, and F. Gerlotto, 

2007. Scale-invariant movements of fishermen: The 

same foraging strategy as natural predators. Ecological 

Applications, 17(2), 331-337.

Best, E.P.H., J.W. Barko, 2001. Sediment transport – congresses 

aquatic plants – modeling sediment resuspension, water 

quality and submersed aquatic vegetation: proceeding of a 

workshop held in New Orleans, LA. Hydrobiologia, 444, 

1-84 (Special Edition), p. 85-241 (Regular Edition).

Bigelow, H.B., 1924. Plankton of the offshore waters of the Gulf of 

Maine. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 

40, 1-509.

Bird Life International, 2004. Species factsheet: Puffinus gravis. 

Birdlife International, Cambridge, UK. Available from 

http://birdlife.net (accessed March 2005).

Birkeland, C., and P.K. Dayton, 2005. The importance in fishery 

management of leaving the big ones. Trends in Ecology 

and Evolution, 20, 356-358.

Bleakney, J.S., 1996. Sea slugs of Atlantic Canada and the 

Gulf of Maine. Nimbus Publishers and Nova Scotia 

Museum,Halifax, NS, Canada. 216 pp.

Blumberg, A.F., R.P. Signell, and H.L. Jenter, 1993. Modeling 

transport processes in the coastal ocean. Journal of Marine 

Environmental Engineering, 1, 31-52. 

Blyth, R.E., M.J. Kaiser, G. Edwards-Jones, and P.J.B. Hart, 2004. 

Implications of a zoned fishery management system for 

marine benthic communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 

41, 951-961.

Boczar-Karakiewicz, B., J.L. Bona, and B. Pelchat, 1991. Interaction 

of internal waves with the seabed on continental shelves. 

Continental Shelf Research, 11, 1181-1197. 

Bolster, W.J., 2008. Putting the ocean in Atlantic history: maritime 

communities and marine ecology in the Northwest 

Atlantic, 1500-1800. The American Historical Review, 

113, 19-47.

Borg, A., L. Pihl, and H. Wennhage, 1997. Habitat choice 

by juvenile cod (Gadus morhua L.) on sandy soft 

bottoms with different vegetation types. Helgolander 

Meeresuntersuchungen, 51, 197-212.

Bothner, M.H., M. Buchholtz, U. ten Brink, C.M. Parmenter, W.M. 

D’Angelo, and M.W. Doughten, 1993. The distribution of 

silver and other metals in sediments from Massachusetts 

and Cape Cod Bays - an interim compilation. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-725.

Bothner, M.H., M. Buchholtz, U. ten Brink, B. Butman, H.J. Knebel, 

F.T. Manheim, and R.P. Signell, 1994. Circulation and 

contaminant transport in Massachusetts coastal waters; 

achievements and future plans. U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 94-649.

Bothner, M.H. and B. Butman, eds., 2007. Processes influencing 

the transport and fate of contaminated sediments in the 

coastal ocean - Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. 
264 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1302, 89 pp. Also on 

line at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1302/

Bowman, T.E. and L.G. Abele, 1982. Classification of the recent 

Crustacea. In: The biology of Crustacea, Vol. 1, D.E. Bliss 

and L.G Abele, eds., New York Academic Press. p. 1-27.

Bowman, M.J., C.M. Yentsch, and W.T. Peterson, 1986. Tidal 

Mixing and Plankton Dynamics. Springer-Verlag, New 

York, NY. 502 pp. 

Branch, T.A. R. Hillborn, and E. Bogazzi, 2005. Escaping the 

tyranny of the grid: a more realistic way of defining fishing 

opportunities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Science, 62, 631-642.

Brickley, P., 1994. Wind stress and subtidal circulation in 

Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay. Master’s Thesis, 

University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

Brown B.E. and M.M. McBorde, 1980. The status of the marine 

fishery resource of the northeastern United States. Woods 

Hole MA; United States Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NMFA-NEFC 

Springfield, VA. National Technical Information Service.

Brown, J., A. Colling, D. Park, J. Phillips, D. Rothery, and J. 

Wright, 1989. Waves, tides and shallow-water processes. 

Pergamon. Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 187 pp.

Brown, R.G.B.,1973. The transatlantic migration of European arctic 

Fulmars, Fulmarus glacialis. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 87, 

312-313.

Brown, R.G.B., 1979. Seabirds of the Senegal upwelling and 

adjacent waters. Ibis, 121, 292-293.

Brown, R.G.B., 1988. The wing-moult of fulmars and shearwaters 

(Procellaridae) in Canadian Arctic waters. Canadian FieldNaturalist, 102, 203-208.

Brown, R.G.B., 1990. The wing-moult of Cory’s Shearwater, 

Calonectris diomedea, off Novia Scotia. Canadian FieldNaturalist, 104, 306-307.

Brown, R.G.B., 1991. Marine birds and climatic warming in the 

northwest Atlantic. In: Studies of High Latitude Seabirds 

1: Behavioural, Energetic and Oceanographic Aspects 

of Seabird Feeding Ecology. W.A. Montevecchi and A.J. 

Gaston, eds., Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 

68. 

Bullard, S.G., G. Lambert, M.R. Carman, J. Byrnes, and R.B. 

Whitlach et al., 2007. The colonial ascidian Didemnum 

sp. A: Current distribution, basic biology and potential 

threat to marine communities of the northeast and west 

coasts of North America. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology, 342, 99-108.

Bumpus, D. F., 1973. A description of the circulation on the 

continental shelf of the East Coast of the United States. 

Progress in Oceanography, 6, 111-157.

Bundy, A., 2001. Fishing on ecosystems: the interplay of fishing 

and predation in Newfoundland-Labrador. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58, 1153-

1167.

Burger, J., I.C.T. Nisbet, and M. Gochfeld, 1994. Heavy metal 

and selenium levels in feathers of known-ages common 

terns (Sterna hirundo). Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology, 26, 351-355. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 2002. Effects of chemicals and 

pollution on seabirds. In: Biology of Marine Birds. E. A. 

Schreiber and J. Burger, eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 

p. 485-525.

Burness, G.P. and W.A. Montevecchi, 1992. Oceanographicrelated variation in the bone sizes of Great Auks. Polar 

Biology, 11, 545-551.

Bush, L.F. 1981. Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern United 

States. Turbellaria: Acoela and Nemertodermatida. NOAA 

Technical Report, NMFS Circular 440, 70 pp.

Butman, B., 1975. On the dynamics of shallow water currents 

in Massachusetts Bay and the New England Continental 

Shelf. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

Cambridge, MA, and Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution, Woods Hole, MA.

Butman, B., 1976. Hydrography and low-frequency currents 

associated with the spring runoff in Masschusetts Bay. 

Mémoires Société Royale des Sciences de Liège, 6, 247-

275.

Butman, B., and M.N. Bothner, 1997. Predicting the long-term 

fate of sediments and contaminants in Massachusetts Bay. 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS 172-97, 6 pp. http://

pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-97/fs172-97.pdf.

Butman, B., M.H. Bothner, F.L. Lightsom, B.T. Gutierrez, P.S. 

Alexander, M.A. Martini, and W.S. Strahle, 2002. Longterm oceanographic observations in western Massachusetts 

Bay offshore of Boston, Massachusetts: Data Report for 

1989-2000, United States Geological Survey Digital 

Data Series. DDS-74. Woods Hole, MA. United States 

Geological Survey, Woods Hole Field Center, DVDROM.

Butman, B., P. Soupy Alexander, A. Scotti, R.C. Beardsley, and 

S.P. Anderson. In: Large internal waves in Massachusetts 

Bay. Part 2: Waves transport sediments offshore. In 

preparation.

Buzeta, M. I. and K. G. Waiwood, 1982. Fecundity of Atlantic cod 

(Gadus morhua) in the southwestern Gulf of St. Lawrence. 

Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, No. 1110.

Caddy, J.G., 1973. Underwater observations on tracks of dredges 

and trawls and some effects of dredging on a scallop 

ground. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 

30, 173-180.

Cahoon, L.B., 1983. The effects of abundance and nutritional 

quality of phytoplankton on reproduction on [and] feeding 

of the copepod Acartia tonsa. Dissertation Abstracts 

International, B, Sciences and Engineering, 42, 2650-

2651.

Cahoon, L.B., G.R. Beretich, Jr., C.J. Thomas, and A.M. McDonald, 

1993. Benthic microalgal production at Stellwagen Bank, 

Massachusetts Bay, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

102, 179-185.

Cailliet, G. M., A. H. Andrews, E. J. Burton, D. L. Watters, D. E. 

Kline, and L. A. Ferry-Graham, 2001. Age determination 

and validation studies of marine fishes: do deepdwellers 

live longer? Experimental Gerontology, 36, 739-764.

Cairns, D.K., 1987. Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies. 

Biological Oceanography, 5, 261–271.

Cairns, S.D., 1991. Common and Scientific Names of Aquatic 

Invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Cnidaria 

and Ctenophora: American Fisheries Society. Special 

Publicaition 22.

Campbell, D.E., 1987. System ecology of the Gulf of Maine. 

Contract NA-83-FA-C-00047 between U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and 

State of Maine, Department of Marine Resources.
IX. Sources Cited 265

Carr, H.A., and H.O. Milliken, 1998. Conservation engineering: 

options to minimize fishing’s impacts to the sea floor. In: 

E.M. Dorsey and J. Perdersen, eds. Effects of Fishing Gear 

on the Sea Floor of New England. Conservation Law 

Foundation, Boston, MA, 100-103.

Carrothers, P.J., 1981. Catch variability due to variations in 

groundfish otter trawl behavior. In: Bottom Trawl Surveys. 

W.G. Doubleday and D. Rivard, eds., Special Publication 

Canadian Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2547-2557.

Carter, G.S., M.C. Gregg, and R.C. Lien, 2005. Internal waves, 

solitary-like waves, and mixing on the Monterey Bay Shelf. 

Continental Shelf Research, 25, 1499-1520.

Casey, J.M. and R.A. Myers, 1998. Diel variation in trawl 

catchability: is it as clear as day and night? Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55, 2329-

2340.

Caswell, H., M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault. 1999. Declining survival 

probability threatens the North Atlantic right whale. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America, 96, 3308-3313.

Cavaliere, A.R., 1977. Marine flora and fauna of the 

northeastern United States. Higher fungi: Ascomycetes, 

Deuteromycetes, and Basidiomycetes. United States 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Circular, Volume 49.

Cavanaugh, C.M., 1994. Microbial symbiosis: Patterns of diversity 

in the marine environment. American Zoologist, 34, 79-

89.

Center for Coastal Marine Studies, 1980. Pathogens of marine 

plants. 

Center for Coastal Studies, 1991. Comments in Response to 

DEIS/MP on Proposed Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, United States Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Chandler, W.J., and H. Gillelan, 2004. The History and Evolution 

of the National Marine Sanctuary Act. Environmental Law 

Institute News and Analysis, 10505-10565.

Chapdelaine, G., P. Laporte, and D.N. Nettleship, 1987. 

Population, productivity and DDT contamination of 

Northern Gannets at Bonaventure Island, Quebec 1967-

1984. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65, 2922-2926.

Chepurnova, E., L.G. Gutvejb, and G.V. Shumakova, 1987. 

Bacterioplankton from bottom elevations of the North 

Atlantic. Ekkologiya. Morya., Kiev, Russia, 3-9.

Choi, J.S., K.T. Frank, W.C. Leggett, and K. Drinkwater, 2004. 

Transition to an alternate state in a continental shelf 

ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 61, 505-510.

Christensen, J.P. and G.T. Rowe, 1984. Nitrification and oxygen 

consumption in Northwest Atlantic deep-sea sediments. 

Journal of Marine Research, 42, 1099-1116.

Christensen, I., T. Haug, and N. Oien, 1992. A review of feeding 

and reproduction in large baleen whales (Mysticeit) and 

sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus, in Norwegian 

waters. Fauna Norv. 13, 39-48. 

Churchill, J.H., 1989. The effects of commercial trawling on 

sediment resuspension and transport over the middle 

Atlantic Bight continental shelf. Continental Shelf 

Research, 9, 841-864.

Claesson, S., and M. McKenzie, 2005. Stellwagen Bank Marine 

Historical Ecology Phase 1: Historical Sources Survey 

Report. Gulf of Maine Cod Project, University of New 

Hampshire, Durham, NH. 29 pp.

Clapham, P.J. and C.A. Mayo, 1987. Reproduction and recruitment 

of individually identified humpback whales, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, observed in Massachusetts Bay, 1979-1985. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65, 2853-2863. 

Clapham, P.J., 1989. Occurrence and Distribution of Marine 

Mammals in the Stellwagen Bank Region; a Summary. 

Provincetown, MA: Center for Coastal Studies, 

Provincetown, MA.

Clapham P.J. and I.E. Seipt, 1991. Resightings of independent 

fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, on maternal summer 

ranges. Journal of Mammalogy, 72, 788-790.

Clapham, P.J., Young, S.B, and Brownell, R.L., Jr., 1999. Baleen 

whales: conservation issues and the status of the most 

endangered populations. Mammal Review, 29, 35-60.

Clark, S.H. and V.C. Anthony, 1981. An assessment of the Gulf 

of Maine Northern Shrimp Resource. In: Frady, T., 

ed., Proceedings of the International Pandalid Shrimp 

Symposium. University of Alaska Sea Grant, 207-224.

Clark, C.W. 1995. Application of US Navy underwater hydrophone 

arrays for scientific research on whales. Report, 

International Whaling Commission, 45, 210-212.

Clarke, K.R. and R.M. Warwick, 2001. Change in marine 

communities: an approach to statistical analysis and 

interpretation 2nd Edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, United 

Kingdom. 172 pp. 

Clark, R., J. Manning, B. Costa, and A. Desch, 2006. An Ecological 

Characterization of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary Region (Chapter 1). National Center for Coastal 

Ocean Science, NOAA Technical Memorandum, Silver 

Spring, MD.

Clucas, I. and D. James, 1997. Technical consultation reduction 

of wastage in fisheries. FAO Fisheries Report No. 547, 

Supplement. FIIU/R547 Suppl. FAO, Rome, Italy. 344 

pp.

Coffin, W.L., 1979. A List of Harpacticoid Copepods from 

Northern New England, USA. Bulletin of Biological and 

Marine Oceanography, 28-29, 589-595.

Cohen, E.B., 1975. An overview of the plankton communities of 

the Gulf of Maine (ICNAF Research Document 75/106). 

North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, Canada.

Collie, J.S., G.A. Escanero, and P.C. Valentine, 1997. Effects of 

bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 155, 159-172.

Collie, J.S., 1998. Studies in New England of fishing gear impacts 

on the sea floor. In: Effect of Fishing Gear on the Sea 

Floor of New England. E.M. Dorsey and J. Pederson, eds., 

Conservation Law Foundation, Boston, MA, 53-62.

Collie, J.S., G.A. Escanero, and P.C. Valentine, 2000. Photographic 

evaluation of the impacts of bottom fishing on benthic 

epifauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 987-1001.

Collie, J.S., S.J. Hall, M.J. Kaiser, and I.R. Poiner, 2000. A 

quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea 

benthos. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 69, 785-798.

Collins, J.W., 1889. The beam-trawl fishery of Great Britain. 

NOAA Technical Memo, NMFS-F/NEC-51. Washington, 

DC, Government Printing Office.

Collins, J.W., 1890. Suggestions for the employment of improved 

types of vessels in market fisheries. Washington, DC, 

Government Printing Office.

Colquhoun, D.J., G.A. Escanero, and P.C. Valentine, 1998. 

Pseudomonas fluorescens, infectious pancreatic necrosis 

virus and environmental stress as potential factors in the 

development of vaccine related adhesions in Atlantic 
266 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

salmon, Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Diseases, 21, 355-

364.

Colwell, R.R., R.A. Clayton, D.J. Ortiz-Conde, D. Jacobs, and 

R. Russek-Cohen, 1995. The microbial species concept 

and biodiversity. In: Microbial Diversity and Ecosystem 

Function, D. Allsop, D.L. Colwell, and D.L. Hawksworth, 

eds., CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom, 3-

15.

Cook, G.C. and R.O. Brinkhurst, 1973. Marine flora and fauna 

of the northeastern United States. Annelida: Oligochaeta. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Technical Report, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Circular 374. 

Cook, M. and W.H. Lynch, 1999. A sensitive nested reverse 

transcriptase PCR assay to detect viable cells of the fish 

pathogen Renibacterium salmoniarum in Atlantic salmon 

(Salmo salar L.) Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 

65, 3042-3047.

Cook, R., and P.J. Auster, 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. http://www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.

gov/science/conservation/seafloor_sbnms.html.

Cook, R.R., and P.J. Auster, 2007. A bioregional classification 

for the continental shelf of northeastern North America 

for conservation analysis and planning based on 

representation. NOAA National Marine Sanctuary 

Program, Marine Sanctuary Conservation Series, NMSP07-03.

Corkeron, P.J. 1995. Humpback whales in Hervey Bay, 

Queensland: Behavior and responses to whale-watching 

vessels. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73, 1290-1299.

Corkeron, P.J., 2004. Whale watching, iconography, and marine 

conservation. Conservation Biology, 18, 847-849.

Corliss, B.H. and S. Emerson, 1990. Distribution of rose Bengal 

stained deep-sea benthic Foraminifera from the Nova 

Scotian continental margin and Gulf of Maine. Deep-Sea 

Research, 37, 381-400.

Cote, D., D.A. Scruton, G.H. Niezgoda, R.S. McKinley, D.F. 

Rowsell, R.T. Lindstrom, L.M.N. Ollerhead, and C.J. 

Whitt, 1998. A coded acoustic telemetry system for high 

precision monitoring of fish location and movement: 

Application to the study of nearshore nursery habitat of 

juvenile Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. Marine Technology 

Society Journal, 32, 54-62.

Craft, Ferguson, Jernigan, King, Parrott, Stocks, and Wilson v. 

NOAA, 6 O.R.W. 150 United States Department of 

Commerce, 1990.

Crawford J.D. and J. Smith, 2006. Marine Ecosystem Conservation 

for New England and Maritime Canada: A Science-Based 

Approach to Identifying Priority Areas for Conservation. 

Conservation Law Foundation and World Wildlife 

Foundation-Canada, Halifax, NS, Canada. 200 pp.

Crawford J.D., and Cook, R., in preparation. Historical trends in 

adult size among common ground fishes in Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary and Environs.

Crowder, L. and S. Murawski, 1998. Fisheries bycatch: implications 

for management. Fisheries, 23, 8-16.

Cruickshank, M., J.J. Flanagan, B. Holt, and J.W. Padan, 1987. 

Marine Mining on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS 

Report 87-0035). United States Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service.

Cuhel, R.L., H.W. Jannasch, C.D. Taylor, and D.R.S. Lean, 

1983. Microbial growth and macromolecular synthesis 

in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Limnology and 

Oceanography, 28, 1-18.

Dalton, H.M., A.E. Goodman, and K.C. Marshall, 1996. Diversity 

in surface colonization behavior in marine bacteria. 

Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 17, 

228-234.

Darnell, R.M., 1976. Impacts of construction activities in wetland 

of the United States. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 600/3-76-045.

Daunt, F., G. Peters, B. Scott, D. Gremillet, and S. Wanless, 2003. 

Rapid-response recorders reveal interplay between marine 

physic and seabird behaviour. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 255, 83-288.

Davis, P.G., D.A. Caron, and J.M. Sieburth, 1978. Distribution 

and abundance of nanoplankton in estuarine, shelf, 

and oceanic waters of the north Atlantic. Journal of 

Protozoology, 25.

Dayton, P.K., 1971. Competition, disturbance, and community 

organization: the provision and subsequent utilization 

of space in rocky intertidal community. Ecological 

Monographs, 41, 351-389.

Dayton, P.K., S.F. Thrush, T.M. Agardy, and R.J. Hofman, 1995. 

Environmental effects of fishing. Aquatic Conservation: 

Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 5, 205-232.

Dayton, P.K., E. Sala, M.J. Tegner, and S. Thrush, 2000. Marine 

reserves: parks, baselines, and fishery enhancement. 

Bulletin of Marine Science, 66, 617-634.

Dayton, P.K., S. Thrush, S. and F.C. Coleman, 2002. Ecological 

effects of fishing in marine ecosystems of the United States. 

Arlington, Virginia: Pew Oceans Commission. 45 pp.

Deitz, A., undated. What is an Invasive Species? Retrieved from 

http://www.usm.maine.edu/gulfofmaine-census/Docs/

About/Organisms/Invasive.htm). Bigelow Laboratory for 

Ocean Sciences, West Boothbay Harbor, ME.

Department of the Navy, 2005. Marine Resource Assessment for 

the Northeast Operations Area: Atlantic City, Narragansett 

Bay, and Boston: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 

Atlantic; Norfolk, Virginia. Contract number N62470-02-

D-9997, Task Order Number 0018. Prepared by GeoMarine, Inc., Newport News, VA.

Diamond, A.W. and C.M. Devlin, 2003. Seabirds as indicators 

of changes in marine ecosystems: ecological monitoring 

on Machias Seal Island. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment, 88, 153-175.

Donovan, G.P. 1986. Behavior of whales in relation to management. 

Report of the International Whaling Commission, Special 

Issue 8, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Donovan, G.P., H. Caswell, M. Fujiwara, and S. Brault, 1999. 

Declining survival probability threatens the North Atlantic 

right whale. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 3308-3313.

Dorsey, E.M. and J. Pederson, eds., 1998. Effects of Fishing Gear 

on the Sea Floor of New England. Conservation Law 

Foundation and MIT Sea Grant College Program, Boston, 

MA. 160 pp.

Doucette, G.J., A.D. Cembella, J.L. Martin, J. Michaud, T.V.N Cole, 

and R.M. Rolland, 2006. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) 

toxins in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialis

and their zooplankton prey in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 306, 303-313. 
IX. Sources Cited 267

Drury, W.H., 1965. Gulls vs. terns: Clash of coastal nesters. 

Massachusetts Audubon, 1965. 207-211.

Drury, W.H., 1973. Population changes in New England seabirds. 

Bird Banding, 44, 267-313.

Drury, W.H. 1974. Population changes in New England Seabirds. 

Bird Banding, 45, 1-15. 

Dubilier, N., R. Amann, C. Erseus, G. Muyzer, S.Y. Park, O. Giere, 

and C.M. Cavanaugh, 1999. Phylogenetic diversity of 

bacterial endosymbionts in the gutless marine oligochete 

Olavius loisae (Annelida). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

178, 271-280.

Ducklow, H.W., D.L. Kirchman, and H.L. Quinby, 1992. 

Bacterioplankton cell growth and macromolecular 

synthesis in seawater cultures during the North Atlantic 

spring phytoplankton bloom, May 1989. Microbial 

Ecology, 24, 125-144.

Ducklow, H.W., D.L. Kirchman, H.L. Quinby, C.A. Carlson, and 

H.G. Dam, 1993. Stocks and dynamics of bacterioplankton 

carbon during the spring bloom in the eastern North 

Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Research, 40, 245-263.

Ducklow, H.W., 1999. The bacterial component of the oceanic 

euphotic zone. FEMS Microbial Ecology, 30, 1-10.

Dudley, P.L., and P.L. Illg. 1991. Marine flora and fauna of the eastern 

United States. ArchiNotodelphyidae, Notodelphyidae, 

and Ascidicolidae. NOAA Technical Report NMFS, 96. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Seattle, WA.

Duplisea, D.E., S. Jennings, K.J. Warr, and T.A. Dinmore, 2002. 

A size-based model of the impacts of bottom trawling 

on benthic community structure. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1785-1795.

Dupuy, C., S. Le Gall, H.J. Hartmann, and M. Breret, 1999. 

Retention of ciliates and flagellates by the oyster Crassostrea 

gigas in French Atlantic coastal ponds: Protists as a trophic 

link between bacterioplankton and benthic suspensionfeeders. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 177, 165-175.

Durbin, E.G., R.G. Campbell, S.L. Gilman, and A.G. Durbin, 

1995a. Diel feeding behavior and ingestion rate in the 

copepod Calanus finmarchicus in the southern Gulf of 

Maine during late spring. Continental Shelf Research, 15, 

539-570.

Durbin, E.G., A.G. Durbin, and R.C. Beardsley, 1995b. Springtime 

nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations in the 

southwestern Gulf of Maine. Continental Shelf Research, 

15, 433.450.

Durbin, E., G. Teegarden, R. Campbell, A. Cembella, M.F. 

Baumgartner, and B.R. Mate, 2002. North Atlantic right 

whales Eubalaena glacialis, exposed to paralytic shellfish 

poisoning (PSP) toxins via a zooplankton vector, Calanus 

finmarchicus. Harmful Algae, 1, 243-251

Eckert, A.W., 1963. The Great Auk. Little, Brown, & Company, 

Boston. MA.

Edney, J., 2006. Impacts of recreational SCUBA diving on 

shipwrecks in Australia and the Pacific: a review. 

Micronesian Journal of the Humanities and Social 

Sciences, 5, 201-233.

Edvardsen, B. and L. Medlin, 1998. Genetic analyses of authentic 

and alternate forms of Chrysochromulina polylepis

(Haptophyta). Phycologia, 37, 275.283.

Eno, N.C., D.S. MacDonald, J.A.M. Kinnear, S.C. Amos, C.J. 

Chapman, R.A. Clark, F. Bunker, and C. Munro, 2001. 

Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES Journal 

of Marine Science, 58, 11-20.

Engel, J. and R. Kvitek, 1998. Effects of otter trawling on a benthic 

community in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 

Conservation Biology, 12, 1204-1214.

Erbe, C., 2002. Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and 

potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on 

an acoustic impact model. Marine Mammal Science, 18, 

394-418.

Essington, T.E., A.H. Beaudreau, and J. Wiedenmann, 2006. 

Fishing through marine food webs. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, 103, 3171-3175.

Estrella, B.T., and R.P. Glenn, 2004. Commercial Lobster 

Sea Sampling-Southern Gulf of Maine-Offshore. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Completion Report NA03NMF4720289, 

September, 2004. 17 pp.

Environment News Service, 2002. “Massachusetts – Once a base 

for new England’s whaling industry...” p. 11. http://www.

ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2002/.

Federal Register, 1992. Proposed Rules: Approaching Marine 

Mammals, Vol. 57, No. 147, 34101-34105.

Federal Register Notice, 2006. July 26, 2006, pp. 36299-36313.

Fell, F.J.,1982. Echinodermata. In: Synopsis and classification 

of living organisms. S.P. Parker, ed., McGraw Book 

Company, New York, NY, 785-818.

Field, K.G., D. Gordon, T. Wright, M. Rappe, E. Urbach, K. 

Vergin, and S.J. Giovannoni, 1997. Diversity and depthspecific distribution of SAR11 cluster rRNA genes from 

marine planktonic bacteria. Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology, 63, 63-70.

Fish, C.J. and M.W. Johnson, 1937. The biology of the zooplankton 

populations in the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of Maine with 

special reference to production and distribution. Journal of 

the Biological Board Canada, 3, 189-322.

Fish, J.S., 1989. Unfinished voyages, A Chronology of Shipwrecks 

in the Northeastern United States. Orleans, MA: Lower 

Cape Publishing.

Fish, M.P. and W.H. Mowbray, 1970. Sounds of western North 

Atlantic fishes; a reference file of biological underwater 

sounds. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.

Fisher, J., and Lockley, R.M., 1954. Sea-birds. Houghton Mifflin, 

Boston, MA. 320 pp.

Fitzgerald, D. M., J.B. Smith, and S.L. Goodbred, 1990. Exploration 

and Inventory of Sand and Gravel Resources Offshore 

Boston Harbor (Technical Report No. 2). Prepared under 

contract to the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone 

Management, Boston University Marine Research Group, 

Department of Geology.

Flagg, C.N., 1987. Hydrographic structure and variability. 

In: Georges Bank. R.H. Backus, ed., The MIT Press, 

Cambridge, MA, 108-124. 

Fogarty, M.J., 1999. Essential habitat, marine reserves, and fishery 

management. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 133-

134.

Fogarty, M.J., E.B. Cohen, W.L. Michaels, and W.W. Morse, 1991. 

Predation and the regulation of sand lance populations: 

an exploratory analysis. ICES Marine Science Symposia, 

193, 120-124.
268 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Fogarty, M.J. and S.A. Murawski, 1998. Large-scale distribution 

and the structure of marine ecosystems: fishery impacts on 

Georges Bank. Ecological Applications, 8, S6-S22.

Francis, R.C., M.A. Hixon, M. E. Clarke, S.A. Murawski, and S. 

Ralston, 2007. Ten commandments for ecosystem-based 

fisheries scientists. Perspective: Fisheries, 32, 217-233.

Frank, K.T., B. Petrie, J.S. Choi, and W.C. Leggett, 2005. Trophic 

cascades in a formerly cod-dominated ecosystem. Science, 

308, 1621-1623.

Frankel, S.A. and C.W. Clark, 2002. ATOC and other factors 

affecting the distribution and abundance of humpback 

whales (Magaptera novaeangliae) off the north shore of 

Kauai. Marine Mammal Science, 18, 644-662.

Franks, P.J., 1990. Dinoflagellate blooms and physical systems 

in the Gulf of Maine. PhD Thesis, Report 90-23, Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 253 

pp.

Franks, P.J.S. and D.M. Anderson, 1992. Toxic phytoplankton 

blooms in the southwestern Gulf of Maine: testing 

hypotheses of physical control using historical data. 

Marine Biology, 112, 165-174.

Fraser, C.M., 1944. Hydroids of the Atlantic coast of North 

America. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, 

451 pp.

Fredrickson, J.K., D.L. Balkwill, M.F. Romine, and T. Shi, 1999. 

Ecology, physiology, and phylogeny of deep subsurface 

Sphingomonas sp. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & 

Biotechnology, 23, 273-283.

Freese, L., P.J. Auster, J. Heifetz, and B.L. Wing, 1999. Effects 

of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate 

taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 

182, 119-126.

Friedlander, A.M., G.W. Boehlert, M.E. Field, J.E. Mason, J.V. 

Gardner, and P. Dartnell, 1999. Sidescan-sonar mapping 

of benthic trawl marks on the shelf and slope off Eureka, 

California. Fishery Bulletin, 97, 786-801.

Friedlander, A.M., E.L. Hazen, D.P. Nowacek, C. Ware, M. Weinrich, 

T. Hurst, and D. Wiley. Diel changes in humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae) feeding behavior in response to 

prey behavior and distribution. Proceedings of the Royal 

Society B, in review.

Fuhrman, J.A., and C.C. Ouverney, 1998. Marine microbial 

diversity studied via 16S rRNA sequences: cloning results 

from coastal waters and counting of native archaea with 

fluorescent single cell probes. Aquatic Ecology, 32, 3-15.

Fuhrman, J.A., 1999. Marine viruses and their biogeochemical 

and ecological effects. Nature, 399, 541-548.

Funk, R.E., 1978. Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In: Handbook 

of North American Indians, Northeast, Volume 15. B.G. 

Trigger, ed., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Furness, R. W., and C. J. Camphuysen, 1997. Seabirds as monitors 

of the marine environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 

54, 726-737.

Furness R.W. and J.J.D. Greenwood, eds., 1993. Birds as monitors 

of environmental change. Chapman & Hall, London, 

United Kingdom, 368 pp. 

Garrison, G.P., 2001. Spatial patterns in species composition 

in the northeast United States continental shelf fish 

community during 1996-1999. In: Kruse, G.N.H., et 

al., eds., Spatial processes and management of marine 

populations, Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant, University of 

Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, 513-537.

Garrison, L.P., and J.S. Link, 2000. Dietary guild structure of the 

fish community in the Northeast United States continental 

shelf ecosystem. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 202, 

231-240.

Garthe, S., K. Camphuysen, and R.W. Furness. 1996. Amounts 

of discards by commercial fisheries and their significance 

as food for seabirds in the North Sea. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 136, 1-11.

Gauld, J.A., and R. Hutcheon, 1990. Spawning and fecundity 

in the lesser sandeel, Ammodytes marinus (Raitt), in the 

north-western North Sea. Journal of Fish Biology, 36, 611-

613.

Gende, S.M. and M.F. Sigler, 2006. Persistence of forage fish ‘hot 

spots’ and its association with foraging Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus) in southeast Alaska. Deep-Sea 

Research II, 53, 432-441.

Geraci, J.R., D.M. Anderson, R.J. Timperi, D.J. St. Aubin, G.A. 

Early, J.H. Prescott, and C.A. Mayo. 1989. Humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) fatally poisoned by 

dinoflagellate toxin. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, 46, 1895-1898. 

Geyer, W., G. Gardner, W. Brown, J. Irish, B. Butman, T. Loder, 

and R. Signell, 1992. Physical oceanographic investigation 

of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays (Technical Report 

MBP-92-03). Massachusetts Bays Program, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency Region Massachusetts 

Coastal Zone Management Office, Boston, Massachusetts, 

497 pp.

Gilbert, J.R. and K.M. Wynne, 1987. Harbor seal populations 

and fisheries interactions with marine mammals in New 

England. Final Report Contract NA-EA-C-0070, Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, 15 pp. 

Gilman, E., N. Brothers, and D.R. Kobayashi, 2005. Principles and 

approaches to abate seabird by-catch in longline fisheries. 

Fish and Fisheries, 6, 35-49.

Giovannoni, S.J., M.S. Rappe, K.L. Vergin, and N.L. Adair, 

1996. 16S rRNA genes reveal stratified open ocean 

bacterioplankton populations related to the green nonsulfur bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences USA, 93, 7979-7984.

Gislason H., and E. Kirkegaard, 1996. The industrial fishery and 

the North Sea sandeel stock. Seminar on the Precautionary 

Approach to North Sea Fisheries Management, 9-10 

September 1996, Institute of Marine Research, Oslo, 

Norway.

Glockner-Ferrari, D.A., and M.J. Ferrari, 1990. Reproduction in the 

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaiian 

waters, 1975-1988: the life history, reproductive rates and 

behaviour of known individuals identified through surface 

and underwater photography. Report of the International 

Whaling Commission, Special Issue, 12, 161-169.

Glover, H.E., D.A. Phinney, and C.S. Yentsch, 1985a. Photosynthetic 

characteristics of picoplankton compared with those of 

larger phytoplankton populations in various water masses 

in the Gulf of Maine. Biological Oceanography, 3, 223-

248.

Glover, H.E., A.E. Smith, and L. Shapiro, 1985b. Diurnal variations 

in photosynthetic rates: Comparisons of ultraphytoplankton 

with a larger phytoplankton size fraction. Journal of 

Plankton Research, 7, 519-535.

Goodyear, J.D., 1989. Night behavior and ecology of humpback 

whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western north 

Atlantic. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Moss Landing 

Marine Laboratories, San Jose State University, San Jose, 

CA.
IX. Sources Cited 269

Gosner, K.L., 1971. Guide to Identification of Marine and Estuarine 

Invertebrates. New York: Wiley-Interscience, Division of 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 700.

Grannis, B.M., 2005. Impacts of mobile fishing gear and a buried 

fiber-optic cable on soft-sediment benthic community 

structure. Master’s Thesis, University of Maine, Orono, 

ME.

Green, J.M. and J.S. Wroblewski, 2000. Movement patterns of 

Atlantic cod in Gilbert Bay, Labrador: evidence for bay 

residence and spawning site fidelity. Journal of Marine 

Biological Association of the UK, 80, 1077-1085.

Greene, C.H., A.J. Pershing, R.D. Kenney, and J.W. Jossi, 

2003. Impact of Climate Variability on the Recovery of 

Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales. Oceanography, 

16, 98-103.

Greger, E. and T. Goodrich, 1999. Vaccine development for 

winter ulcer disease, Vibrio viscosus, in Atlantic salmon, 

Salmo salar L. Journal of Fish Diseases, 22, 193-199.

Gregory, R.S. and J.T. Anderson, 1997. Substrate selection and 

use of protective cover by juvenile Atlantic cod Gadus 

morhua in inshore waters of Newfoundland. Marine 

Ecology-Progress Series, 146, 9-20.

Grosslein, M.D. and T.R. Azarovitz, 1982. Fish distribution. In: 

MESA New York Bight Atlas (Monograph 15), New York 

Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY.

Gutvejb, L.G., G.V. Shumakova, A.N. Buchakchijskaya, and Y. 

Artemov, 1987. Bacterioplankton of the surface layer in 

the areas of bottom elevations of the North Atlantic. Biol. 

Morya/Mar. Biol., Vladivost, 20-26.

Hain, J.H.W., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney, and H.E. Winn, 

1992. The fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus, in waters of 

the northeastern United States continental shelf. Report of 

the International Whaling Commission, 42, 653–669.

Hain, J.H.W., S.L. Ellis, R.D. Kenney, P.J. Clapham, B.K. Gray, 

M.T. Weinrich, and I.G. Babb, 1995. Apparent bottom 

feeding by humpback whales on Stellwagen Bank. Marine 

Mammal Science, 11, 464-479.

Hall, C.S., S.W. Kress, and C.R. Griffin, 2000. Composition, spatial 

and temporal variation of Common and Arctic Tern chick 

diets in the Gulf of Maine. Waterbirds, 23, 430-439.

Hall, M., 1996. On bycatches. Review in Fish Biology and 

Fisheries, 6, 319-352.

Hall, M.A., D.L. Alverson, and K.I. Metuzals, 2000. By-catch: 

problems and solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 41, 

204-219.

Hall, S.J., 1994. Physical disturbance and marine benthic 

communities: life in unconsolidated sediments. 

Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 

32, 179-239.

Hall, S.J., 1999. The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems 

and Communities. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United 

Kingdom. 274 pp.

Hall, S.J., and B.M. Mainprize, 2005. Managing by-catch and 

discards: how much progress are we making and how 

can we do better? Fish and Fisheries, 6, 134-155.

Hamer, K.C., R.W. Furness, and R.W.G. Caldow, 1991. The effects 

of changes in food availability on the breeding ecology 

of great skuas, Catharacta skua, in Shetland. Journal of 

Zoology, 223, 175-188.

Hannah, C.G., J. W. Loder, and D. G. Wright, 1996. Seasonal 

variation in the baroclinic circulation in the Scotian Maine 

region. Buoyancy Effects on Coastal Dynamics. D. G. 

Aubrey and C. T. Friedrichs, eds., American Geophysical 

Union, 7-29.

Hansson, M., M. Lindegarth, D. Valentinsson, and M. Ulmestrand, 

2000. Effects of shrimp trawling on abundance of benthic 

macrofauna in Gullmarsfjorden, Sweden. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 198, 191-201.

Harrington, J.M., R.A. Myers, and A.A. Rosenberg, 2005. Wasted 

fishery resources: discarded by-catch in the USA. Fish 

and Fisheries, 6, 350-361.

Hartman, W.D.,1964. Phylum Porifera. In: Keys to marine 

invertebrates of the Woods Hole region: a manual for the 

identification of the more common marine invertebrates. 

R.I. Smith, ed., Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods 

Hole, MA. p. 1-7.

Hartwell, I., D. Apeti, M. Myers, and A. Mason, 2006. An Ecological 

Characterization of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary Region (Chapter 2). National Center for Coastal 

Ocean Science, NOAA Technical Memorandum, Silver 

Spring, MD.

Harvell, C.D., K. Kim, J.M. Burkholder, R.R. Colwell, P.R. Epstein, 

D.J. Grimes, E.E. Hofmann, E.K. Lipp, G.W. Smith, and 

G.R. Vasta,1999. Emerging marine diseases – climate links 

and anthropgetnic factors. Science, 285, 1505-1510.

Hassol, J., 1987. Sand and Gravel Mining on Stellwagen Bank, 

Massachusetts. Internship Report. Provincetown, MA: 

Center for Coastal Studies.

Haury, L.R., M.G. Briscoae, and M.H. Orr, 1979. Tidally generated 

internal wave packets in Massachusetts Bay. Nature, 278, 

312-317.

Hauser, L., G.J. Adcock, P.J. Smith, J.H. Ramirez, G.R. Carvalho, 

2002. Loss of microsatellite density and low effective 

population size in an overexploited population of New 

Zealand snapper (Pagrus auratus). Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, 99, 11742-11747.

Hazen, E., A. Friedlander, M. Thompson, C. Ware, M. Weinrich, 

P. Halpin, and D. Wiley. Three-dimensional prey 

aggregations and fine scale foraging ecology of humpback 

whales. Ecology, in review.

Hemleben, C., O.R. Anderson, and M. Spindler, 1989. Modern 

Planktonic Foraminifera. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 

pp. 363.

Hines, M.E., D.A. Bazylinski, J.B. Tugel, and W.B. Lyons, 1991. 

Anaerobic microbial biogeochemistry in sediments 

from two basis in the Gulf of Maine: Evidence for iron 

and manganese reduction. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf 

Science, 32, 313-324.

Hinrichs, K., J.M. Hayes, S.P. Sylva, P.G. Brewer, and E.F. Delong, 

1999. Methane-consuming archaebacteria in marine 

sediments. Nature, 398, 802-805.

Hislop, J.R G., 1988. The influence of maternal length and age on 

the size and weight of the eggs and the relative fecundity 

of the haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, in British 

waters. Journal of Fish Biology, 32, 923-930.

Ho, J.S., 1977. Marine flora and fauna of the Northeastern United 

States. Copepoda: Lernaeopodidae and Sphyriidae. 

NOAA Technical Report, NMFS Circular 406, 1-13.

Ho, J.S., 1978. Marine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United 

States. Copepoda: cyclopoids parasitic on fishes. NOAA 

Technical Report, NMFS Circular 409, 1-12.

Ho, H.H., H.S. Chang, and S.Y. Hsieh, 1991. Halophytophthora 

kandeliae, a new marine fungus from Taiwan. Mycologia, 

83, 419-424.
270 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Hoagland, P. and A.E. Meeks. 2000. The demand for whale 

watching at Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

In: The economic contribution of whalewatching to 

regional economies: perspectives from two national 

marine sanctuaries. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series MSD-00-2.

Hollowed, A.B., J.N. Ianelli, and P.A. Livingston, 2000. Including 

predation mortality in stock assessments: a case study for 

Gulf of Alaska walleye pollock. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 57, 279-293.

Hopkins T., and Garfield, N, III. , 1979. Gulf of Maine intermediate 

water. Journal of Marine Research, 37,103-139.

Hoyt, E. 2001. Whalewatching 2001: Worldwide tourism numbers, 

expenditures, and expanding socioeconomic benefits. 

International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouthport, 

MA, USA, 1, 1-158.

Hubbard, W.A., J.M. Penko, and T.S. Fleming, 1988. Site Evaluation 

Studies of the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for Ocean 

Disposal of Dredged Material. United States Army Corps 

of Engineers, New England Division, Waltham, MA.

Hunter, W.R. and S.C. Brown, 1964. Phylum Mollusca. In: Keys 

to the marine invertebrates of the Woods Hole region: 

a manual for the identification of the more common 

marine invertebrates. R.I. Smith, ed., Marine Biological 

Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, 129-152.

Huettmann, F., 2000. Environmental Determination of Seabird 

Distribution. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Forestry and 

Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, 

Fredericton, NB, Canada. 430 pp. 

Huettmann, F. and A.W. Diamond, 2000. Seabird migration 

in the Canadian North Atlantic: moulting locations and 

movement patterns of immatures. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, 33, 1-25.

Huettmann, F., A.W. Diamond, B. Dalzell and K. MacKintosh, 

2005. Winter distribution and ecology of Razorbills Alca 

torda and other auks in the lower Bay of Fundy, New 

Brunswick. Marine Ornithology, 33, 161-171. 

Huettmann F., and A.W. Diamond, 2006. Large-scale effects 

on the spatial distribution of seabirds in the northwest 

Atlantic. Landscape Ecology, 21, 1089-1108.

Hutchings, J. A., and R. A. Myers, 1993. Effect of age on the 

seasonality of maturation and spawning of Atlantic cod, 

Gadus morhua, in the northwest Atlantic. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 50, 2468-2474.

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1989. 

Report of the multispecies assessment working group. Part 

1, ICES Document CM. 1989/Assess: 20, 125 pp.

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 1998. 

Report of the working group on ecosystem effects of 

fishing activities. ICES Committee Meeting (Pegalic Fish 

Committee): ACFM/ACME:1, Reference E, 1-123.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated for the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, DRAFT Analysis of Fixed Gear Vessel 

Activity, January 2007.

Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Cambridge, MA, and National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, NERO, Gloucester, MA. 

Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W. 

Botsford, et al., 2001. Historical over fishing and the 

recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293, 631-

638.

Jackson, C.R. and J.R. Apel, eds., 2004. Synthetic Aperture Radar 

Marine User’s Manual. US Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National 

Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. 

Washington, DC, 464 pp.

Jarvins, R., 1990. Recreational fisheries of Stellwagen Bank. 

Presented at the Stellwagen Bank Conference, Boston, 

MA, April 26-27, 1990.

Jennings, S., and M.J. Kaiser, 1998. The effects of fishing on marine 

ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology, 34 ̧ 201-352.

Jennings, S.J., J.K. Pinnegar, N.V.C. Polunin, and K.J. Warr, 2001. 

Impacts of trawling disturbance on the trophic structure 

of benthic invertebrate communities. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 213, 127-142.

Jennings, S.J., M.D. Nicholson, T.A. Dinmore, and J.E. Lancaster, 

2002. Effects of chronic trawling disturbance on the 

production of infaunal communities. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 243, 251-260.

Jensen, A.S., and G.K. Silber, 2003. Large Whale Ship Strike 

Database (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/OPR25). United States Department of Commerce, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 37 pp.

Jiang, M. S. and M. Zhou, 2004. The summer Ekman pumping and 

its implications to the deep water renewal in Massachusetts 

and Cape Cod Bays. Proceedings of the 8th Estuarine 

Coastal Modelling, November 3, 2003, San Francisco, 

CA. 

Jiang, M., and M. Zhou, 2006. The Massachusetts and Cape 

Code bays hydrodynamic model: 2002-2004 simulation. 

Boston: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report 

ENQUAD 2006-12. 128 pp.

Johnson, A., G. Salvador, J. Kenney, J. Robbins, S. Kraus, et al., 

2005. Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right 

and humpback whales. Marine Mammal Science, 21, 

635-345.

Johnson, M.P., and P.L. Tyack, 2003. A digital acoustic recording 

tag for measuring the response of wild marine mammals to 

sound. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 28, 3-12.

Juanes, F. 1994. What determines prey size selectivity in piscivorous 

fishes? In: Theory and application in fish feeding ecology, 

D.J. Stouder, K.L. Fresh, and R.J. Feller, eds., University of 

South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp. 79-100.

Kahn, L.M. and K. Wishner, 1995. Spatial and temporal patterns 

of zooplankton on baleen whale feeding grounds in the 

southern Gulf of Maine. J. Plankton. Res., 17 ̧ 235-262.

Kaiser, M.J., A.S. Hill, K. Ramsey, B.E. Spencer, A.R. Brand, et 

al., 1996. Benthic disturbance by fishing gear in the Irish 

Sea: a comparison of beam trawling and scallop dredging. 

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 

6, 269-285.

Kaiser, M.J., 1998. Significance of Bottom-Fishing Disturbance. 

Conservation Biology, 12, 1230-1235.

Kaiser, M.J., and S.J. de Groot, 2000. The Effects of Fishing on 

Non-target Species and Habitats: Biological, Conservation, 

and Socio-economic Issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 

United Kingdom. pp 399.

Kaiser, K.J., J.S. Collie, S.J. Hall, S. Jennings, and I.R. Poiner, 2002. 

Modification of marine habitats by trawling activities: 

prognosis and solutions. Fish and Fisheries, 2, 114-136.

Kareiva, P., and M. Marvier, 2003. Conserving Biodiversity 

Coldspots. American Scientist, 91, 344-351.

Katona, S.K., V. Rough, and D.T. Richardson, D.T., 1983. A field 

guide to the whales, porpoise and seals of the Gulf of 
IX. Sources Cited 271

Maine and Eastern Canada, Cape Cod to Newfoundland. 

Charles Scriber’s Sons, New York, NY. 255 pp.

Katona, S.K., and J.A. Beard, 1990. Population six migrations, and 

feeding aggregations of the humpack whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Report 

from International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 12, 

295-306.

Katona, S.K. and J.A. Beard. 1991. Humpback whales, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, in the western North Atlantic Ocean. 

Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 30, 307-321. 

Katona, S.K., 1991. American Cetacean Society. Comments on 

Stellwagen Bank Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

April, 1991.

Kawasaki, H., Y. Hoshino, and K. Yamasato, 1993. Phylogenetic 

diversity of phototrophic purple non-sulfur bacteria in the 

Proteobacteria alpha group. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 

112, 61-66.

Keats, D.W., G.R. South, and D.H. Steele, 1985. Reproduction 

and egg guarding by Atlantic wolfish (Anarhicas lupus: 

Anarhichidae) and ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus: 

Zoarcidae) in Newfoundland waters. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology, 63, 2565-2568.

Keim, B.D., 1998. New England’s Changing Climate, Weather, 

and Air Quality. The Climate Change Research Center. 

Retrieved from http://www.neci.sr.unh.edu/neccwaq.

html.

Keim, B.D., 1999a. Record Precipitation Total from the Coastal 

New England Rainstorm of 20-21 October, 1996. Bulletin 

of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 1061-1067.

Keim, B.D., 1999b. Current Climate of the New England Region: 

New England regional Assessment. The Climate Change 

Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.neci.sr.unh. 

edu/neccwaq.html.

Kelleher, K., 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an 

update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470, Food 

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome, Italy. 131 pp.

Keller, M.D., T.H. Mague, M. Badenhausen, and H.E. Glover, 1982. 

Seasonal variations in the Production and consumption 

of Amino Acids by coastal Microplankton. Estuarine, 

Coastal, and Shelf Science, 15, 301-305.

Kellert, S.R.. 2005. Perspectives on an Ethic toward the Sea. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium, 41, 703-711. 

Kenney, R.D. and H.E. Winn, 1986. Cetacean high-use habitats 

of the Northeast United States Continental Shelf. Fishery 

Bulletin, 84, 345-357.

Kenney, R.D. and K.F. Wishner, 1991. The South Channel Ocean 

Productivity Experiment: SCOPEX. Pergamon Press, New 

York, NY. 

Kenney, R.D., 1993. SCOPEX: A multi-disciplinary oceanographic 

study of Right Whale feeding habitat in the Gulf of Maine. 

Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode 

Island, Narrangansett, RI.

Kenney, R.D., G.P. Scott, T.J. Thompson, and H.E. Winn, 1995. 

Estimates of prey consumption and trophic impacts 

of cetaceans in the USA Northeast continental shelf 

ecosystem. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 

22, 155-171.

Kenney, R.D., C.A. Mayo, and H.E. Winn, 2001. Migration and 

foraging strategies at varying special scales in western 

North Atlantic right whales. Journal of Cetacean Research 

and Management. Special Issue 2, 251-260.

Kerkhof, L.J., M.A. Voytek, R.M. Sherrell, D. Millie, and O. Schofield, 

1999. Variability in bacterial community structure during 

upwelling in the coastal ocean. Hydrobiologia, 401, 

139-148.

Ketten, D. R., 2000. Cetacean ears. In: Hearing by Whales 

and Dolphins. W. Au, A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay, eds., 

Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 43-108.

Knebel, H.J., and R.C. Circe, 1995. Seafloor environments within 

the Boston Harbor – Massachusetts Bay sedimentary 

system: a regional synthesis. Journal of Coastal Research, 

11, 230-251.

Kohlmeyer, J. 1985. Marine fungi (Ascomycetes) within and on 

tests of Foraminifera. Marine Biology, 90, 147-149.

Kohlmeyer, J. and B. Volkmann-Kohlmeyer, 1991. Illustrated key 

to the filamentous higher marine fungi. Botanica Marina, 

34, 1-61.

Knowlton, A.R. and S.D. Kraus, 2001. Mortality and serious injury 

of northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western 

North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management (Special Issue), 2, 193-208.

Knowlton, A.R., M.K. Marx, H.M. Pettis, P.K. Hamilton, and 

S.D. Kraus, 2005. Analysis of scarring on North Atlantic 

right whales (Eubalaena glacialis): monitoring rates of 

entanglement interaction 1980-2002. Final Report 

to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Contract 

#43EANF030107. Available from: New England 

Aquarium, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110.

Kraus, S.D., P.K. Hamilton, R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, and 

C.K. Slay, 2001. Reproductive parameters of the North 

Atlantic right whale. Journal of Cetacean Research and 

Management (Special Issue), 2, 231-236.

Kraus, S.D., M.W. Brown, H. Caswell, C.W. Clark, M. Jujiwara, 

P.K. Hamilton, R.D. Kenney, A.R. Knowlton, S. Landry, 

C.A. Mayo, W.A. McLellan, M.J. Moore, D.P. Nowacek, 

A.D. Pabst, A.J. Read, and R.M. Rolland, 2005. North 

Atlantic Right Whales in Crisis. Science, 309, 561-562.

Kunin, W.E., and K.J. Gaston, eds., 1997. Biology of Rarity Causes 

and Consequences of Rare-Common Differences Series 

(Population and Community Biology Series), Springer, 

New York, NY. 300 pp.

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta 

Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. 

Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. MIller, K. 

Mills., R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, 

J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl, 2002. Waterbird Conservation 

for the Americas: The North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for 

the Americas, Washington, DC.

Laist, D.W., J.M. Coe, and K.J. O’Hara, 1999. Marine debris 

pollution. In: Conservation and Management of Marine 

Mammals, J.R. Twiss, Jr., and R.R. Reeves, eds., Smithsonian 

Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 342-366.

Laist, D.W., A.R. Knowlton, J.G. Mead, A.S. Collet, and M. 

Podesta, 2001. Collisons between ships and whales. 

Marine Mammal Science, 17, 35-75.

Lahvis, G.P., R.S. Wells, D.W. Kuehl, J.L. Steward, H.L. Rhinehard, 

and C.S. Cia, 1995. Decreased lymphcyte responses in 

free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are 

associated with increased concentrations of PCBs and DDT 

in peripheral blood. Environmental Health Perspectives, 

103, Supplement 4, 67-72. 

Lambert, T. C., 1987. Duration and intensity of spawning in 

herring Clupea harengus as related to the age structure of 
272 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

the population. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 39, 

209-220.

Lambert, T.C., 1990. The effect of population structure on 

recruitment in herring. Journal Du Conseil International 

pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 47, 249-255.

Langton, R.W., P.J. Auster, and D.C. Schneider, 1995. A spatial 

and temporal perspective on research and management of 

groundfish in the northwest Atlantic. Reviews in Fisheries 

Science, 3, 201-229.

Langton, R.W., E.W. Langton, R.B. Theroux, and J.R. Uzmann, 

1990. Distribution, Behavior and Abundance of Sea Pens, 

Pennatula aculeata, in the Gulf of Maine. Marine Biology, 

107, 463-469.

Larson, R.J., 1976. Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern 

United States. Cnidaria: Scyphozoa. NOAA Technical 

Report, National Marine Fisheries Service Circular 397, 

18 pp.

Lavigne, D.M., and K.M. Kovacs, 1988. Harps and Hoods Ice 

Breeding Seals of the Northwest Atlantic. University of 

Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 174 pp.

Lawler, J.J., J.E. Aukema, J.B. Grant, B.S. Halpern, P. Kareiva, C.R. 

Nelson, K. Ohleth, J.D. Olden, M.A. Schlaepfer, B.R. 

Silliman, and P. Zaradic, 2006. Conservation science: 

a 20-year report card. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, 4, 473-480.

Leaman, B.M., and R.J. Beamish, 1984. Ecological and 

management implications of longevity in some northeast 

Pacific groundfishes. International North Pacific Fisheries 

Commission Bulletin, 42, 85-97.

Lee, L.L., 1992. A Description of the Nontidal Current Variability in 

Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay During Spring/Summer 

1990. Master’s Thesis, University of New Hampshire, 

Durham, NH.

Lermusiaux, P.F.J., 2003. Aspects of the physical and physicalbiogeochemical dynamics of Massachusetts Bay and 

Stellwagen Bank. Presentation at the Sand Lance (Eels) 

Workshop, Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, 

Brighton, MA, November 24, 2003.

Leslie, H.M., A.A. Rosenberg, and J. Eagle, 2008. Is a new mandate 

needed for marine ecosystem-based management? 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 43-48. 

Levinton, J.S., 1995. Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, 

Ecology. Oxford University Press.

Lewis, K.T., 1988. Survey of attitudes and knowledge of New 

England whalewatchers. Yale School of Forestry and 

Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT, unpublished.

Lewis, E.J., S.M. McLaughlin, J.E. Bodammer, and T.K. Sawyer, 

1992. Epitheliocystis in ten new host species of marine 

fish. Journal of Fish Diseases, 15, 267-271.

Libby, P.S., J.D. Boyle, C.D. Hunt, G. Lescarbeau, 2006. 2005 

Stellwagen Bank water quality monitoring report. Prepared 

for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

Battelle, Duxbury, MA. Draft.

Lindegarth, M., D. Valentinnson, M. Hansson, and M. Ulmestrand, 

2000. Effects of trawling disturbances on temporal and 

spatial structure of benthic soft-sediment assemblages in 

Gullmarsfjorden, Sweden. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 

57, 1369-1 376.

Lindholm, J., 2005. Acoustic Tracking of Marine Fishes: 

Implications for the Design of Marine Protected Areas. 

Marine Technology Journal, 39, 7-9.

Lindholm, J., L. Kaufman, L., M. Ruth, M. and P. Auster, 1998. 

A modeling approach to the design of marine refugia for 

fishery management. Science & Management of Protected 

Areas, 138-150.

Lindholm, J.B., P.J. Auster, and L.S. Kaufman, 1999. Habitatmediated survivorship of juvenile (0-year) Altantic cod 

Gadus morhua. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 180, 

247-255.

Lindholm, J.B., P.J. Auster, M. Ruth, and L. Kaufman, 2001. 

Modeling the effects of fishing and implications for the 

design of marine protected areas: Juvenile fish responses 

to variations in seafloor habitat. Conservation Biology, 15, 

424-437. 

Lindholm, J. and P. Auster, 2003. Site utilization by Atlantic cod 

(Gadus morhua) in off-shore gravel habitat as determined 

by acoustic telemetry: implications for the design of marine 

protected areas. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37, 

27-34.

Lindholm, J, P.J. Auster, and A. Knight, 2007. Site fidelity and 

movement of adult Atlantic cod Gadus morhua at deep 

boulder reefs in the western Gulf of Maine, USA. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 342, 239-247.

Link, J., 2002. Does food web theory work for marine ecosystems? 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 230, 1-9.

Linn, D.M., and N.R. Krieg, 1978. Occurrence of two organisms 

in cultures of the type strain of Spirillum lunatum: 

proposal for rejection of the name Spirillum lunatum

and characterization of Oceanospirillum maris subsp. 

williamsea and an unclassified vibrioid bacteria. Request 

for an opinion. Inst. J. Syst. Bacterial., 28, 132-138.

Lobel, P.S., 2002. Reef fish courtship and mating sounds: unique 

signals for acoustic monitoring. In: Rountree et al., 

eds., Listening to Fish: Passive Acoustic Applications in 

Marine Fisheries. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

Cambridge, MA, 54-57. 

Lom, J., A.V. Gayevskaya, and I. Dykova, 1980. Two microsporidian 

parasites found in marine fishes in the Atlantic Ocean. 

Folia Parasitol, 27, 197-202.

Longhurst, A., 2002. Murphy’s law revisited: longevity as a factor 

in recruitment to fish populations. Fisheries Research, 56, 

125-131.

Lotze, H. and I. Milewski, 2002. Two Hundred Years of Ecosystem 

and Food Web Changes in the Quoddy Region, Outer 

Bay of Fundy. Conservation Council of New Brunswick, 

Fredericton, NB, Canada. 188 pp.

Lotze, H. and I. Milewski, 2004. Two centuries of multiple human 

impacts and successive changes in a North Atlantic food 

web. Ecological Applications, 14, 1428-1447. 

Lough, R.G., Valentine, P.C., Potter, D.C., Auditore, P.J., Bolz, 

G.R., Neilson, J.D. and R.I. Perry, 1989. Ecology and 

distribution of juvenile cod and haddock in relation to 

sediment type and bottom currents on eastern Georges 

Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 56, 1-12.

Lux, F, and G. Kelly, 1978. Fisheries resources of the Cape Cod 

and Massachusetts Bay region. National Marine Fisheries 

Service Environmental Assessment Report. May, 1978, p. 

5-78

Lyman, E.G. and D. McKiernan, 2004. Scale Modeling of Fixed 

Fishing Gear to Compare and Quantify Differently 

Configured Buoyline and Groundline Profiles: An 

Investigation of Entanglement Threat. Report submitted 

to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts 

Conservation Plan, Gloucester, MA. 26 pp.
IX. Sources Cited 273

Lynch, D.R., M.J. Holboke, and C.E. Namie, 1997. The Maine 

coastal current: spring climatological circulation. 

Continental Shelf Research, 17, 605-634.

Lynch, D.R., W.C. Gentlemen, D.J. McGillicuddy, and C.S. 

Davis, 1998. Biological/physical simulations of Calanus 

finmarchicus population dynamics in the Gulf of Maine. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 169, 189-210.

Lynch, D.R., 1999. Coupled Physical/Biological Models for the 

Coastal Ocean – A review of Modeling in the Gulf of 

Maine. Naval Research Reviews, 51, 1-15.

Lyons, W.B.H.M.E., G.M. Smith, and A.D. Hewitt, 1980. The 

biogeochemistry of sediments in two Gulf of Maine basins. 

Marine Chemistry, 9, 307-320.

McDonald, M. A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.M. Wiggins, 2006. 

Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast 

Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of 

the Acoustical Society of America, 120, 712-718.

MacIssac, D.B. and W.T. Hotz, 1982. Massachusetts Marine 

Fisheries Policy Report. Massachusetts Department of 

Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory 

Commission.

Maciolek, N.J., R.J. Diaz, D.T. Dahlen, B. Hecker, I.P. Williams, 

and C. Hunt, 2005. 2004 Outfall Benthic Monitoring 

Report. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Report 

ENQUAD 2005-15. Boston, MA. 134 pp.

Macleod, K., R. Fairbairns, A. Gill, B. Fairbairns, J. Gordon, C. BlairMyers, and E.C.M Parsons, 2004. Seasonal distribution 

of minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata in relation 

to physiography and prey off the Isle of Mull, Scotland. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 277, 263-274.

Maihot, M.P., 2005. A New England Tropical Cyclone climatology 

1938-2004: Direct Hits and Near Misses II. The Maine 

Hurricane Conference, Wells, ME. Retrieved from http://

home.maine.rr.com/mailhot/netrop.html.

MarineNews, 2006. Great Boats of 2006. December, 2006, 24-

27.

Maney, E.J., Jr., and J.P. Ebersole, 1990. Continuous reproduction 

and episodic recruitment of Lacuna vincta (Montagu, 

1803) in the Gulf of Maine. Veliger, 33, 215-221.

Mann, K.H. and Lazier, J.R.N., 1996. Dynamics of marine 

ecosystems: biological-physical interactions in the ocean. 

Boston, MA: Blackwell Science, 2nd Edition.

Margulis, L. and K.V. Shwartz, 1998. Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated 

Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth. W.H. Freeman and 

Company, New York, NY. 338 pp.

Magurran, A.E., 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell 

Science, Ltd., Blackwell Publishing Company, Oxford, 

United Kingdom. 260 pp. 

McEachran, J.D. and J.A. Musick. 1975. Distribution and relative 

abundance of seven species of skate (Pisces:Rajidae) which 

occur between Nova Scotia and Cape Hatteras. Fishery 

Bulletin, 73, 110-136. 

Marshall, H.G., and M.S. Cohn, 1982. Seasonal Phytoplankton 

Assemblages in Northeastern Coastal Waters of the United 

States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC15.

Marshall, H.G. and M.S. Cohn, 1983. Distribution and composition 

of phytoplankton in northeastern coastal waters of the 

United States. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science, 17, 

119-131.

Marshall, H.G., 1984. Meso-scale distribution patterns for diatoms 

over the northeastern continental shelf of the United States. 

In: International Diatom Symposium. Volume 7, pp. 393-

400, D.G. Mann, ed., Philadelphia, PA.

Marteinsdottir, G., and A. Steinarsson, 1998. Maternal influence 

on the size and viability of cod (Gadus morhua L.) eggs 

and larvae. Journal of Fish Biology, 52, 1241-1258.

Marteinsdottir, G., and K. Thorarinsson, 1998. Improving the stockrecruitment relationship in Icelandic cod (Gadus morhua) 

by including age diversity of spawners. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55, 1372-1377.

Martinez, A.J., 2003. Marine Life of the North Atlantic, Canada to 

New England. Aqua Quest Publications, Inc., New York, 

NY. 350 pp.

MASSPORT, 2004. Ports: About the Port. http://www.massport.

com/ports/about.html.

MASSPORT, 2005. Comprehensive Financial Report, Year Ended 

6/30/2005. Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston, MA. p. 

100.

MASSPORT, 2006a. Ports: About the Port. http://www.massport.

com/ports/about.html.

MASSPORT, 2006b. Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) To 

Construct and Operate a New Cruise Terminal in South 

Boston, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Port Authority, 

Maritime Department, Boston, MA. October 16, 2006. 

p. 1-3.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 1991. The State of 

Boston Harbor 2002: Mapping the Harbor’s Recovery. 

December 20, 2004. Assessment in Boston Harbor 

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 2002. 

Massachusetts Bay Fact Sheet. Boston Harbor Outfall 

Project. ENQUAD Technical Report 92-3.

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 2006. 2005 outfall 

monitoring overview. Environmental Quality Department 

report ENQUAD 2006-18. 105 pp.

Mathieson, A.C., 1989. Phenological patterns of northern New 

England seaweeds. Botanica Marina, 32, 419-438.

Matta, J.F., and H.G. Marshall, 1983. A multivariate analysis of 

phytoplankton population in the Gulf of Maine. In: Council 

Meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of 

the Sea, p. 14, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Mauerer, R.O. and R.E. Bowman, 1985. Food consumption 

of squids (Illex illecebrosus and Loligo pealei) off the 

northeastern United States. In: Biology and Ecology of the 

Squids Illex illecebrosus and Loligo pealei in the Northwest 

Atlantic, Vol. 9, pp. 117-124, Dartmouth, NS, Canada.

Mayer, L.M., D.F. Schick, R.H. Findley, and D.L. Rice, 1991. 

Effects of commercial dragging on sedimentary organic 

matter. Marine Environmental Research, 31, 249-261.

Mayo, C.A. and M.K. Marx, 1990. Surface foraging Behavior of 

the North American Right Whale, Eubalaena glacialis, 

and Associated Zooplankton Characteristics. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology, 68, 2214-2220.

McConnaughey, R.A., K.L. Mier, and C.B. Dew, 2000. An 

examination of chronic trawling effects on soft-bottom 

benthos of the eastern Bering Sea. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 57, 1337-1388.

McFarland, R., 1911. A History of the New England Fisheries. 

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, D. Appleton 

and Co., New York. 470 pp.

McHatton, S., 1999. Ecology and Physiology of Autotrophic Sulfur 

Bacteria from Sulfide-rich Seeps and marine Sediments. 

Dissertation Abstracts International Part B: Science and 

Engineering, 60, p. 481.

McKiernan, D., M. Pol, and V. Malkoski, 2001. A study of 

the underwater profiles of lobster trawl groundlines. 

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Boston, MA.
274 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

McNaught, D., 2003. Summary report from Brown University on 

epifaunal invertebrates in piled boulder and pebble-cobble 

habitats. The Seafloor Habitat Recovery Monitoring 

Program (SHRMP) at the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary: A Review of Sampling Effort and Results to 

Date. A Report to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, NOAA/SBNMS, Scituate, MA. 

Meekan, M.G., and L. Fortier, 1996. Selection for fast growth 

during the larval life of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua on 

the Scotian Shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 137, 

25-37.

Meeken, M.G., J.H. Carleton, C.R. Steinberg, A.D. McKinnon, 

R. Brinkman, P.J. Doherty, A. Halford, S. Duggan, and 

L. Mason, 2006. Turbulent mixing and mesoscale 

distributions of late-stage fish larvae on the NW shelf of 

Western Australia. Fisheries Oceanography, 15, 44-59.

Meise-Munns, C., J. Green, M. Ingham, D. Mountain, 1990. 

Interannual variability in the copepod populations of 

Georges Bank and the western Gulf of Maine. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 65, 225-232.

Messiah, S.N., T.W. Rowell, D.L. Peer, and P.J. Cranford, 1991. 

The effects of trawling, dredging, and ocean dumping on 

the eastern Canadian continental shelf seabed. Continental 

Shelf Research, 11, 1237-1263.

Methven, D.A. and D.C. Schneider, 1998. Gear-independent 

patterns of variation in catch of juvenile Atlantic cod 

Gadus morhua in coastal habitats. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55, 1430-1442.

Meyer, J.B., F.H. Midlige, and R.W. Langton, 1979. Relative 

abundance, behavior, and food habits of the American 

sand lance, Ammodytes americanus, from the Gulf of 

Maine. United States National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Fishery Bulletin, 77, 243-253.

MIT Sea Grant (MITSG), 2004. Marine Invaders in the Northeast. 

Rapid Assessment Survey of Non-native and Native 

Marine Species of Floating Dock Communities. Prepared 

by J. Pederson, R. Bullock, J. Carlton, et al., Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology Sea Grant College Program 

Publication Number 05-3. http://web.mit.edu/seagrant.

MIT Sea Grant (MITSG), 2004. Ballast Water Exchange: Exploring 

the Feasibility of Alternate Ballast Water Exchange Zones 

in the North Atlantic - Workshop I. J. Pederson, ed. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant College 

Program. 2004 MIT Sea Grant College Program Publication 

Number 04-2. http://web.mit.edu/seagrant.

Monaghan, P. 1992. Seabirds and sandeels: the conflict between 

exploitation and conservation in the northern North Sea. 

Biodiversity Conservation 1, 98-111.

Montevecchi, W. A., and R. A. Myers, 1997. Centurial and 

decadal oceanographic influences on changes in northern 

gannet populations and diets in the north-west Atlantic: 

Implications for climate change. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 54, 608-614. 

Mooney, H.A. and J.A. Drake, 1989. In: Biological Invasions: A 

Global Perspective, SCOPE 37. J.A. Drake, H.A. Mooney, 

F. di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek and 

M. Williamson eds., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, 

United Kingdom. 541 pp.

Mooney-Seus, M.L. and J.E. Dianto, 2000. Beyond Our Shores: 

Catching Fish in New England Waters. New England 

Aquarium, Boston, MA. 95 pp.

Moore M.J., S.C. Landry, B. Bowman, A.R. Knowlton, P.K. 

Hamilton, D.S. Rotstein, 2005. Morbidity and mortality 

of chronically injured North Atlantic right whales: a major 

welfare issue. 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology 

of Marine Mammals, San Diego CA, December 12-16, 

abstract page 197.

Morgan, L.E. and R. Chuenpagdee, 2003. Shifting gears: addressing 

the collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters. Pew 

Science Series. Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trust. 

Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/index.

cfm?page=8&name=Grantee %20Reports&issue=16.

Mullins, T.D., T.B. Britschgi, R.L. Krest, and S.J. Giovannoni, 

1995. Genetic comparisons reveal the same unknown 

bacterial lineages in Atlantic and Pacific bacterioplankton 

communities. Limnology and Oceanography, 40, 

148-158.

Munoz, A.A., and F.P. Ojeda, 1998. Guild structure of carnivorous 

intertidal fishes of the Chilean coast: implications of ontogenetic dietary shifts. Oecologia, 114, 563-573.

Murawski, S.A., J.J. Maguire, R.K. Mayo, F.M. Serchuk, 1997. 

Groundfish stocks and the fishing industry. In: Northwest 

Atlantic groundfish: perspectives on a fishery collapse, 

Boreman J., B.S. Nakashima, J.A. Wilson, and R.L. Kendall, 

eds., American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, p. 27-

70.

Murphy, L.S. and E.M. Haugen, 1985. The distribution and 

abundance of phototrophic ultraplankton in the North 

Atlantic. Limnology and Oceanography, 30, 47-58.

Murphy, M., 1995. Occurrence and group characteristics of 

minke whale, Balenoptera acutorostrata, in Massachusetts 

Bay and Cape Cod Bay. Fishery Bulletin, 93, 577-585.

Murray, A.E., K.Y. Wu, C.L. Moyer, D.M. Karl, E.F. DeLong, 

1999. Evidence for circumpolar distribution of planktonic 

Archaea in the Southern Ocean. Aquatic Microbial 

Ecology, 18, 263-273.

Meyer, T., R. Cooper, and R. Langton, 1979. Relative abundance, 

behavior and food habits of the American sand lance, 

Ammodytes americanus, from the Gulf of Maine. Fishery 

Bulletin, 77, 243-254. 

Myers, N., 1988. Threatened biotas: “Hotspots” in tropical forests. 

The Environmentalist, 8, 187-208.

Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B da Fonseca, 

and J. Kent, 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation 

priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858.

Myers, R., and B. Worm, 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of 

predatory fish communities. Nature, 423, 280-283.

National Ballast Information Clearinghouse (NBIC), 2001. 

Retrieved from http://invasions.si.edu/nbic/index.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1993. 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan, 

Volume II: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, July 1993, 

Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, Marine Sanctuaries Division, 2000. The 

Economic Contribution of the Whale Watching to 

Regional Economies, Perspectives from Two National 

Marine Sanctuaries. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation 

Series MSD-00-3, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001. Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARS) by species and 

stock. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Small Entity 

Compliance Guide, 2002. “NE Multispecies Recreational 

and Party/Charter Vessel Restrictions.” Gloucester, MA.
IX. Sources Cited 275

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002. State 

of the Sanctuary Report. Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary, Scituate, MA, 27 pp. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Ocean Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

Funding Requirements for the National Marine Sanctuary 

System, September 2004.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005a. New 

priorities for the 21st century: NOAA’s strategic plan. 

NOAA, Washington, DC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005b. Whale 

Watching Guidelines for the Northeast Region Including 

the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Retrieved 

from http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ ro/doc/nr051999.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005c. Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARS) by species and 

stock. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005d. 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report: Minke Whale 

Canadian East Coast Stock. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

pdfs/sars/ao2005whmi-cae.pdf.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2006a. To 

Implement the Operational Measures of the North Atlantic 

Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Strategy. NOAA/NMFS/

DEIS, Silver Spring, MD. July 2006.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2006b. Marine 

Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARS) by species and 

stock. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2007a. Atlantic 

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP). October 19, 

2007. http://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2007b. 

Condition Report. Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary, Scituate, MA, 40 pp. 

National Research Council, 1994: Metabolic Modifiers. Effects 

on the Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

National Research Council, 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: 

Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient 

Pollution. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council, 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools 

for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. National Academy 

Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council, 2002. Effects of Trawling and 

Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC.

National Research Council, 2003. Ocean Noise and Marine 

Mammals. Committee on the Impacts of Ambient Noise 

in the Ocean on Marine Mammals Report. National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

National Research Council, 2005. Marine Mammal Populations 

and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes 

Biologically Significant Effects. National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC.

Neat, F.C., P.J. Wright, A.F. Zuur, I.M. Gibb, F.M. Gibb, D. Tulett, 

D.A. Righton, and R.J. Turner, 2006. Residency and depth 

movements of a coastal group of Atlantic cod (Gadus 

morhua L.). Marine Biology, 148, 643-654.

Nelson, G.A. and M.R. Ross, 1991. Biology and Population 

Changes of Northern Sand Lance (Ammodytes dublus) 

from the Gulf of Maine to the Middle Atlantic Bight. 

Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 11, 11-27.

New England Fisheries Management Council, 2003. Final 

Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan Including a Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement and an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. New England Fishery Management 

Council, Newburyport, MA.

Nisbet, I.C.T., 1981. Biological characteristics of the Roseate Tern 

Sterna dougallii. Unpublished Report to U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, Office of Endangered Species. Massachusetts 

Audubon Society, Lincoln, Massachusetts. 112 pp.

Nizinski, M.S., 2002. Sand lances. Family Ammodytidae. In: 

Bigelow and Schroeder’s fishes of the Gulf of Maine: 

496-505. B.B. Collette and G. Klein-MacPhee, eds. 

Smithsonian Books, Washington, DC, p. 496-505.

Noji, T.T., S.A. Snow-Cotter, B.J. Todd, M.C. Tyrell, and P.C. 

Valentine, 2004. Gulf of Maine Initiative: A Framework 

for Ocean management. Gulf of Maine Council on the 

Marine Environment. 22 pp.

Nold, S.C. and G. Zwart, 1998. Patterns and governing forces 

in aquatic microbial communities. Aquatic Ecology, 32, 

17-35.

O’Brien, L., 1999. Factors influencing the rate of sexual maturity 

and the effect on spawning stock for Georges Bank and the 

Gulf of Maine Atlantic cod Gadus morhua stocks. Journal 

of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 25, 179-203.

Offshore Magazine, July 2006. PennWell Corporation, publishers, 

Tulsa, OK, p. 58. 

Oldale, R.N., 1993. Geologic origins of Stellwagen Bank: The 

Cape Naturalist, 1993/1994, 27-31.

Oldale, R., 2005. Geologic “Origins of Stellwagen Bank.” 

Retrieved January 5, 2005 from http://stellwagen.nos.noaa.

gov/about/origins.html. Reprinted from Cape Naturalist, 

1993-1994.

Olsen, E.M., H. Mikko, G.R. Lilly, M.J. Morgan, J. Brattey, B. 

Ernande, and U. Dieckmann, 2004. Maturation trends 

indicative of rapid evolution preceded the collapse of 

northern cod. Nature, 428, 932-935.

Olson, M.H., 1996. Ontogenetic niche shifts in largemouth 

bass: variability and consequences for first year growth. 

Ecology, 77, 179-190.

Osborn, T., 2000. Climatic Research Unit: Information Sheet 11 

– North Atlantic Oscillation 2000. Retrieved July, 2000 

from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/nao/.

Osenberg, C.W., G.G. Mittelbach, and P.C. Wainwright, 1992. 

Two-stage life histories in fish: the interaction between 

juvenile competition and adult performance. Ecology, 73, 

255-267.

Overholtz, W.J. and J.R. Nicolas, 1979. Apparent feeding by the 

fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus, and humpback whale, 

Megaptera novaengliae, on the American sand lance, 

Ammodytes americanus, in the northwest Atlantic. Fishery 

Bulletin, 77, 285-287. 

Overholtz, W.J., S.A. Murawski, and K.L. Foster, 1991. Impact 

of predatory fish, marine mammals, and seabirds on the 

pelagic fish ecosystem of the northeastern USA. ICES 

Marine Science Symposia, 193, 198-208.

Overholtz, W.J., J.S. Link, and J.E. Suslowicz, 2000. Consumption 

of important pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish in 

the northeastern USA shelf ecosystem with some fishery 

comparison. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 1147-

1159.

Overholtz, W.J., and J.S. Link, 2006. Consumption impacts by 

marine mammals, fish, and seabirds on the Gulf of Maine - 
276 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Georges Bank Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) complex 

during the years 1977-2002. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 64, 83-96.

Pace III, R.M., S.D. Kraus, P.K. Hamilton, and A.R. Knowlton, 

2007. Life on the edge: examining North Atlantic right 

whale population viability using updated reproduction 

data and survival estimates. Paper presented at the 17th 

Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 

November 29-December 13, Cape Town, South Africa.

Palakovich, J., and L. Kaufman. Estimating the importance of 

maternal age, size, and spawning experience to recruitment 

of Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua. Conservation Biology, in 

review.

Palanques, A., J. Guillen, and P. Puig, 2001. Impact of bottom 

trawling on water turbidity and muddy sediment of an 

unfished continental shelf. Limnology and Oceanography, 

46, 1100-1110.

Palsboll, P.J., N. Rasmus, D.K. Mattila, and P.J. Clapham, 2001. 

Statistical approaches to paternity analysis in natural 

populations and applications to the North Atlantic 

humpback whale. Genetics Society of America, 157, 

1673-1682.

Patenaude, N., W.J. Richardson, M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, G.W. 

Miller, et al., 2002. Aircraft sound and disturbance to 

bowhead and beluga whales during spring migration in 

the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science, 18, 

309-335.

Pauly, D., 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of 

fisheries. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 10, 430.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F.C. Torres, 

Jr., 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 279, 

860-863. 

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalshaard, et al., 1998. Fishing down 

the marine food webs. Science, 279, 860-863.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guénette et al., 2002. Towards 

sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418, 689-695.

Pauly, D. and MacLean, J., 2003. In a Perfect Ocean: The State 

of Fisheries and Ecosystems in the North Atlantic Ocean. 

Island Press, Washington, DC. 160 pp.

Pawson, D.L., 1977. Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern 

United States. Echinodermata: holothuroidea. NOAA 

Technical Report NMFS Circular. 405. 15 pp.

Payne, P.M. and Selzer, L.A., eds., 1986. Marine Mammals, 

Seabirds and Marine Turtles in the Gulf of Maine and 

Massachusetts Bay with Special Emphasis on the Locations 

of the Foul-Area Disposal Site and the Cape Arundel 

Disposal Site. Contract DACW 33-85-D-0002-003 to 

Sanford Ecological Services, Inc., Natick, MA.

Payne, P., J.H. Nicholos, L. O’Brien, and K. Powers, 1986. 

The distribution of the humpback whale, Megaptera 

novaeangliae, on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine 

in relation to densities of the sand eel, Ammondytes 

americanus. Fishery Bulletin, 84, 271-277. 

Payne, P.M., D.N. Wiley, S.B. Young, S. Pittman, P.J. Clapham, and 

J.W. Jossi, 1990. Recent fluctuations in the abundance of 

baleen whales in the southern Gulf of Maine in relation to 

changes in selective prey. Fishery Bulletin. 88, 687-696.

Pedersen, S.A., P. Lewy, and P.J. Wright, 1999. Assessments of 

the lesser sand eel (Ammodytes marinus) in the North Sea 

based on revised stock divisions. Fisheries Research, 41, 

221-241.

Pederson, J., ed., 2003. Biological Invasions: patterns, processes 

and perspectives (Program number MITSG 03-21J). 

Second International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, 

New Orleans, LA. April 9-11, 2001. 5(1-2), 10143.

Pederson, J., R. Bullock, J. Carlton, J. Dijkstra, N. Dobroski, et al.,

2004. Marine Invaders in the Northeast: Rapid Assessment 

Survey of Non-native and Native Marine species of Floating 

Dock Communities. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Sea Grant College Program Publication No. 05-3.

Perry, C. 1999. A review of the impact of anthropogenic noise 

on cetaceans. Report to the International Whaling 

Commission, SC/50/E9 (unpublished).

Petersen, W.R., 1993. Birds of Massachusetts, Mass Audubon 

Society, Lincoln, MA. 529 p. http://www.massaudubon.

org/Birds_&_Beyond/IBAs/contact.php.

Pett, S. and C.J. McKay, 1990. Technical Report on the Resources 

and Used of Stellwagen Bank. In: Jack, H.A., ed. Part 

I. Proceedings of the Stellwagen Bank Conference, April 

26-27, 1990, Urban Harbors Institute, University of 

Massachusetts, Boston, MA. 

Pettigrew, N.R., J.H. Churchill, C.D. Janzen, L.J. Mangum, R.P. 

Signell, et al., 2005. The kinematic and hydrographic 

structure of the Gulf of Maine Coastal Current. Deep Sea 

Research II, 52, 2369-2391.

Piatt, J.F. and D.A. Methven, 1992. Threshold foraging behavior of 

baleen whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 84, 205-

210.

Pickett, S.T.A. and White, P.S., eds, 1985. The ecology of natural 

disturbance and patch dynamics. Academy Press, New 

York, NY. 472 pp.

Pierce G.J., M. Morais-DaCunha, and A. Protowski, 2001. Impact 

of cephalopoda in the food chain and their interactions 

with the environment. Amsterdam Elsevier. Fisheries 

Research, 52, 5-10.

Pilskaln, C.H., J.H. Churchill, and L.M. Mayer, 1998. Frequency 

of bottom trawling in the Gulf of Maine and speculations 

on the geochemical consequences. Conservation Biology, 

12, 1223-1229.

Pittman, S.J. and C.A. McAlpine, 2003. Movement of Marine 

Fish and Decopod Crustaceans: Process, Theory and 

Application. Advances in Marine Biology, 44, 205-294.

Pittman, S. and F. Huettmann, 2006. An Ecological Characterization 

of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Region 

(Chapter 4). National Center for Coastal Ocean Science, 

NOAA Technical Memorandum, Silver Spring, MD.

Platt, D.D, R. Podolsky, H. Thurston, and J. Harvey, 1995. The 

top of the food chain: marine mammals and birds of the 

Gulf of Maine. In: From Cape Cod to the Bay of Fundy: An 

environmental Atlas of the Gulf of Maine. Conkling, P.W., 

ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. p. 97-117.

Polacheck, T., 1990. Year around closed areas as a management 

tool. Natural Resource Modeling, 4, 327-354.

Powers, K.D., G.L. Pittman, and S.J. Fitch, 1980. Distribution of 

marine birds on the mid- and north-Atlantic U.S. outer 

continental shelf. Technical Progress Report. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 165 pp. 

Powers, K.D., 1983. Pelagic distributions of marine birds 

off the northeastern United States. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-27. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Washington. D.C. 202 pp. 

Powers K. D., 1984. Pelagic Distribution of Marine Birds off the 

Northeastern United States. United States Department 

of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service. 
IX. Sources Cited 277

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Powers, K.D. and R.G.B. Brown, 1987. Seabirds. In: Georges 

Bank. Backus, R.H. and Bourne, D.W., eds., Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 

359-371.

Rangeley, R.W. and P. Lawton, 1999. Spatial scaling of habitat 

distributions in the American lobster. Journal of Shellfish 

Research, 18, 307.

Rago, P., and M. McSherry, 2001. Spatial distribution of fishing 

effort for sea scallops: 1998-2000. Conference on the 

Effects of Fishing Gear on Fish Habitat in the Northeastern 

U.S., October 23-25, 2001, Boston, MA.

Rath, J., K.Y. Wu, G.J. Herndl, E.F. DeLong, 1998. High 

phylogenetic diversity in a marine-snow-associated 

bacterial assemblage. Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 14, 

261-269.

Read, A.J., 1994. Interactions between cetaceans and gillnet and 

trap fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic. In: Gillnets and 

Cetaceans, W.F. Perrin, G.P. Donovan, and J. Barlow eds., 

International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, MA, 133-

148.

Read, A.J. and C.R. Brownstein. 2003. Considering Other 

Consumers: Fisheries, Predators, and Atlantic Herring in 

the Gulf of Maine. Conservation Ecology, 7, p. 12.

Reay, P.S. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on North Atlantic 

sand eels of the genus Ammodytes, A. tobianus, A. dubius, 

A. americanus, A. marinus. FOA Fisheries Synopses, 82, 

1-52.

Reeves, R.R., B.D. Smith, E.A. Crespo, and G.N. di Sciara, 

2003. Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises: 2002-2010 

Conservation Action Plan for the World’s Cetaceans. The 

World Conservation Union, Species Survival Commission 

(IUCN/SSC) Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, 

Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

Reijnders, P.J.H., A. Aguilar and G.P. Donovan, eds. 1999. 

Chemical pollutants and cetaceans. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management (Special Issue) 1, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom. 273 pp.

Richards, S.W., 1965. Description of the postlarvae of the sand 

lance, Ammodytes americanus, from the east coast of 

North American. Journal of Fish Resources Board Canada, 

22, 1313-1317.

Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomsen, 

1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San 

Diego, CA. 171 pp.

Richardson, W.J., and B. Wursig, 1997. Influences of ma-made 

noise and other human actions on cetacean behavior. 

Marine and Freshwater Behavior and Physiology ̧ 29, 183-

209. 

Ricklefs, R.E., and D. Schluter, 1993. Ecological Communities: 

Historical and Geographical Perspectives. The University 

of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 414 pp.

Ricklefs, R.E., and G.L. Miller, 2000. Ecology, Fourth Edition. 

W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 882 pp.

Ricklefs, R.E., 2001. The Economy of Nature, Fifth Edition. W.H. 

Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 550 pp.

Rieley, G., C.L. Dover, D.B. Hedrick, and G. Eglinton, 1999. 

Trophic ecology of Rimicaris exculata: a combined lipid 

abundance/stable isotope approach. Marine Biology, 

133, 495-499.

Riemann, B. and E. Hoffmann, 1991. Ecological consequences of 

dredging and bottom trawling in the Limfjord, Denmark. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 69, 171-178.

Rijnsdorp, A.D., A.M. Bujis, F. Storbeck, and E. Visser, 1998. Microscale distribution of beam trawl effort in the southern North 

Sea between 1993 and 1996 in relation to the trawling 

frequency of the sea bed and the distribution of benthic 

organisms. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55, 403-419.

Robards, M.D., M.F. Armstrong, and J.F. Piatt, 1999. Sand lance: 

a review of biology and predator relations and annotated 

bibliography . USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station Research Paper, U2-U3.

Robbins, J., 2000. A review of scientific contributions from 

commercial whalewatching platforms. Unpublished 

report to the Scientific Committee of the International 

Whaling Commission. Adelaide, Australia.

Robbins, J., 2007. Structure and dynamics of the Gulf of Maine 

humpback whale population. PhD Thesis. School of 

Biology, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. 168 pp.

Robbins, J. and D. Mattila, 2000. Gulf of Maine humpback whale 

entanglement scar monitoring results 1997-1999. Final 

Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Order 

No. 40ENNF900253, National Marine Fisheries Service.

Robbins, J. and D.K. Mattila, 2004. Estimating humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeanglia) entanglement rates on the basis 

of scar evidence. Report to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Order number 43ENNF030121. 22 pp. 

Roberts, C., 2007. The Unnatural History of the Sea. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 435 pp. 

Roberts, J.M., S.M. Harvey, P.A. Lamont, J.D. Gage, and J.D. 

Humphrey, 2000. Seabed photography, environmental 

assessment and evidence for deep-water trawling on the 

continental margin west of the Hebrides. Hydrobiologia, 

441, 173-183.

Robichaud, D., and G.A. Rose, 2004. Migratory behaviour and 

range in Atlantic cod: Inference from a century of tagging. 

Fish and Fisheries, 5 185-214.

Rolland, R.K., K.R. Hunt, S.D. Kraus, and S.K. Wasser. 2005. 

Assessing reproductive status of right whales (Eubalena 

glacialis) using fecal hormone metabolites. General and 

Comparative Endocrinology, 142, 308-317.

Rosenberg, A.A, W.J. Bolster, K.E. Alexander, W.B. Leavenworth, 

A.B. Cooper, and M.G. McKenzie, 2005. The History of 

Ocean Resources: Modeling Cod Biomass using Historical 

Records. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 84-

90.

Rosenberg, A.A., J.H. Swasey, and M. Bowman, 2006. Rebuilding 

US fisheries: progress and problems. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment, 4, 303-308.

Ross, S.T., 1986. Resource partitioning in fish assemblages: a 

review of field studies. Copeia, 2, 352-368.

Round, F.E., R.M. Crawford, and D.G. Mann, 1990. Diatoms: 

Biology and Morphology of the Genera. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 856 pp.

Rountree, R.,C., Goudey, T., Hawkins, J.J., Luczkovich and 

Mann, D., eds., 2002. Listening to Fish: Passive Acoustic 

Applications in Marine Fisheries. Proceedings from 

an International Workshop in Passive Acoustics, 8-10 

April 2002, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 

Cambridge, MA. 172 pp.

Ruppert, E. and R. Fox, 1988. Seashore animals of the southeast. 

University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 429 

pp.
278 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Ruppert, E., and R.D. Barnes, 1994. Invertebrate Zoology. Saunders 

College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA. 1056 pp.

Russell, B., and A. Knowlton, 1999. Recommendations and findings 

on operation procedures, guidelines and regulations for 

vessels engaged in whale watching (both commercial 

and recreational) in the northeast NMFS region, and the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Memorandum 

prepared for the Northeast Implementation Team, ShipStrike Sub-Committee.

Ryland, F.E. and P.J. Hayward, 1991. Marine flora and fauna of 

the northeastern United States. Erect Bryozoa., National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service.

Ryman, N., F. Utter, and L. Laikre, 1995. Protection of intraspecific 

biodiversity of exploited fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology 

and Fisheries, 5, 417-446.

Sainsbury, K.J., R. Campbell, R. Lindholm, and A.W. Whitelaw, 

1997. Experimental management of an Australian 

multispecies fishery: examining the possibility of trawlinduced habitat modifications. In: Global Trends: Fisheries 

Management. Volume Symposium 20, E.K. Pckitch, D.D. 

Huppert, and M.P. Sissenwine, eds., American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, MD, 107-122.

Sanchez, P., M. Demestre, M. Ramon, and M.J. Kaiser, 2000. 

The impact of otter trawling on mud communities in the 

northwestern Mediterranean. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 57, 1352-1358.

Sawyer C. and J.R. Apel, J.R., 1976. Satellite Images of Ocean 

Internal-Waves Signatures. Boulder, CO National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental 

Research laboratory. National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration S/T 2401.

Scharf, F.S., J.P. Manderson, and M.C. Fabrizio, 2006. The effects 

of seafloor habitat complexity on survival of juvenile 

fishes: Species-specific interactions with structural refuge. 

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 335, 

167-176.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, and B. de Young, 2005. Cascading 

effects of overfishing marine systems. Trends in Ecology 

and Evolution, 20, 579-581.

Schilling, M.R., I, Seipt, M.T. Weinrich, S.E. Frohock, A.E. Kulberg, 

and P.J. Clapham, 1992. Behavior of individually identified 

sei whales, Balaeloptera borealis, during an episodic influx 

into the southern Gulf of Maine in 1986. Fishery Bulletin, 

90, 749-755. 

Schlee, J., D.W. Folger, C.J. O’Hara, 1973. Sediments on the 

Continental Northeastern United States-Cape Cod to Cape 

Ann, Massachusetts. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

United States Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic 

Investigations, Map I-746.

Schlitz, R.J. and E.B. Cohen, 1984. A nitrogen budget for the Gulf 

of Maine and Georges Bank. Biological Oceanography, 

3, 203-222.

Schneider, D.C., 1990. Seabirds and fronts: A brief overview. 

Polar Research, 8, 17-22.

Schneider, D.C., 1997. Habitat selection by marine birds in 

relation to water depth. Ibis, 139, 175-178.

Schreiber, E.A. and R.W. Schreiber, 1989. Insights into seabird 

ecology from a global ‘natural experiment’. National 

Geographic Research, 5, 65-81.

Schreiber, E. A. and J. Burger, eds., 2001. Biology of marine birds. 

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 744 pp.

Schreiber, E.A. and R.W. Schreiber, 1989. Insights into seabird 

ecology from a global ‘natural experiment’. National 

Geographic Research, 5, 65-81.

Schropp. S.J., M.I. Scranton, and J.R. Schwarz, 1987. Dissolved 

hydrogen, facultatively anaerobic, hydrogen-producing 

bacteria, and potential hydrogen production rates in 

the western North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. 

Limnology and Oceanography, 32, 396-402.

Schweder, T., and G.S. Hagen, and E. Hatlebakk, 2000. Direct 

and indirect effects of minke whale abundance on cod and 

herring fisheries: A scenario experiment for the Greater 

Barents Sea. NAMMCO Scientific Publications, 2, 120-

133.

Scotti, A. and J. Pineda, 2004. Observation of very large and steep 

internal waves of elevation near the Massachusetts coast. 

Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L22307.

Sears, J.R. and R.A. Cooper, 1978. Descriptive ecology of offshore, 

deep-water, benthic algae in the temperate western North 

Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology, 44, 309-314.

Secor, D.H., 2000a. Longevity and resilience of Chesapeake Bay 

striped bass. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 808-

815.

Secor, D.H., 2000b. Spawning in the nick of time? Effect of adult 

demographics on spawning behavior and recruitment in 

Chesapeake Bay striped bass. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 57, 403-411.

Sen Gupta, B.K., 1999. Modern Foraminifera. Kluwer Academic 

Publishers, 371 pp.

Setlow L., 1973. Geological investigation of project nomes 

dredging site. Massachusetts Department of Natural 

Resources, Publication Number 6937.

Shea, K., and P. Chesson, 2002. Community ecology theory as a 

framework for biological invasions. TRENDS in Ecology & 

Evolution, 17, 170-176.

Sherburne, S.W. and L.L. Bean, 1979. Incidence and distributions 

of piscine erythrocytic necrosis and the microsporidian, 

Glugea hertwigi, in rainbow smelt, Osmerus mordax, from 

Massachusetts to the Canadian Maritimes, Fishery Bulletin, 

77, 503-509.

Sherman, K., 1976. Density Distribution of Copepods in coastal 

Feeding Grounds of Herring. International Commission for 

the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, Resource Document 76/

VI/82, Serial No. 3894.

Sherman, K., 1991. The Large Marine Ecosystem Concept: 

Research and Management Strategy for Living Marine 

Resources. Ecological Applications, 1, 349-360.

Sherman K, C. Jones, L. Sullivan, W. Smith, P. Derrien, L. Ejsymont, 

1981. Congruent Sifts in Sand Eel Abundance in Western 

and Eastern North Atlantic Ecosystems. Nature, 291, 486-

489.

Sherman K., W. Smith, W. Morse, M. Berman, J. Green, and L. 

Ejsymont, 1984. Spawning strategies of fishes in relation 

to circulation, phytoplankton production, and pulses in 

zooplankton off the northeastern United States. Marine 

Ecology Program Series, 18, 1-19.

Sherman, K., M. Grosslein, D. Mountain, D. Busch, J.O. Reilly, 

and R. Theroux, 1988. The Continental Shelf Ecosystem 

Off the Northeast Coast of the United State. In: Ecosystem 

of the World 27, Continental Shelves (Chapter 9), Institute 

for Sea Research, NMFS-F/NEC-15, Amsterdam, The 

Netherlands.

Sherman, K, N.A. Jaworski, T.G. Smayda, eds., 1996. The 

Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability, 
IX. Sources Cited 279

and Management. Blackwell Science, Inc., Cambridge, 

MA. 579 pp.

Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney, 1992. Seasonal distributions and 

abundances of sea turtles off the northeastern United 

States: Herpetological Monographs, 6, 43–67. 

Signell, R.P., H.L Jenter, and A.F. Blumberg, 2000. Predicting 

the physical effects of relocating Boston’s seage outfall. 

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 50, 59-72.

Silva, P.C., 1992. Geographic patterns of diversity in benthic 

marine algae. Pacific Science, 46, 429-439.

Simmonds, E.J., and D.N. MacLennan, 2005. Fisheries acoustics: 

theory and practice. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United 

Kingdom, pp. 437.

Simpson, A, 2003. An investigation of the cumulative impacts of 

shrimp trawling on mud bottom fishing grounds in the Gulf 

of Maine: effects on habitat and macrofaunal community 

structures. Master of Science Thesis, University of Maine, 

Orono, ME, December 2003.

Simpson, A.W., and L. Watling, 2006. An investigation of the 

cumulative impacts of shrimp trawling on mud-bottom 

fishing grounds in the Gulf of Maine: effects on habitat 

and macrofaunal community structure, ICES Journal of 

Marine Science, 63, 1616-1630.

Skinder, C.F., 2002. Marine protected areas in the Gulf of Maine: 

Policy for a common resource. Master’s Thesis. University 

of Maine, Orono, ME.

Smith, R.I., 1964. Keys to marine invertebrates of the Woods Hole 

region: a manual for the identification of the more common 

marine invertebrates. Marine Biological Laboratory, 

Woods Hole, MA. 215 pp.

Smith, T. D.; D. Palka, and K. Bisack, 1993. Biological significance 

of bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine 

demersal gillnet fishery. Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center. Reference Document 93-23. 15 pp.

Smith, T.D., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, P.S. Hammond, S. Katona, 

et al., 1999. An ocean-basin-wide mark-recapture study 

of the North Atlantic humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Marine Mammal Science, 15, 1-32.

Smith, C.J., K.N. Papadopoulou, and S. Diliberto, 2000. Impact 

of otter trawling on an eastern Mediterranean commercial 

trawl fishing ground. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57, 

1340-1351.

Smith, C.J., R.J. Coggan, R.J.A. Atkinson, K.-N. Papadopoulou, 

T.D.I. Stevenson, P.G. Moore, and I.D. Tuck, 2003. 

Comparison of rapid methodologies for quantifying 

environmental impacts of otter trawls. Final Report DG 

XIV Study Project No. 98/017 in Support of the Common 

Fisheries Policy. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology 

and Ecology.

Soczek, M.L., 2006. An analysis of seabird bycatch in New 

England commercial fisheries. PhD Thesis, Department 

of Environmental Studies, Antioch New England Graduate 

School, Antioch University, Seattle, WA. 75 pp.

Sogin, M.L., H.G. Morrison, J.A. Huber, D.M. Welch, S.M. Huse, 

.R.R Neal, J.M. Arrieta, G.J. Herndl, 2006. Microbial 

diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored “rare 

biosphere.” Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, 103, 12115-12120.

South, G.R. and I. Tittley, 1986. A checklist and distributional 

index of the benthic marine algae of the North Atlantic 

Ocean. Huntsman Marine Laboratory and the British 

Museum (Natural History), London, United Kingdom. 76 

pp.

Sparks-McConkey, P.J. and L. Watling. 2001. Effects on the 

ecological integrity of a soft-bottom habitat from a trawling 

disturbance. Hydrobiologia, 456, 73-85.

Springer, A.M., J.F. Piatt, and G.B. Van Vliet, 1996. Seabirds as 

proxies of marine habitats and food webs in the western 

Aleutian Arc. Fisheries Oceanography, 5, 45-55.

St. Martin, K. and M. Hall-Arber, 2006. Charting Fishing 

Communities at Sea: Revealing New Potentials for 

Participation in Fisheries Science and Management.” 

ICES Proceedings 2006, Fishing Technology in the 21st 

Century, October 30-November 3, 2006, Boston, MA. 

Stachowicz, J.J., R.B. Whitlatch, and R.W. Osman, 1999. Species 

diversity and invasion resistance in a marine ecosystem. 

Science, 286, 1577-79.

Steinback, S. and B. Gentner, B., 2001. Marine angler 

expenditures in the northeast region, 1998 NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-47. United 

States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

Steinback R.S. and A.W. Kitt, 1999. Data Needs for Economic 

Analysis of Fishery Management Regulations (NMFS-NE 

119 P 10-11). United States Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional 

Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National 

Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Steneck, R.S., R.A. Wahle, L.S. Incze, and D.F. Belknap, 1991. 

Patterns of distribution and abundance of lobsters in the 

Gulf of Maine: Ideas on the carrying capacity of their 

environment. Journal of Shellfish Research, 10, 1-300.

Steneck, R.S., J. Vavrinec, and A.V. Leland, 2004. Accelerating 

Trophic-level Dysfunction in Kelp Forest Ecosystems of the 

Western North Atlantic. Ecosystems, 7, 323-332.

Stevick, P.T., J. Allen, P.J. Clapham, S.K. Katona, F. Larsen, J. 

lien, D.K. Mattila, P.J. Palsboll, R. Sears, J. Sigurjonsson, 

T.D. Smith, G. Vikingsson, N. Oien, and P.S. Hammond, 

2006. Population spatial structuring on the feeding 

grounds in North Atlantic humpback whales (Megaptera 

novaeangliae). Journal of Zoology, 270, 244-255.

Stevenson, D., L. Chirarella, D. Stephan, R. Reid, K. Wilhelm et 

al., 2004. Characterization of the Fishing Practices and 

Marine Benthic Ecosystems of the Northeast U.S. Shelf, 

and an Evaluation of the Potential Effects of Fishing on 

Essential Fish Habitat, NOAA Technical Memorandum, 

NMFS-NE-181, January 2004. 

Stevenson, D.K. and M.L. Scott, 2005. Essential Fish Habitat 

Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, 

Life History and Habitat Characteristics (2nd edition). 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-192. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts. 84 pp.

Stickney, R.R., B. Costa-Pierce, D.M. Baltz, M. Drawbridge, 

C. Grimes, S. Phillips, and D.L. Swann, 2006. Toward 

Sustainable Open Ocean Aquaculture in the United States. 

Fisheries, 31, 607-610.

Stoecker, D.K., A. Taniguchi, and A.E. Michaels, 1989. Abundance 

of autotrophic, mixotrophic and heterotrophic planktonic 

cilates in shelf and slope waters. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 50, 241-254.
280 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Stubblefield, W.L. and D.B. Duane, 1988. Processes producing 

North America’s east coast sand and gravel resources: A 

review. Marine Mining, 7, 89-122.

Taggert, C.T. and A. Vanderlaan, 2003. Regional time/space 

conflicts in vessel traffic with right whales in the Bay 

of Fundy. Final Project Report, Dalhousie University, 

Oceanography Department, Halifax, NS, Canada. 16 pp.

Tall, B.D., M. Crosby, D. Prince, J. Becker, G. Clerge, et al., 1999. 

Vibrio fluvialis implicated in recent outbreaks among 

American lobsters. In: Annual Meeting of the National 

Shellfisheries Association. National Shellfisheries 

Association, Halifax, NS, Canada, Volume 1, 325-326.

Tamsett, A., in preparation. Fishing Effects on Epifaunal 

Communities and the Role of Attached Epifauna as Fish 

Habitat. University of Connecticut at Avery Point, Groton, 

CT.

Tasker M.L., C.J. Camphuysen, J. Cooper, S. Garthe, W.A. 

Montevecchi, and S.J.M. Blaber, 2000. The impacts of 

fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 

57, 531-547.

Tasker, M.L. and R.W. Furness, 2003. Seabirds as monitors of the 

marine environment. ICES Cooperative Research Report 

No. 258. International Council for the Exploration of the 

Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark. 73 pp.

Taylor, W.R.,1957. Marine Algae of the Northeastern Coast of 

North America. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 

MI. 516 pp.

Teegarden, G.J. and A.D. Cembella, 1996. Grazing of toxic 

dinoflagellates, Alexandrium spp., by adult copepods of 

coastal Maine: Implications for the fate of paralytic shellfish 

toxins in marine foods webs. Journal of Experimental 

Marine Biology and Ecology, 196, 145-176.

Tegner, M., and P. Dayton, 1999. Ecosystem effects of fishing. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 261-262.

Theroux, R.B., 1998. Quantitative Composition and Distribution 

of the Macrobenthic invertebrate fauna of the Continental 

Shelf Ecosystem of the Northeastern United States 

(Technical Report). National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, 

WA.

Theroux, R.B. and M.D. Grosslein, 1987. Benthic Fauna. In: 

Georges Bank. R.H. Backus and D.W. Bourne, eds, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, 

MA. p. 283-295.

Theroux, R.B. and R.L. Wigley, 1998. Quantitative Composition 

and Distribution of the Macrobenthis Invertebrate Fauna 

of the Continental Shelf Ecosystems of the Northeastern 

United States, United States Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Report, NMFS 140. Seattle, WA.

Throndsen, J., B.R. Heimdal, and C.R. Tomas, 1993. Marine 

Phytoplankton: A Guide to Naked Flagellates and 

Coccolithophorids, Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY. 

263 pp.

Thrush, S.F., R.D. Pridmore, and J.E. Hewitt, 1994. Impacts on 

soft-sediment macrofauna: the effects of spatial variation 

on temporal trends. Ecological Applications, 4, 31-41.

Thrush, S.F., J.E. Hewitt, V.J. Cummings, P.K. Dayton, M. Cryer, 

S.J. Turner, G.A. Funnell, R.G. Budd, C.J. Milburn, and 

M.R. Wilkinson, 1998. Disturbance of the marine benthic 

habitat by commercial fishing: impacts at the scale of the 

fishery. Ecological Applications, 8, 866-879.

Thrush, S.F., J.E. Hewitt, G.A. Funnell, V.J. Cummings, J. Ellis, 

D. Schultz, D. Talley, and A. Norkko, 2001. Fishing 

disturbance and marine biodiversity: role of habitat 

structure in simple soft-sediment systems. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 221, 255-264.

Tomas, C.R., 1995. Identifying Marine Diatoms and Dinoflagellates. 

Academic Press, London, United Kingdom. 598 pp.

Tomas, C.R., 1997. Identifying Marine Phytoplankton. Academic 

Press, Boston, MA. 858 pp.

Townsend, D.W. and L.M. Cammen, 1985. A deep protozoan 

maximum in the Gulf of Maine. Marine Ecology Progress 

Series, 24, 177-182.

Townsend, D.W., J.P. Christensen, D.K. Stevenson, J.J. Graham, 

and S.B. Chenoweth, 1987. The importance of a plume of 

tidally-mixed water to the biological oceanographer of the 

Gulf of Maine. Journal of Marine Research, 45, 699-728.

Townsend, D.W., L.M. Cammen, J.P. Cristensen, S.G. Ackleson, 

and M.D. Keller, 1990. Oceanographic Conditions in 

Massachusetts Bay: 24 October 1989 Cruise Results 

(Technical Report No. 73). Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean 

Science and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 

West Boothbay Harbor, ME.

Townsend, D.W., 1991. Influences of oceanographic processes on 

the biological productivity of the Gulf of Maine. Reviews 

in Aquatic Sciences, 5, 211-230.

Tremblay, M.J. and J.T. Anderson, 1984. Annotated species list of 

marine planktonic copepods occurring on the shelf and 

upper slope of the northwest Atlantic Gulf of Maine to 

Ungava Bay. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences, 69, 1-12.

TRIGOM, 1974. A socio-economic and environmental inventory 

of the north Atlantic region. Submitted to the Bureau of 

Land Management, Marine Minerals Division by The 

Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM).

Trippel, E.A., O.S. Kjesbu, and P. Solemdal, 1997. Effects of 

adult age and size structure on reproductive output in 

marine fishes. In: Early Life History and Recruitment in 

Fish Populations. R.C. Chambers and E.A. Trippel, eds, 

Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, p. 31-62.

Tucholke, B. E., and C.D. Hollister, 1973. Late Wisconsin glaciation 

of the southwestern Gulf of Maine, new evidence from 

the marine environment. Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, 84, 3279-3296.

Tuck, I.D., S.J. Hall, M.R. Robertson, E. Armstrong, and D.J. 

Basford, 1998. Effects of physical trawling disturbance in 

a previously unfished Scottish sea loch. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, 162, 227-242.

Tudela, S., 2004. Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediterranean: 

an analysis of fishing gear and practices to biodiversity 

and marine habitats. General Fisheries Commission for 

the Mediterranean Studies and Review No. 74. UNEP 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome, Italy.

Tupper, M. and R.G. Boutilier, 1995. Effects of Habitat on 

Settlement, Growth, and Postsettlement Survival of Atlantic 

Cod (Gadus morhua). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, 52, 1834-1841.

United Nations Atlas of the Oceans, 2004. Retrieved February 16, 

2004, from http://www.oceanatlas.org/CDSServlet?status=

ND01NyZjdG5faW5mb192aWV3X3NpemU9Y3RuX2lu

Zm9fdmild.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2004. DAMOS: Disposal 

Area Monitoring, Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts. 

December 20, 2004. http:/www.nae.usace.army.mil/ 

damos
IX. Sources Cited 281

United States Coast Guard, 2006. USCG Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement, Volume 1 of 1 for Neptune, L.L.C 

Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port Application, 

DOT Docket Number: USCG-2004-22611. Section 3.3 

Maritime Traffic and Environment, 4-18.

USATODAY, 2007. “10 great places to catch a whale of a 

sighting,” R. Schoolmeester, http://www.usatoday.com/

travel/destinations/10great/2007-05-24-whale-watchingspots_N.htm (accessed May 29, 2007).

Vadas, R.L. and R.S. Steneck, 1988: Zonation of deep water 

benthic algae in the Gulf of Maine. Journal of Phycology, 

24, 338-346.

Valentine, P.C., T.J. Middleton, and S.J. Fuller, 2001. Seafloor 

maps showing topography, sun-illuminated topography, 

and backscatter intensity of Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary region off Boston, Massachusetts (OpenFile Report 00-410). U.S. Geological Survey.

Valentine, P.C., L.A. Scully, and S.J. Fuller, 2005. Distribution 

of boulder ridges and bedrock outcrops in the Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary region: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Series Map I-2840-F, 3 

sheets, scale 1:60,000, DVD-ROM. Retrieved from http://

pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2005/2840/.

Valentine, P., R. Reid, and J. Collie, 2006. Invasive Sea Squirts 

Persist on Georges Bank Fishing Grounds. United States 

Geological Survey, Sound Waves, 8, 1-3.

Vallee, D.R. and M.R. Dion, 1998. Southern New England Tropical 

Storms and Hurricanes: A Ninety-eight Year Summary 

1909-1997. National Weather Service, Taunton, MA.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M. and C.T. Taggart, 2007. Vessel Collisions with 

Whales: The Probability of Lethal Injury Based on Vessel 

Speed. Marine Mammal Science, 23, 144-156. 

Vermeij, G.J.,1991. Anatomy of an invasion: the trans-Arctic 

interchange. Paleobiology, 17, 281-307.

Vermersch, J., R. Beardsley, and W. Brown. 1979. Winter 

circulation in the western Gulf of Maine: Part 2. Current and 

pressure observations. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 

9, 786-784. 

Vetriani, C., H.W. Jannasch, B.J. MacGregor, D.A. Stahl, and 

A.L. Reysenbach et al., 1999. Population structure and 

phylogenetic characterization of marine benthic Archaea 

in deep-sea sediments. Applied and Environmental 

Microbiology, 65, 4375-4384.

Villarlard-Bohnsack, M., 1995. Illustrated key to the seaweeds of 

New England.

Visbeck, M., E. Chassignet, R. Curry, R., T. Delworth, B. Dickson 

and G. Krahmann, 2003. The Ocean’s Response to North 

Atlantic Oscillation Variability. In: The North Atlantic 

Oscillation. Geophysical Monograph Series. J.W Hurrell, 

Y. Kushnir, Y., G. Ottersen, G. and M. Visbeck, eds., 134, 

113-146.

Von Brandt, A., 1984. Fish Catching Methods of the World. Fishing 

News Books Ltd., London, United Kingdom. 418 pp.

Votier, S.C., R.W. Furness, S. Bearhop, J.E. Crane, R.W.G. Caldow, 

P. Catry, K. Ensor, K.C. Hamer, A.V. Hudson, E. Kalmbach, 

N.I. Klomp, S. Pfeiffer, R.A. Phillips, I. Prieto, and D.R. 

Thompson, 2004. Changes in fisheries discard rates and 

seabird communities. Nature, 427, 727-730.

Wahle, R., 1995. Trans-Atlantic comparison of the decapods of 

cobble habitats: Implications for the biogeography of 

housing shortages? In: Benthic Ecology Meeting, Vol. 23, 

J.P. Grassle, A. Kelsey, E. Oates, and P.V. Snelgrove, eds., 

New Brunswick, NJ.

Ward, N.F.R., 1995. Stellwagen Bank: A Guide to the Whales, Sea 

Birds, and Marine Life of the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary. Down East Books, Camden, ME. 232 

pp.

Ward-Geiger L.I., G.K. Silber, R.D. Baumstark, and T.L. Pulfer, 

2005. Characterization of Ship Traffic in Right Whales 

Critical habitat. Coastal Management, 33, 263-278.

Ware, C., R. Arsenault, M. Plumlee, and D. Wiley, 2006. Visualizing 

the Underwater Behavior of Humpback Whales. IEEE 

Computer Graphics and Applications, 26, 14-18.

Waring, G.T., P. Gerrior, M.P. Payne, and J.R. Nicolas, 1990. 

Incidental take of a marine mammals in foraging fishery 

activities off the northeast United States, 1977-88. Fishery 

Bulletin, 88, 347-360. 

Waring, G.T., J.M. Quintal, and S.L. Swarz, eds., 2001. U.S. 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammal stock 

assessments-2001. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NMDS-NE 168:1-307.

Watling, L. and E.A. Norse, 1998. Disturbance of the Seabed by 

Mobile Fishing Gear: A Comparison to Forest Clearcutting. 

Conservation Biology, 12, 1180-1197.

Watling, L., R.H. Findlay, L.M. Mayer, D.F. Schick, 2001. Impact of 

a scallop drag on the sediment chemistry, microbiota, and 

faunal assemblages of a shallow subtidal marine benthic 

community. Journal of Sea Research, 46, 309-324.

Watling, L. and P.J. Auster, 2005. Distribution of deep-water 

Alcyonacea off the Northeast Coast of the United States. 

In: Cold-water Corals and Ecosystems. A. Freiwald, and 

J.M. Roberts, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 

279-296.

Weinrich, M., M. Martin, R. Griffiths, J. Bove, and M. Schilling, 

1997. A shift in distribution of humpback whales, 

Megaptera novaenagliae, in response to prey in the 

southern Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin, 95, 826-836.

Weinrich, M. 1998. Early experience in habitat choice by 

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Journal of 

Mammalogy, 79, 163-170.

Weinrich, M., 1999. Behavior of a Humpback Whale (Mepagptera 

novaeangliae) upon Entanglement in a Gill Net. Marine 

Mammal Science, 15, 559-563.

Weinrich, M.T., Kenney, R.D., and Hamilton, P.K., 2000. Right 

whales, Eubalaena glacialis, on Jeffrey’s Ledge: A habitat 

of unrecognized importance? Marine Mammal Science, 

16, 326-337.

Weinrich, M.T. 2005. A review of collisions between whales and 

whale watch boats. Paper SC/57/WW8, presented to the 

International Whaling Commission 57th Annual Meeting, 

20-24 June 2005, Ulsan, Korea.

Weisbrod, A.V., D. Shea, M.J. Moore, and J.J. Stegman, 2000. 

Organochlorine exposure and bioaccumlation in the 

endangered northwest Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis) population. Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, 19, 654-666.

Weisbrod, A. V., D. Shea, M.J. Moore, and J.J. Stegeman, 2001. 

Species, tissue and gender-related organochlorine 

bioaccumulation in white-sided dolphins, pilot whales 

and their common prey in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine 

Environmental Research, 51, 29-50.

Wenz, G.M., 1962. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: spectra 

and sources. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 

34, 1936-1956.
282 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Werme, C., and C.D. Hunt, 2006. 2005 outfall monitoring 

overview. Report ENQUAD 2006-18, Massachusetts 

Water. Resources Authority, Boston, MA. 105 p.

Werme, C., and C.D. Hunt, 2007. 2006 outfall monitoring 

overview. Report ENQUAD 2007-12, Massachusetts 

Water. Resources Authority, Boston, MA. 95 p.

Werner, E.E., and J.F. Gilliam, 1984. The ontogenetic niche and 

species interactions in size-structured populations. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, 393-425. 

Wichels, A., S.S. Biel, H.R. Gelderblom, T. Brinkhoff, G. Muyzer, 

and C. Schutt, 1998. Bacteriophage diversity in the North 

Sea. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 64, 

4128-4133.

Widdicombe, S., M.C. Austen, M.A. Kendall, F. Olsgard, M.T. 

Schanning, S.L. Dashfield, and H.R. Needham, 2004. 

Importance of bioturbators for biodiversity maintenance: 

indirect effects of fishing disturbance. Marine Biology 

Progress Series, 275, 1-10.

Wiley, D.N., V.A. Capone, D.A. Carey and J.P. Fish, 1991. Location 

survey and condition inspection of waste containers at 

the Massachusetts Bay Industrial Waste Site. Final report 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 

Boston, MA. 68 pp.

Wiley, D.N., J.C. Moller, and K.A. Silinskas, 2003a. 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.

Wiley, D.N., J. Moller, K.A. Zilinskas, and M. Thompson, 2003b. 

Quantifying the Spatial and Temporaral Risk of Baleen 

Whale Entanglment within the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary.” Presented at the 15th Biennial 

Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 14-19 

December 2003, Greensboro, NC.

Wiley, D.N., C. Ware, K.L. Barton, K.A. Shorter, M.P. Johnson, 

R. M.R. Arsenault, and M. Weinrich, 2005a. Underwater 

behavior of humpback whales in a western North Atlantic 

foraging area. 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology 

of Marine Mammals, December 12-16, 2005, San Diego, 

CA.

Wiley, D.N., J.C. Moller, and C. Carlson, 2005b. Are Voluntary 

Agreements Effective Conservation Tools? A Case 

Study using Endangered Whales and Commercial 

Whale Watching in the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary. Report to the International Whaling 

Commission, 57th Annual Meeting, Ulsan, South Korea, 

20-24 June 2005.

Wiley, D.N., C. Ware, M. Weinrich, T. Hurst, and R. Arsenault, 

2006. Unpublished data from DTAG studies of the 

underwater behavior of humpback whales in the SBNMS; 

5-20 July 2006.

Wiley, D.N., J.C. Moller, R.M. Pace, III, and C. Carlson. 

Effectiveness of voluntary conservation agreements: Case 

study of endangered whales and commercial whalewatching. Conservation Biology, in press.

Winters, G.H., and E.L. Daily, 1988. Meristic composition of 

sand lance (Ammodytes sp.) in Newfoundland waters 

with a review of species designations in the Northwestern 

Atlantic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, 45, 516-529.

Wishner, K.E., A. Durbin, M. Macaulay, H. Win, and R. Kenny, 

1988. Copepod patches and right whales in the great south 

channel off New England. Bulletin of Marine Science, 43, 

825-844.

Witman, J.D., 1985. Refuges, biological disturbances, and rocky 

subtidal community structure in New England. Ecological 

Monographs, 55, 421-445.

Witman, J.D., 1987. Subtidal coexistence: storms, grazing, 

mutualism, and the zonation of kelp and mussels. 

Ecological Monographs, 57, 167-187.

Witman, J.D., J.J. Leichter, S.J. Genovese, and D.A. Brooks, 1993. 

Pulsed phytoplankton supply to the rocky subtidal zone: 

Influence of internal waves. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, 90, 1686-1690.

Witman J.D., R.J. Etter, and F. Smith, 2004. The relationship 

between regional and local species diversity in marine 

benthic communities: A global perspective. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 15664-15669.

Witman, J.D. and K.P. Sebers, 1993. Rocky Subtidal Communities 

in Massachusetts Bay: Lovell’s Island to Nahant Transect; a 

Final Report. 1991-1992 Sampling Period. Massachusetts 

Water Resource Authority, Boston, MA.

Worm, B., E.B. Barbier, N. Beaumont, J. Emmett Duffy, C. Folke, 

et al., 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean 

Ecosystem Services, Science, 314, 787-790.

Wright, P.J., and F.M. Gibb, 2005. Selection for birth date in North 

Sea haddock and its relation to maternal age. Journal of 

Animal Ecology, 74, 303-312.

Wright, P.J., E. Galley, I.M. Gibb, and F.C. Neat, 2006. Fidelity 

of adult cod to spawning grounds in Scottish waters. 

Fisheries Research, 77, 148-158.

Wynne-Edwards, V.C., 1935. The habits and distribution of birds 

on the North Atlantic. Proceedings of the Boston Society 

of Natural History, 40, 233-346.

Xue, H., Y. Xu, D. Brooks, N. Pettigrew, and J. Wallinga, 1999. 

Modelling the circulation in Penobscot Bay, Maine. 

Estuarine and Coastal Modeling Proceedings of the 

Conference of American Society of Civil Engineers, 1112-

11127.

Xue, H., F. Chai, and N.R. Pettigrew, 2000. A model study of 

the seasonal circulation in the Gulf of Maine. American 

Meteorological Society, 30, 1111-1135.

Yen, P.P.W., F. Huettmann, and F. Cooke, 2004a. A largescale model for the at-sea distribution and abundance of 

Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) during 

the breeding season in coastal British Columbia, Canada. 

Ecological Modelling. 171, 395-413. 

Yen, P.P.W., W.J. Sydeman, and D.K. Hyrenbach, 2004b. Marine 

bird and cetacean associations with bathymetric habitats 

and shallow-water topographies: implications for trophic 

transfer and conservation. Journal of Marine Systems, 50, 

79-99. 

Yost, W.A., 1994. Fundamentals of Hearing: An Introduction. 

Third Edition. Academic Press, New York, NY. 349 pp.

Zubkov, M.V., M.A. Sleigh, G.A. Tarran, P.H. Burkill, and R.J. 

Leakey, 1998. Picoplanktonic community structure on an 

Atlantic transect from 50 degree N to 50 degree S. Deep 

Sea Research I, 45, 1339-1355.

Zumarraga, M.J., A. Bernardelli, R. Bastida, V. Quse, J. Loureiro, 

A. Cataldi, F. Bigi, A. Alito, M. Ramos Castro, S. Samper, 

et al., 1999. Molecular characterization of mycobacteria 

isolated from seals. Microbiology, 145, 2519-2526.
283

X.

Appendices
284 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix A. National Marine

Sanctuaries Act

THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT 

16 U.S.C. 1431 ET. SEQ., as amended by Public Law 106-

513

Sec. 301. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICIES; ESTABLISHMENT OF SYSTEM. 

(a) FINDINGS.--The Congress finds that-- 

(1) this Nation historically has recognized the importance 

of protecting special areas of its public domain, but these 

efforts have been directed almost exclusively to land areas 

above the high-water mark; 

(2) certain areas of the marine environment possess conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, archeological, or esthetic qualities which 

give them special national, and in some instances, international, significance; 

(3) while the need to control the effects of particular activities has led to enactment of resource-specific legislation, 

these laws cannot in all cases provide a coordinated and 

comprehensive approach to the conservation and management of special areas of the marine environment; and

(4) a Federal program which establishes areas of the marine 

environment which have special conservation, recreational, 

ecological, historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, 

educational, or esthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries managed as the National Marine Sanctuary System 

will improve the conservation, understanding, management, 

and wise and sustainable use of marine resources; 

(B) enhance public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the marine environment; and 

(C) maintain for future generations the habitat, and ecological services, of the natural assemblage of living resources 

that inhabit these areas.

(b) PURPOSES AND POLICIES.--The purposes and policies 

of this title are-- 

(1) to identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment which are of special 

national significance and to manage these areas as the 

National Marine Sanctuary System;

(2) to provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated 

conservation and management of these marine areas, and 

activities affecting them, in a manner which complements 

existing regulatory authorities; 

(3) to maintain the natural biological communities in the 

national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where 

appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes; 

(4) to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise and sustainable use of the marine environment, and the natural, historical, cultural, and archeological 

resources of the National Marine Sanctuary System;

(5) to support, promote, and coordinate scientific research 

on, and long-term monitoring of, the resources of these 

marine areas;

(6) to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary 

objective of resource protection, all public and private uses 

of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities; 

(7) to develop and implement coordinated plans for the 

protection and management of these areas with appropriate Federal agencies, State and local governments, Native 

American tribes and organizations, international organizations, and other public and private interests concerned with 

the continuing health and resilience of these marine areas; 

(8) to create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve 

and manage these areas, including the application of innovative management techniques; and

(9) to cooperate with global programs encouraging conservation of marine resources.

(c) ESTABLISHMENT OF SYSTEM.-There is established the 

National Marine Sanctuary System, which shall consist of 

national marine sanctuaries designated by the Secretary in 

accordance with this title.

Sec. 302. DEFINITIONS 

As used in this title, the term-- 

(1) “Draft management plan” means the plan described in 

section 304(a)(1)(C)(v); 

(2) “Magnuson-Stevens Act” means the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.); 

(3) “marine environment” means those areas of coastal and 

ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, 

and submerged lands over which the United States exercises jurisdiction, including the exclusive economic zone, 

consistent with international law; 

(4) “Secretary” means the Secretary of Commerce; 

(5) “State” means each of the several States, the District of 

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 

the Virgin Islands, Guam, and any other commonwealth, 

territory, or possession of the United States; 

(6) “damages” includes-- 

(A) compensation for-- 

(i)(I) the cost of replacing, restoring, or acquiring the equivalent of a sanctuary resource; and (II) the value of the lost use 

of a sanctuary resource pending its restoration or replacement or the acquisition of an equivalent sanctuary resource; 

or 

(ii) the value of a sanctuary resource if the sanctuary resource 

cannot be restored or replaced or if the equivalent of such 

resource cannot be acquired; 
X. Appendix A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 285

(B) the cost of damage assessments under section 312(b)(2); 

(C) the reasonable cost of monitoring appropriate to the 

injured, restored, or replaced resources; 

(D) the cost of curation and conservation of archeological, 

historical, and cultural sanctuary resources; and

(E) the cost of enforcement actions undertaken by the Secretary in response to the destruction or loss of, or injury to, a 

sanctuary resource;

(7) “response costs” means the costs of actions taken or 

authorized by the Secretary to minimize destruction or loss 

of, or injury to, sanctuary resources, or to minimize the 

imminent risks of such destruction, loss, or injury, including 

costs related to seizure forfeiture, storage, or disposal arising 

from liability under section 312; 

(8) “sanctuary resource” means any living or nonliving 

resource of a national marine sanctuary that contributes to 

the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational, cultural, archeological, scientific, or aesthetic value 

of the sanctuary; 

(9) “exclusive economic zone” means the exclusive economic zone as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and

(10) ‘System’ means the National Marine Sanctuary System 

established by section 301.

Sec. 303. SANCTUARY DESIGNATION STANDARDS 

(a) STANDARDS.--The Secretary may designate any discrete 

area of the marine environment as a national marine sanctuary and promulgate regulations implementing the designation if the Secretary determines that-- 

(1) the designation will fulfill the purposes and policies of 

this title; 

(2) the area is of special national significance due to-

(A) its conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, 

scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic 

qualities;

(B) the communities of living marine resources it harbors; 

or

(C) its resource or human-use values;

(3) existing State and Federal authorities are inadequate or 

should be supplemented to ensure coordinated and comprehensive conservation and management of the area, including resource protection, scientific research, and public 

education;

(4) designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary 

will facilitate the objectives in subparagraph (3); and

(5) the area is of a size and nature that will permit comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management.

(b) FACTORS AND CONSULTATIONS REQUIRED IN 

MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS.-- 

(1) Factors.--For purposes of determining if an area of the 

marine environment meets the standards set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider-- 

(A) the area’s natural resource and ecological qualities, 

including its contribution to biological productivity, maintenance of ecosystem structure, maintenance of ecologically 

or commercially important or threatened species or species 

assemblages, maintenance of critical habitat of endangered 

species, and the biogeographic representation of the site; 

(B) the area’s historical, cultural, archaeological, or paleontological significance; 

(C) the present and potential uses of the area that depend on 

maintenance of the area’s resources, including commercial 

and recreational fishing, subsistence uses other commercial 

and recreational activities, and research and education; 

(D) the present and potential activities that may adversely 

affect the factors identified in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C); 

(E) the existing State and Federal regulatory and management authorities applicable to the area and the adequacy of 

those authorities to fulfill the purposes and policies of this 

title; 

(F) the manageability of the area, including such factors as 

its size, its ability to be identified as a discrete ecological 

unit with definable boundaries, its accessibility, and its suitability for monitoring and enforcement activities; 

(G) the public benefits to be derived from sanctuary status, 

with emphasis on the benefits of long-term protection of 

nationally significant resources, vital habitats, and resources 

which generate tourism; 

(H) the negative impacts produced by management restrictions on income-generating activities such as living and 

nonliving resources development; 

(I) the socioeconomic effects of sanctuary designation;

(J) the area’s scientific value and value for monitoring the 

resources and natural processes that occur there; 

(K) the feasibility, where appropriate, of employing innovative management approaches to protect sanctuary resources 

or to manage compatible uses; and 

(L) the value of the area as an addition to the System.

(2) Consultation.--In making determinations and findings, 

the Secretary shall consult with-- 

(A) the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation of the Senate; 

(B) the Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation, and the 

Interior, the Administrator, and the heads of other interested 

Federal agencies; 

(C) the responsible officials or relevant agency heads of the 

appropriate State and local government entities, including 

coastal zone management agencies, that will or are likely 

to be affected by the establishment of the area as a national 

marine sanctuary; 

(D) the appropriate officials of any Regional Fishery Management Council established by section 302 of the MagnusonStevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1852) that may be affected by the 

proposed designation; and 
286 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

(E) other interested persons. 

Sec. 304. PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 

(a) SANCTUARY PROPOSAL.-- 

(1) Notice.--In proposing to designate a national marine 

sanctuary, the Secretary shall-- 

(A) issue, in the Federal Register, a notice of the proposal, 

proposed regulations that may be necessary and reasonable to implement the proposal, and a summary of the draft 

management plan; 

(B) provide notice of the proposal in newspapers of general 

circulation or electronic media in the communities that may 

be affected by the proposal; and 

(C) no later than the day on which the notice required 

under subparagraph (A) is submitted to Office of the Federal 

Register, submit a copy of that notice and the draft sanctuary designation documents prepared pursuant to section 

304(a)(2), including an executive summary, to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives, the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 

the Senate, and the Governor of each State in which any 

part of the proposed sanctuary would be located.

(2) Sanctuary Designation Documents.- The Secretary shall 

prepare and make available to the public sanctuary designation documents on the proposal that include the following:

(A) A draft environmental impact statement pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.).

(B) A resource assessment that documents-

(i) present and potential uses of the area, including commercial and recreational fishing, research and education, minerals and energy development, subsistence uses, and other 

commercial, governmental, or recreational uses; 

(ii) after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, any 

commercial, governmental, or recreational resource uses in 

the areas that are subject to the primary jurisdiction of the 

Department of the Interior; and

(iii) information prepared in consultation with the Secretary 

of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency, on any past, present, or proposed future disposal or discharge of materials in 

the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary. Public disclosure by 

the Secretary of such information shall be consistent with 

national security regulations. 

(C) A draft management plan for the proposed national 

marine sanctuary that includes the following:

(i) The terms of the proposed designation. 

(ii) Proposed mechanisms to coordinate existing regulatory 

and management authorities within the area. 

(iii) The proposed goals and objectives, management 

responsibilities, resource studies, and appropriate strategies 

for managing sanctuary resources of the proposed sanctuary, including interpretation and education, innovative 

management strategies, research, monitoring and assessment, resource protection, restoration, enforcement, and 

surveillance activities. 

(iv) An evaluation of the advantages of cooperative State and 

Federal management if all or part of the proposed sanctuary 

is within the territorial limits of any State or is superjacent 

to the subsoil and seabed within the seaward boundary of a 

State, as that boundary is established 

under the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.). 

(v) An estimate of the annual cost to the Federal Government 

of the proposed designation, including costs of personnel, 

equipment and facilities, enforcement, research, and public 

education. 

(vi) The proposed regulations referred to in paragraph 

(1)(A). 

(D) Maps depicting the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary. 

(E) The basis for the determinations made under section 

303(a) with respect to the area. 

(F) An assessment of the considerations under section 

303(b)(1).

(3) Public Hearing.--No sooner than thirty days after issuing 

a notice under this subsection, the Secretary shall hold at 

least one public hearing in the coastal area or areas that will 

be most affected by the proposed designation of the area as 

a national marine sanctuary for the purpose of receiving the 

views of interested parties. 

(4) Terms of Designation.--The terms of designation of a 

sanctuary shall include the geographic area proposed to be 

included within the sanctuary, the characteristics of the area 

that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, 

research, educational, or esthetic value, and the types of 

activities that will be subject to regulation by the Secretary 

to protect those characteristics. The terms of designation 

may be modified only by the same procedures by which the 

original designation is made. 

(5) Fishing Regulations.--The Secretary shall provide the 

appropriate Regional Fishery Management Council with the 

opportunity to prepare draft regulations for fishing within the 

exclusive economic zone as the Council may deem necessary to implement the proposed designation. Draft regulations prepared by the Council, or a Council determination 

that regulations are not necessary pursuant to this paragraph, shall be accepted and issued as proposed regulations 

by the Secretary unless the Secretary finds that the Council’s 

action fails to fulfill the purposes and policies of this title 

and the goals and objectives of the proposed designation. In 

preparing the draft regulations, a Regional Fishery Management Council shall use as guidance the national standards 

of section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 

1851) to the extent that the standards are consistent and 

compatible with the goals and objectives of the proposed 

designation. The Secretary shall prepare the fishing regulations, if the Council declines to make a determination with 

respect to the need for regulations, makes a determination 
X. Appendix A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 287

which is rejected by the Secretary, or fails to prepare the 

draft regulations in a timely manner. Any amendments 

to the fishing regulations shall be drafted, approved, and 

issued in the same manner as the original regulations. The 

Secretary shall also cooperate with other appropriate fishery management authorities with rights or responsibilities 

within a proposed sanctuary at the earliest practicable stage 

in drafting any sanctuary fishing regulations. 

(6) Committee Action.--After receiving the documents under 

subsection (a)(l)(C), the Committee on Resources of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate may each hold 

hearings on the proposed designation and on the matters 

set forth in the documents. If within the forty-five day period 

of continuous session of Congress beginning on the date 

of submission of the documents, either Committee issues 

a report concerning matters addressed in the documents, 

the Secretary shall consider this report before publishing a 

notice to designate the national marine sanctuary. 

(b) TAKING EFFECT OF DESIGNATIONS.-- 

(1) Notice.--In designating a national marine sanctuary, the 

Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the 

designation together with final regulations to implement 

the designation and any other matters required by law, and 

submit such notice to the Congress. The Secretary shall 

advise the public of the availability of the final management plan and the final environmental impact statement 

with respect to such sanctuary. The Secretary shall issue a 

notice of designation with respect to a proposed national 

marine sanctuary site not later than 30 months after the 

date a notice declaring the site to be an active candidate for 

sanctuary designation is published in the Federal Register 

under regulations issued under this Act, or shall publish not 

later than such date in the Federal Register findings regarding why such notice has not been published. No notice of 

designation may occur until the expiration of the period for 

Committee action under subsection (a)(6). The designation 

(and any of its terms not disapproved under this subsection) 

and regulations shall take effect and become final after the 

close of a review period of forty-five days of continuous 

session of Congress beginning on the day on which such 

notice is published unless in the case of a natural [sic] 

marine sanctuary that is located partially or entirely within 

the seaward boundary of any State, the Governor affected 

certifies to the Secretary that the designation or any of its 

terms is unacceptable, in which case the designation or the 

unacceptable term shall not take effect in the area of the 

sanctuary lying within the seaward boundary of the State. 

(2) Withdrawal of Designation.-- If the Secretary considers 

that actions taken under paragraph (1) will affect the designation of a national marine sanctuary in a manner that the 

goals and objectives of the sanctuary or System cannot be 

fulfilled, the Secretary may withdraw the entire designation. 

If the Secretary does not withdraw the designation, only 

those terms of the designation or not certified under paragraph (1) shall take effect. 

(3) Procedures.-- In computing the forty-five-day periods of 

continuous session of Congress pursuant to subsection (a)(6) 

and paragraph (1) of this subsection-- 

(A) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment 

of Congress sine die; and 

(B) the days on which either House of Congress is not in 

session because of an adjournment of more than three days 

to a day certain are excluded. 

(c) ACCESS AND VALID RIGHTS.-- 

(1) Nothing in this title shall be construed as terminating 

or granting to the Secretary the right to terminate any valid 

lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access 

that is in existence on the date of designation of any national 

marine sanctuary. 

(2) The exercise of a lease, permit, license, or right is subject 

to regulation by the Secretary consistent with the purposes 

for which the sanctuary is designated. 

(d) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.-- 

(1) Review of Agency Actions.-- 

(A) In General.--Federal agency actions internal or external 

to a national marine sanctuary, including private activities 

authorized by licenses, leases, or permits, that are likely to 

destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource 

are subject to consultation with the Secretary. 

(B) Agency Statements Required.-- Subject to any regulations 

the Secretary may establish each Federal agency proposing 

an action described in subparagraph (A) shall provide the 

Secretary with a written statement describing the action and 

its potential effects on sanctuary resources at the earliest 

practicable time, but in no case later than 45 days before 

the final approval of the action unless such Federal agency 

and the Secretary agree to a different schedule. 

(2) Secretary’s Recommended Alternatives.--If the Secretary 

finds that a Federal agency action is likely to destroy, cause 

the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource, the Secretary 

shall (within 45 days of receipt of complete information 

on the proposed agency action) recommend reasonable 

and prudent alternatives, which may include conduct of 

the action elsewhere, which can be taken by the Federal 

agency in implementing the agency action that will protect 

sanctuary resources. 

(3) Response to Recommendations.--The agency head who 

receives the Secretary’s recommended alternatives under 

paragraph (2) shall promptly consult with the Secretary on 

the alternatives. If the agency head decides not to follow 

the alternatives, the agency head shall provide the Secretary with a written statement explaining the reasons for that 

decision. 

(4) FAILURE TO FOLLOW ALTERNATIVE.- If the head of 

a Federal agency takes an action other than an alternative 

recommended by the Secretary and such action results in 

the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a sanctuary resource, 

the head of the agency shall promptly prevent and mitigate 
288 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

further damage and restore or replace the sanctuary resource 

in a manner approved by the Secretary.

(e) REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PLANS.--Not more than 5 

years after the date of designation of any national marine 

sanctuary, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 5 

years, the Secretary shall evaluate the substantive progress 

toward implementing the management plan and goals for 

the sanctuary, especially the effectiveness of site-specific 

management techniques and strategies, and shall revise the 

management plan and regulations as necessary to fulfill the 

purposes and policies of this title. This review shall include 

a prioritization of management objectives. 

(f) LIMITATION ON DESIGNATION OF NEW SANCTUARIES.-

(1) FINDING REQUIRED.- The Secretary may not publish 

in the Federal Register any sanctuary designation notice or 

regulations proposing to designate a new sanctuary, unless 

the Secretary has published a finding that--

(A) the addition of a new sanctuary will not have a negative 

impact on the System; and

(B) sufficient resources were available in the fiscal year in 

which the finding is made to--

(i) effectively implement sanctuary management plans for 

each sanctuary in the System; and

(ii) complete site characterization studies and inventory 

known sanctuary resources, including cultural resources, 

for each sanctuary in the System within 10 years after the 

date that the finding is made if the resources available for 

those activities are maintained at the same level for each 

fiscal year in that 10 year period.

(2) DEADLINE- If the Secretary does not submit the findings required by paragraph (1) before February 1, 2004, the 

Secretary shall submit to the Congress before October 1, 

2004, a finding with respect to whether the requirements of 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 1 have been met by 

all existing sanctuaries.

(3) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION- Paragraph (1) does not 

apply to any sanctuary designation documents for--

(A) a Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary; or

(B) a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

(g) NORTHWESTERN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS CORAL REEF 

RESERVE.-

(1) PRESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION.- The President, after 

consultation with the Governor of the State of Hawaii, may 

designate any Northwestern Hawaiian Islands coral reef or 

coral reef ecosystem as a coral reef reserve to be managed 

by the Secretary of Commerce.

(2) SECRETARIAL ACTION.- Upon the designation of a 

reserve under paragraph (1) by the President, the Secretary 

shall--

(A) take action to initiate the designation of the reserve as a 

National Marine Sanctuary under sections 303 and 304 of 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1433);

(B) establish a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Reserve 

Advisory Council under section 315 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 

1445a), the membership of which shall include at least 1 

representative from Native Hawaiian groups; and

(C) until the reserve is designated as a National Marine 

Sanctuary, manage the reserve in a manner consistent with 

the purposes and policies of that Act.

(3) PUBLIC COMMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no closure areas around the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands shall become permanent without adequate 

review and comment.

(4) COORDINATION- The Secretary shall work with other 

Federal agencies and the Director of the National Science 

Foundation, to develop a coordinated plan to make vessels 

and other resources available for conservation or research 

activities for the reserve.

(5) REVIEW- If the Secretary has not designated a national 

marine sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

under sections 303 and 304 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1433, 1434) before October 1, 2005, 

the Secretary shall conduct a review of the management 

of the reserve under section 304(e) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 

1434(e)).

(6) REPORT- No later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 

on Resources, describing actions taken to implement this 

subsection, including costs of monitoring, enforcing, and 

addressing marine debris, and the extent to which the fiscal 

or other resources necessary to carry out this subsection 

are

reflected in the Budget of the United States Government 

submitted by the President under section 1104 of title 31, 

United States Code.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are 

authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce 

to carry out the provisions of this subsection such sums, not 

exceeding $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, 

2003, 2004, and 2005, as are reported under paragraph (6) 

to be reflected in the Budget of the United States Government.

Sec. 305. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

(a) REGULATIONS.--This title and the regulations issued 

under section 304 shall be applied in accordance with 

generally recognized principles of international law, and in 

accordance with the treaties, conventions, and other agreements to which the United States is a party. No regulation 

shall apply to or be enforced against a person who is not 

a citizen, national, or resident alien of the United States, 

unless in accordance with-- 
X. Appendix A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 289

(1) generally recognized principles of international law; 

(2) an agreement between the United States and the foreign 

state of which the person is a citizen; or 

(3) an agreement between the United States and the flag 

state of a foreign vessel, if the person is a crewmember of 

the vessel. 

(b) NEGOTIATIONS.--The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary, shall take appropriate action to 

enter into negotiations with other governments to make 

necessary arrangements for the protection of any national 

marine sanctuary and to promote the purposes for which 

the sanctuary is established. 

(c) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.--The Secretary, in 

consultation with the Secretary of State and other appropriate Federal agencies, shall cooperate with other governments and international organizations in the furtherance of 

the purposes and policies of this title and consistent with 

applicable regional and multilateral arrangements for the 

protection and management of special marine areas. 

Sec. 306. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES 

It is unlawful for any person to-- 

(1) destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource 

managed under law or regulations for that sanctuary; 

(2) possess, sell, offer for sale, purchase, import, export, 

deliver, carry, transport, or ship by any means any sanctuary 

resource taken in violation of this section; 

(3) interfere with the enforcement of this title by--

(A) refusing to permit any officer authorized to enforce this 

title to board a vessel, other than a vessel operated by the 

Department of Defense or United States Coast Guard, subject 

to such person’s control for the purposes of conducting any 

search or inspection in connection with the enforcement of 

this title;

(B) resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, harassing, 

bribing, interfering with, or forcibly assaulting any person 

authorized by the Secretary to implement this title or any 

such authorized officer in the conduct of any search or 

inspection performed under this title; or

(C) knowingly and willfully submitting false information to 

the Secretary or any officer authorized to enforce this title in 

connection with any search or inspection conducted under 

this title; or

(4) violate any provision of this title or any regulation or 

permit issued pursuant to this title. 

Sec. 307. ENFORCEMENT 

(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall conduct such enforcement activities as are necessary and reasonable to carry out 

this title. 

(b) POWERS OF AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.--Any person 

who is authorized to enforce this title may-- 

(1) board. search, inspect, and seize any vessel suspected 

of being used to violate this title or any regulation or permit 

issued under this title and any equipment, stores, and cargo 

of such vessel; 

(2) seize wherever found any sanctuary resource taken or 

retained in violation of this title or any regulation or permit 

issued under this title; 

(3) seize any evidence of a violation of this title or of any 

regulation or permit issued under this title; 

(4) execute any warrant or other process issued by any court 

of competent jurisdiction; 

(5) exercise any other lawful authority; and

(6) arrest any person, if there is reasonable cause to believe 

that such a person has committed an act prohibited by 

section 306(3).

(c) CRIMINAL OFFENSES-

(1) OFFENSES.- A person is guilty of an offense under this 

subsection if the person commits any act prohibited by 

section 306(3).

(2) PUNISHMENT.- Any person that is guilty of an offense 

under this subsection--

(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), shall be fined 

under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more 

than 6 months, or both; or

(B) in the case of a person who in the commission of such an 

offense uses a dangerous weapon, engages in conduct that 

causes bodily injury to any person authorized to enforce this 

title or any person authorized to implement the provisions 

of this title, or places any such person in fear of imminent 

bodily injury, shall be fined under title 18, United States 

Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

(d) CIVIL PENALTIES.-- 

(1) Civil penalty.--Any person subject to the jurisdiction of 

the United States who violates this title or any regulation or 

permit issued under this title shall be liable to the United 

States for a civil penalty of not more than $100,000 for each 

such violation, to be assessed by the Secretary. Each day of 

a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation. 

(2) Notice.--No penalty shall be assessed under this subsection until after the person charged has been given notice 

and an opportunity for a hearing. 

(3) In Rem Jurisdiction.--A vessel used in violating this title 

or any regulation or permit issued under this title shall be 

liable in rem for any civil penalty assessed for such violation. Such penalty shall constitute a maritime lien on the 

vessel and may be recovered in an action in rem in the 

district court of the United States having jurisdiction over 

the vessel. 

(4) Review of Civil Penalty.--Any person against whom a 

civil penalty is assessed under this subsection may obtain 

review in the United States district court for the appropriate 

district by filing a complaint in such court not later than 30 

days after the date of such order. 

(5) Collection of Penalties.--If any person fails to pay an 

assessment of a civil penalty under this section after it 
290 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

has become a final and unappealable order, or after the 

appropriate court has entered final judgment in favor of the 

Secretary, the Secretary shall refer the matter to the Attorney General, who shall recover the amount assessed in any 

appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, 

the validity and appropriateness of the final order imposing 

the civil penalty shall not be subject to review. 

(6) Compromise or Other Action by Secretary.--The Secretary may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without 

conditions, any civil penalty which is or may be imposed 

under this section. 

(e) FORFEITURE.-- 

(1) In General.--Any vessel (including the vessel’s equipment, stores, and cargo) and other item used, and any sanctuary resource taken or retained, in any manner, in connection with or as a result of any violation of this title or of any 

regulation or permit issued under this title shall be subject to 

forfeiture to the United States pursuant to a civil proceeding 

under this subsection. The proceeds from forfeiture actions 

under this subsection shall constitute a separate recovery in 

addition to any amounts recovered as civil penalties under 

this section or as civil damages under section 312. None of 

those proceeds shall be subject to set-off. 

(2) Application of the Customs Laws.--The Secretary may 

exercise the authority of any United States official granted 

by any relevant customs law relating to the seizure, forfeiture, condemnation, disposition, remission, and mitigation 

of property in enforcing this title. 

(3) Disposal of Sanctuary Resources.--Any sanctuary 

resource seized pursuant to this title may be disposed of 

pursuant to an order of the appropriate court or, if perishable, in a manner prescribed by regulations promulgated by 

the Secretary. Any proceeds from the sale of such sanctuary resource shall for all purposes represent the sanctuary 

resource so disposed of in any subsequent legal proceedings. 

(4) Presumption.--For the purposes of this section there is a 

rebuttable presumption that all sanctuary resources found 

on board a vessel that is used or seized in connection with 

a violation of this title or of any regulation or permit issued 

under this title were taken or retained in violation of this title 

or of a regulation or permit issued under this title. 

(f) PAYMENT OF STORAGE, CARE, AND OTHER COSTS.-

- 

(1) Expenditures.-- 

(A) Notwithstanding any other law, amounts received by the 

United States as civil penalties, forfeitures of property, and 

costs imposed under paragraph (2) shall be retained by the 

Secretary in the manner provided for in section 107(f)(1) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. 

(B) Amounts received under this section for forfeitures and 

costs imposed under paragraph (2) shall be used to pay 

the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Secretary to provide temporary storage, care, maintenance, and 

disposal of any sanctuary resource or other property seized 

in connection with a violation of this title or any regulation 

or permit issued under this title. 

(C) Amounts received under this section as civil penalties 

and any amounts remaining after the operation of subparagraph (B) shall be used, in order of priority, to-- 

(i) manage and improve the national marine sanctuary with 

respect to which the violation occurred that resulted in the 

penalty or forfeiture; 

(ii) pay a reward to any person who furnishes information 

leading to an assessment of a civil penalty, or to a forfeiture 

of property, for a violation of this title or any regulation or 

permit issued under this title; and 

(iii) manage and improve any other national marine sanctuary. 

(2) Liability for Costs.--Any person assessed a civil penalty 

for a violation of this title or of any regulation or permit 

issued under this title, and any claimant in a forfeiture action 

brought for such a violation, shall be liable for the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary in storage, care, and 

maintenance of any sanctuary resource or other property 

seized in connection with the violation. 

(g) SUBPOENAS.--In the case of any hearing under this 

section which is determined on the record in accordance 

with the procedures provided for under section 554 of title 

5, United States Code, the Secretary may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 

production of relevant papers, books, electronic files, and 

documents, and may administer oaths. 

(h) USE OF RESOURCES OF STATE AND OTHER FEDERAL 

AGENCIES.—The Secretary shall, whenever appropriate, 

use by agreement the personnel, services, and facilities of 

State and other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, to 

carry out the Secretary’s responsibilities under this section. 

(i) COAST GUARD AUTHORITY NOT LIMITED.--Nothing 

in this section shall be considered to limit the authority of 

the Coast Guard to enforce this or any other Federal law 

under section 89 of title 14, United States Code. 

(j) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.--If the Secretary determines that 

there is an imminent risk of destruction or loss of or injury to 

a sanctuary resource, or that there has been actual destruction or loss of, or injury to, a sanctuary resource which may 

give rise to liability under section 312, the Attorney General, 

upon request of the Secretary, shall seek to obtain such relief 

as may be necessary to abate such risk or actual destruction, loss, or injury, or to restore or replace the sanctuary 

resource, or both. The district courts of the United States 

shall have jurisdiction in such a case to order such relief as 

the public interest and the equities of the case may require. 

(k) AREA OF APPLICATION AND ENFORCEABILITY.--The 

area of application and enforceability of this title includes 

the territorial sea of the United States, as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of December 27, 1988, which 

is subject to the sovereignty of the United States, and the 
X. Appendix A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 291

United States exclusive economic zone, consistent with 

international law. 

(l) NATIONWIDE SERVICE OF PROCESS.- In any action by 

the United States under this title, process may be served 

in any district where the defendant is found, resides, transacts business, or has appointed an agent for the service of 

process.

SEC. 308. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary may issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this title.

Sec. 309. RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EDUCATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall conduct, support, or 

coordinate research, monitoring, evaluation, and education 

programs consistent with subsections (b) and (c) and the 

purposes and policies of this title.

(b) RESEARCH AND MONITORING.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- The Secretary may--

(A) support, promote, and coordinate research on, and 

long-term monitoring of, sanctuary resources and natural 

processes that occur in national marine sanctuaries, including exploration, mapping, and environmental and socioeconomic assessment;

(B) develop and test methods to enhance degraded habitats 

or restore damaged, injured, or lost sanctuary resources; 

and

(C) support, promote, and coordinate research on, and the 

conservation, curation, and public display of, the cultural, 

archeological, and historical resources of national marine 

sanctuaries.

(2) AVAILABILITY OF RESULTS.- The results of research 

and monitoring conducted, supported, or permitted by the 

Secretary under this subsection shall be made available to 

the public.

(c) EDUCATION-

(1) IN GENERAL.- The Secretary may support, promote, and 

coordinate efforts to enhance public awareness, understanding, and appreciation of national marine sanctuaries and the 

System. Efforts supported, promoted, or coordinated under 

this subsection must emphasize the conservation goals and 

sustainable public uses of national marine sanctuaries and 

the System.

(2) EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES.- Activities under this 

subsection may include education of the general public, 

teachers, students, national marine sanctuary users, and 

ocean and coastal resource managers.

(d) INTERPRETIVE FACILITIES.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- The Secretary may develop interpretive 

facilities near any national marine sanctuary.

(2) FACILITY REQUIREMENT.- Any facility developed under 

this subsection must emphasize the conservation goals and 

sustainable public uses of national marine sanctuaries by 

providing the public with information about the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, educational, or esthetic qualities of the 

national marine sanctuary.

(e) CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.- In conducting, supporting, and coordinating research, monitoring, 

evaluation, and education programs under subsection (a) 

and developing interpretive facilities under subsection (d), 

the Secretary may consult or coordinate with Federal, interstate, or regional agencies, States or local governments. 

Sec. 310. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 

(a) ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.--The Secretary may issue 

special use permits which authorize the conduct of specific 

activities in a national marine sanctuary if the Secretary 

determines such authorization is necessary-- 

(1) to establish conditions of access to and use of any sanctuary resource; or 

(2) to promote public use and understanding of a sanctuary 

resource. 

(b) PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED.- The Secretary shall 

provide appropriate public notice before identifying any 

category of activity subject to a special use permit under 

subsection (a). 

(c) PERMIT TERMS.--A permit issued under this section-- 

(1) shall authorize the conduct of an activity only if that activity is compatible with the purposes for which the sanctuary 

is designated and with protection of sanctuary resources; 

(2) shall not authorize the conduct of any activity for a period of more than 5 years unless renewed by the Secretary; 

(3) shall require that activities carried out under the permit 

be conducted in a manner that does not destroy, cause the 

loss of, or injure sanctuary resources; and 

(4) shall require the permittee to purchase and maintain 

comprehensive general liability insurance, or post an equivalent bond, against claims arising out of activities conducted under the permit and to agree to hold the United States 

harmless against such claims. 

(d) FEES.-- 

(1) Assessment and Collection.--The Secretary may assess 

and collect fees for the conduct of any activity under a 

permit issued under this section. 

(2) Amount.--The amount of a fee under this subsection shall 

be equal to the sum of-- 

(A) costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary in issuing the permit; 

(B) costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary as a direct result of the conduct of the activity for which 

the permit is issued, including costs of monitoring the 

conduct of the activity; and 

(C) an amount which represents the fair market value of the 

use of the sanctuary resource. 
292 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

(3) Use of Fees.--Amounts collected by the Secretary in the 

form of fees under this section may be used by the Secretary-- 

(A) for issuing and administering permits under this section; 

and 

(B) for expenses of managing national marine sanctuaries. 

(4) WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF FEES.- The Secretary may 

accept in-kind contributions in lieu of a fee under paragraph (2)(C), or waive or reduce any fee assessed under this 

subsection for any activity that does not derive a profit from 

the access to or use of sanctuary resources.

(e) VIOLATIONS.--Upon violation of a term or condition of 

a permit issued under this section, the Secretary may-- 

(1) suspend or revoke the permit without compensation to 

the permittee and without liability to the United States; 

(2) assess a civil penalty in accordance with section 307; 

or 

(3) both. 

(f) REPORTS.--Each person issued a permit under this 

section shall submit an annual report to the Secretary not 

later than December 31 of each year which describes activities conducted under that permit and revenues derived from 

such activities during the year. 

(g) FISHING.--Nothing in this section shall be considered 

to require a person to obtain a permit under this section for 

the conduct of any fishing activities in a national marine 

sanctuary. 

Sec. 311. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, DONATIONS, 

AND ACQUISITIONS 

(a) AGREEMENTS AND GRANTS- The Secretary may enter 

into cooperative agreements, contracts, or other agreements 

with, or make grants to, States, local governments, regional 

agencies, interstate agencies, or other persons to carry out 

the purposes and policies of this title.

(b) AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT DONATIONS.--The 

Secretary may enter into such agreements with any nonprofit organization authorizing the organization to solicit private 

donations to carry out the purposes and policies of this 

title. 

(c) DONATIONS.--The Secretary may accept donations 

of funds, property, and services for use in designating and 

administering national marine sanctuaries under this title. 

Donations accepted under this section shall be considered 

as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States. 

(d) ACQUISITIONS.--The Secretary may acquire by 

purchase, lease, or exchange, any land, facilities, or other 

property necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes and policies of this title 

(e) USE OF RESOURCES OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.- The Secretary may, whenever appropriate, enter into 

an agreement with a State or other Federal agency to use the 

personnel, services, or facilities of such agency on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, to assist in carrying out 

the purposes and policies of this title.

(f) AUTHORITY TO OBTAIN GRANTS.- Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law that prohibits a Federal agency from receiving assistance, the Secretary may apply for, 

accept, and use grants from other Federal agencies, States, 

local governments, regional agencies, interstate agencies, 

foundations, or other persons, to carry out the purposes and 

policies of this title.

Sec. 312. DESTRUCTION OR LOSS OF, OR INJURY TO, 

SANCTUARY RESOURCES 

(a) LIABILITY FOR INTEREST.-- 

(1) Liability to united states.--Any person who destroys, 

causes the loss of, or injures any sanctuary resource is liable 

to the United States for an amount equal to the sum of-- 

(A) the amount of response costs and damages resulting 

from the destruction, loss, or injury; and 

(B) interests on that amount calculated in the manner 

described under section 1005 of the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990. 

(2) Liability In Rem.--Any vessel used to destroy, cause the 

loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource shall be liable in 

rem to the United States for response costs and damages 

resulting from such destruction, loss, or injury. The amount 

of that liability shall constitute a maritime lien on the vessel 

and may be recovered in an action in rem in the district court 

of the United States having jurisdiction over the vessel. 

(3) Defenses.--A person is not liable under this subsection if 

that person establishes that-- 

(A) the destruction or loss of, or injury to, the sanctuary 

resource was caused solely by an act of God, an act of war, 

or an act or omission of a third party, and the person acted 

with due care; 

(B) the destruction, loss, or injury was caused by an activity 

authorized by Federal or State law; or 

(C) the destruction, loss, or injury was negligible. 

(4) Limits to Liability.-- Nothing in sections 4281-4289 of 

the Revised Statutes of the United States or section 3 of the 

Act of February 13, 1893, shall limit the liability of any 

person under this title. 

(b) RESPONSE ACTIONS AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.-

(1) Response Actions.--The Secretary may undertake or 

authorize all necessary actions to prevent or minimize the 

destruction or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources, or 

to minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or 

injury. 

(2) Damage Assessment.--The Secretary shall assess damages 

to sanctuary resources in accordance with section 302(6). 

(c) CIVIL ACTIONS FOR RESPONSE COSTS AND DAMAGES.—

(1) The Attorney General, upon request of the Secretary, 

may commence a civil action against any person or vessel 
X. Appendix A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 293

who may be liable under subsection (a) for response costs 

and damages. The Secretary, acting as trustee for sanctuary 

resources for the United States, shall submit a request for 

such an action to the Attorney General whenever a person 

may be liable for such costs or damages. 

(2) An action under this subsection may be brought in the 

United States district court for any district in which-

(A) the defendant is located, resides, or is doing business, in 

the case of an action against a person;

(B) the vessel is located, in the case of an action against a 

vessel; or

(C) the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a sanctuary 

resource occurred.

(d) USE OF RECOVERED AMOUNTS.--Response costs and 

damages recovered by the Secretary under this section 

shall be retained by the Secretary in the manner provided 

for in section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 

9607(f)(1)), and used as follows: 

(1) RESPONSE COSTS.- Amounts recovered by the United 

States for costs of response actions and damage assessments 

under this section shall be used, as the Secretary considers 

appropriate--

(A) to reimburse the Secretary or any other Federal or State 

agency that conducted those activities; and

(B) after reimbursement of such costs, to restore, replace, or 

acquire the equivalent of any sanctuary resource.

(2) OTHER AMOUNTS.- All other amounts recovered shall 

be used, in order of priority--

(A) to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the sanctuary resources that were the subject of the action, including for costs of monitoring and the costs of curation and 

conservation of archeological, historical, and cultural sanctuary resources;

(B) to restore degraded sanctuary resources of the national 

marine sanctuary that was the subject of the action, giving 

priority to sanctuary resources and habitats that are comparable to the sanctuary resources that were the subject of the 

action; and

(C) to restore degraded sanctuary resources of other national 

marine sanctuaries.

(3) Federal-State Coordination.--Amounts recovered under 

this section with respect to sanctuary resources lying within 

the jurisdiction of a State shall be used under paragraphs 

(2)(A) and (B) in accordance with the court decree or settlement agreement and an agreement entered into by the 

Secretary and the Governor of that State. 

(e) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS- An action for response 

costs or damages under subsection (c) shall be barred unless 

the complaint is filed within 3 years after the date on which 

the Secretary completes a damage assessment and restoration plan for the sanctuary resources to which the action 

relates.

SEC. 313. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary--

(1) to carry out this title--

(A) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

(B) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;

(C) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

(D) $38,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(E) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and

(2) for construction projects at national marine sanctuaries, $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, and 2005.

Sec. 314. U.S.S. MONITOR ARTIFACTS AND MATERIALS 

(a) CONGRESSIONAL POLICY. -- In recognition of the 

historical significance of the wreck of the United States 

ship Monitor to coastal North Carolina and to the area off 

the coast of North Carolina known as the Graveyard of the 

Atlantic, the Congress directs that a suitable display of artifacts and materials from the United States ship Monitor be 

maintained permanently at an appropriate site in coastal 

North Carolina. [P.L. 102-587 authorized a grant for the 

acquisition of space in Hatteras Village, NC, for display of 

artifacts and administration and operations of the Monitor 

National Marine Sanctuary.

(b) DISCLAIMER. --This section shall not affect the following: 

(1) Responsibilities Of Secretary.--The responsibilities of the 

Secretary to provide for the protection, conservation, and 

display of artifacts and materials from the United States ship 

Monitor. 

(2) Authority Of Secretary.--The authority of the Secretary to 

designate the Mariner’s Museum, located at Newport News, 

Virginia, as the principal museum for coordination of activities referred to in paragraph (1). 

Sec. 315. ADVISORY COUNCILS 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--The Secretary may establish one or 

more advisory councils (in this section referred to as an 

‘Advisory Council’) to advise and make recommendations 

to the Secretary regarding the designation and management 

of national marine sanctuaries. The Advisory Councils shall 

be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

(b) MEMBERSHIP.--Members of the Advisory Councils may 

be appointed from among-- 

(1) persons employed by Federal or State agencies with 

expertise in management of natural resources; 

(2) members of relevant Regional Fishery Management 

Councils established under section 302 of the MagnusonStevens Act; and 

(3) representatives of local user groups, conservation and 

other public interest organizations, scientific organizations, 

educational organizations, or others interested in the protection and multiple use management of sanctuary resources. 
294 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

(c) LIMITS ON MEMBERSHIP.--For sanctuaries designated 

after the date of enactment of the National Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992, the membership 

of Advisory Councils shall be limited to no more than 15 

members. 

(d) STAFFING AND ASSISTANCE.--The Secretary may 

make available to an Advisory Council any staff, information, administrative services, or assistance the Secretary 

determines are reasonably required to enable the Advisory 

Council to carry out its functions. 

(e) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PROCEDURAL 

MATTERS.--The following guidelines apply with respect to 

the conduct of business meetings of an Advisory Council: 

(1) Each meeting shall be open to the public, and interested 

persons shall be permitted to present oral or written statements on items on the agenda. 

(2) Emergency meetings may be held at the call of the chairman or presiding officer. 

(3) Timely notice of each meeting, including the time, place, 

and agenda of the meeting, shall be published locally and in 

the Federal Register, except that in the case of a meeting of an 

Advisory Council established to provide assistance regarding any individual national marine sanctuary the notice is 

not required to be published in the Federal Register. 

(4) Minutes of each meeting shall be kept and contain a 

summary of the attendees and matters discussed. 

Sec. 316. ENHANCING SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL 

MARINE SANCTUARIES 

(a) AUTHORITY.- The Secretary may establish a program 

consisting of-- 

(1) the creation, adoption, and publication in the Federal 

Register by the Secretary of a symbol for the national marine 

sanctuary program, or for individual national marine sanctuaries or the System; 

(2) the solicitation of persons to be designated as official 

sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of 

individual national marine sanctuaries; 

(3) the designation of persons by the Secretary as official 

sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of 

individual sanctuaries; 

(4) the authorization by the Secretary of the manufacture, 

reproduction, or other use of any symbol published under 

paragraph (1), including the sale of items bearing such a 

symbol, by official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of individual national marine sanctuaries; 

(5) the creation, marketing, and selling of products to 

promote the national marine sanctuary program, and entering into exclusive or nonexclusive agreements authorizing 

entities to create, market or sell on the Secretary’s behalf;

(6) the solicitation and collection by the Secretary of monetary or in-kind contributions from official sponsors for the 

manufacture, reproduction or use of the symbols published 

under paragraph (1); 

(7) the retention of any monetary or in-kind contributions 

collected under paragraphs (5) and (6) by the Secretary; 

and 

(8) the expenditure and use of any monetary and in-kind 

contributions, without appropriation, by the Secretary to 

designate and manage national marine sanctuaries. 

Monetary and in-kind contributions raised through the 

sale, marketing, or use of symbols and products related to 

an individual national marine sanctuary shall be used to 

support that sanctuary. 

(b) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.-- The Secretary may contract 

with any person for the creation of symbols or the solicitation of official sponsors under subsection (a). 

(c) RESTRICTIONS.-- The Secretary may restrict the use of 

the symbols published under subsection (a), and the designation of official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of individual national marine sanctuaries to 

ensure compatibility with the goals of the national marine 

sanctuary program. 

(d) PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES.-- Any symbol which 

is adopted by the Secretary and published in the Federal 

Register under subsection (a) is deemed to be the property 

of the United States. 

(e) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.-- It is unlawful for any person-

- 

(1) designated as an official sponsor to influence or seek 

to influence any decision by the Secretary or any other 

Federal official related to the designation or management 

of a national marine sanctuary, except to the extent that a 

person who is not so designated may do so; 

(2) to represent himself or herself to be an official sponsor 

absent a designation by the Secretary; 

(3) to manufacture, reproduce, or otherwise use any symbol 

adopted by the Secretary under subsection (a)(1), including 

to sell any item bearing such a symbol, unless authorized 

by the Secretary under subsection (a)(4) or subsection (f); or

(4) to violate any regulation promulgated by the Secretary 

under this section. 

(f) COLLABORATIONS- The Secretary may authorize the 

use of a symbol adopted by the Secretary under subsection (a)(1) by any person engaged in a collaborative effort 

with the Secretary to carry out the purposes and policies of 

this title and to benefit a national marine sanctuary or the 

System.

(g) AUTHORIZATION FOR NON-PROFIT PARTNER 

ORGANIZATION TO SOLICIT SPONSORS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.- The Secretary may enter into an agreement with a non-profit partner organization authorizing it 

to assist in the administration of the sponsorship program 

established under this section. Under an agreement entered 

into under this paragraph, the Secretary may authorize the 

non-profit partner organization to solicit persons to be official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary system or of 

individual national marine sanctuaries, upon such terms 
X. Appendix A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 295

as the Secretary deems reasonable and will contribute to 

the successful administration of the sanctuary system. The 

Secretary may also authorize the non-profit partner organization to collect the statutory contribution from the sponsor, 

and, subject to paragraph (2), transfer the contribution to the 

Secretary.

(2) REIMBURSEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.- 

Under the agreement entered into under paragraph (1), the 

Secretary may authorize the non-profit partner organization 

to retain not more than 5 percent of the amount of monetary 

contributions it receives from official sponsors under the 

agreement to offset the administrative costs of the organization in soliciting sponsors.

(3) PARTNER ORGANIZATION DEFINED.- In this subsection, the term `partner organization’ means an organization 

that--

(A) draws its membership from individuals, private organizations, corporation, academic institutions, or State and 

local governments; and

(B) is established to promote the understanding of, education relating to, and the conservation of the resources of a 

particular sanctuary or 2 or more related sanctuaries.

SEC. 318. DR. NANCY FOSTER SCHOLARSHIP 

PROGRAM.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.- The Secretary shall establish and 

administer through the National Ocean Service the Dr. 

Nancy Foster Scholarship Program. Under the program, the 

Secretary shall award graduate education scholarships in 

oceanography, marine biology or maritime archeology, to 

be known as Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarships.

(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of the Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program are--

(1) to recognize outstanding scholarship in oceanography, 

marine biology, or maritime archeology, particularly by 

women and members of minority groups ; and

(2) to encourage independent graduate level research in 

oceanography, marine biology, or maritime archeology.

(c) AWARD.- Each Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship--

(1) shall be used to support graduate studies in oceanography, marine biology, or maritime archeology at a graduate 

level institution of higher education; and

(2) shall be awarded in accordance with guidelines issued 

by the Secretary.

(d) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.- The amount of each Dr. 

Nancy Foster Scholarship shall be provided directly to a 

recipient selected by the Secretary upon receipt of certification that the recipient will adhere to a specific and detailed 

plan of study and research approved by a graduate level 

institution of higher education.

(e) FUNDING- Of the amount available each fiscal year to 

carry out this title, the Secretary shall award 1 percent as Dr. 

Nancy Foster Scholarships.

(f) SCHOLARSHIP REPAYMENT REQUIREMENT- The 

Secretary shall require an individual receiving a scholarship 

under this section to repay the full amount of the scholarship to the Secretary if the Secretary determines that the 

individual, in obtaining or using the scholarship, engaged 

in fraudulent conduct or failed to comply with any term or 

condition of the scholarship.

(g) MARITIME ARCHEOLOGY DEFINED- In this section the 

term `maritime archeology’ includes the curation, preservation, and display of maritime artifacts.
296 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix B. Designation

Document for the Stellwagen

Bank National Marine

Sanctuary

On November 4, 1992, the Oceans Act of 1992 became 

law (Pub. L. 102-587). Section 2202 of Title II of that Act, 

known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992 (“NMSPAA”), designated an area of 

waters and submerged lands, including the living and nonliving resources within those waters, as described in Article 

II, as the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.

Article I. Effect of Designation

Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (the “Act” or “MPRSA”), 16 

U.S.C. 1431 et seq. authorizes the issuance of such final 

regulations as are necessary and reasonable to implement 

the designation, including managing and protecting the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, 

educational and esthetic resources and qualities of the 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Section 1 of 

Article IV of this Designation Document lists activities of the 

type that either are to be regulated, or may have to be regulated subsequently in order to protect Sanctuary resources 

and qualities. Listing does not necessarily mean that a type 

of activity will be regulated; however, if a type of activity is 

not listed it may not be regulated, except on an emergency 

basis, unless Section 1 of Article IV is amended to include 

the type of activity by the procedures outlined in section 

304(a) of the MPRSA.

Article II: Description of the Area

The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (the “Sanctuary”) boundary encompasses a total of approximately 638 

square nautical miles (approximately 2181 square kilometers) of ocean waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, 

over and surrounding the submerged Stellwagen Bank and 

additional submerged features, offshore the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts. The boundary encompasses the entirety of 

Stellwagen Bank; Tillies Bank to the northeast of Stellwagen 

Bank; and southern portions of Jeffreys Ledge, to the north of 

Stellwagen Bank. Portions of the Sanctuary are adjacent to 

three coastal ocean areas designated by the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts as Ocean Sanctuaries. The northwestern 

border coincides with the North Shore Ocean Sanctuary. 

The southern border coincides with the seaward limit of 

Commonwealth jurisdictional waters adjacent to the Cape 

Cod Bay Ocean Sanctuary; and is also tangential to the Cape 

Cod Ocean Sanctuary. The western border of the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary occurs approximately 25 miles east of 

Boston, Massachusetts. Appendix RR to this Designation 

Document sets the precise Sanctuary boundary. 

Article III: Characteristics of the Area

That Give It Particular Value

Stellwagen Bank is a glacially-deposited, primarily sandy 

feature measuring nearly twenty miles in length, occurring in a roughly southeast-to-northwest direction between 

Cape Cod and Cape Ann, Massachusetts. It is located at 

the extreme southwestern corner of the Gulf of Maine, and 

forms a partial “gateway” to Cape Cod Bay, situated shoreward and southwest of the Bank.

The presence of the Bank feature contributes to a particular combination of physical and oceanographic characteristics which results in two distinct peak productivity periods annually, when overturn and mixing of coastal waters 

with nutrient-rich waters from deeper strata produce a 

complex system of overlapping mid-water and benthic 

habitats. From the time of Colonial settlement, this area has 

supported an abundant and varied array of fisheries, which 

continue to provide livelihoods for an active commercial 

fleet. Important fisheries include bluefin tuna, herring, cod, 

haddock, winter and summer flounder, silver hake, pollock, 

ocean pout, lobster, shrimp, surf clam and sea scallop. The 

commercial value of fish caught (exclusive of bluefin tuna) 

within Sanctuary waters exceeded $15 million in 1990. 

The biological productivity of the Bank also attracts a 

seasonal variety of large and small cetaceans, several of 

which are classified as endangered species. The Stellwagen Bank environment provides feeding and nursery areas 

for humpback, fin, and northern right whales, the latter 

being the most critically-endangered of all large cetacean 

species. The photo-identification at Stellwagen Bank of 100 

or more individual right whales from a total North Atlantic 

population estimated in 1990 at approximately 300 to 350 

indicates the importance of the Bank to this species. The 

predictable seasonal presence of these and other cetacean 

species has generated a growing commercial whalewatch 

industry, involving more than 40 vessels (over 1.5 million 

passengers), and producing revenues in excess of $17 

million in 1988.

A vessel traffic separation scheme (TSS) crosses directly over 

Stellwagen Bank, and accommodates approximately 2,700 

commercial vessels annually in and out of Boston, Massachusetts. Existing or potential additional human activities 

involving the Stellwagen Bank environment include dredged 

materials disposal; sand and gravel extraction; offshore 

mariculture development; and offshore fixed artificial platform construction.

The uniqueness of the Stellwagen Bank environment as 

well as its accessibility draws the continuing interest of area 

scientific institutions, including the Center for Coastal Studies, Cetacean Research Unit, University of Massachusetts, 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Marine Biological Laboratory, Manomet Bird Observatory, New England 

Aquarium, University of Rhode Island and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA). In light of the increasing 

levels of human activities, several issues such as: interactions 

between marine mammals and commercial/recreational 
X. Appendix B. Designation Document for the SBNMS 297

vessels; immediate, long-term and cumulative impacts 

on marine mammals from whale-watching vessel activity; 

and the immediate, long-term and cumulative effects of 

discharge/disposal operations on the Bank’s resources and 

qualities require coordinated and comprehensive monitoring and research. 

Article IV. Scope of Regulations

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation

The following activities are subject to regulation under 

the Act, including prohibition, to the extent necessary and 

reasonable to ensure the protection and management of the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, 

educational or esthetic resources and qualities of the area: 

a. Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary of 

the Sanctuary, any material or other matter;

b. Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary 

of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter;

c. Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas or 

minerals (e.g., clay, stone, sand, gravel, metalliferous ores 

and nonmetalliferous ores or any other solid material or 

other matter of commercial value [“industrial materials”]) 

in the Sanctuary;

d. Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed 

of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning 

any structure, material or other matter on the seabed of 

the Sanctuary;

e. Development or conduct in the Sanctuary of mariculture 

activities;

f. Taking, removing, moving, catching, collecting, 

harvesting, feeding, injuring, destroying or causing the loss 

of, or attempting to take, remove, move, catch, collect, 

harvest, feed, injure, destroy or cause the loss of, a marine 

mammal, marine reptile, seabird, historical resource or 

other Sanctuary resource; 

g. Transferring of petroleum-based products or materials 

from vessel-to-vessel or “lightering”, in the Sanctuary;

h. Operation of a vessel (i.e., water craft of any description 

capable of being used as a means of transportation) in the 

Sanctuary;

i. Possessing within the Sanctuary a Sanctuary resource or 

any other resource, regardless of where taken, removed, 

moved, caught, collected or harvested, that, if it had 

been found within the Sanctuary, would be a Sanctuary 

resource;

j. Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing 

an investigation, search, seizure or disposition of seized 

property in connection with enforcement of the Act or any 

regulation or permit issued under the Act. 

Section 2. Emergencies

Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction 

of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality; or 

minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss or 

injury, any activity, including those not listed in Section 1 of 

this Article , is subject to immediate temporary regulation, 

including prohibition.

Article V. Effect on Leases, Permits, 

Licenses, and Rights

If any valid regulation issued by any Federal, State or local 

authority of competent jurisdiction, regardless of when 

issued, conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, the regulation deemed by the Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, or his or her designee to be more protective 

of Sanctuary resources and qualities shall govern.

Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 

1434(c)(1), no valid lease, permit, license, approval or other 

authorization issued by any Federal, State or local authority 

of competent jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence use or 

access, may be terminated by the Secretary of Commerce, 

or his or her designee, as a result of this designation, or as a 

result of any Sanctuary regulation, if such authorization or 

right was in existence on the effective date of this designation. However, the Secretary of Commerce, or designee, 

may regulate the exercise (including, but not limited to, the 

imposition of terms and conditions) of such authorization or 

right consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary 

is designated.

In no event may the Secretary or designee issue a permit 

authorizing, or otherwise approving: (1) the exploration for, 

development of, or production of industrial materials within 

the Sanctuary; or (2) the disposal of dredged material within 

the Sanctuary (except by a certification, pursuant to Section 

940.10, of valid authorizations in existence on the effective 

date of Sanctuary designation). Any purported authorizations issued by other authorities after the effective date of 

Sanctuary designation for any of these activities within the 

Sanctuary shall be invalid.

Article VI. Alteration of this

Designation

The terms of designation, as defined under Section 304(a) of 

the Act, may be modified only by the procedures outlined 

in section 304(a) of the MPRSA, including public hearings, 

consultation with interested Federal, State, and local agencies, review by the appropriate Congressional committees, 

and Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and 

approval by the Secretary of Commerce or designee.
298 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix RR. Coordinates.

Coordinates Based on North American Datun of 1927

Loran

LATITUDE LONGITUDE 9960W 9960X

E1 42 45 59.83 70 13 01.77 13,607.19 25,728.57

E2 42 05 35.51 70 02 08.14 13,753.39 25,401.78

E3 42 06 18.25 70 03 17.55 13,756.72 25,412.46

E4 42 06 29.53 70 04 03.36 13,760.30 25,417.53

E5 42 07 02.70 70 05 13.61 13,764.52 25,427.27

E6 42 07 13.80 70 06 23.75 13,770.54 25,434.45

E7 42 07 35.95 70 07 27.89 13,775.08 25,442.51

E8 42 07.42.33 70 08 26.07 13,780.35 25,448.27

E9 42 07 59.94 70 09 19.78 13,784.24 25,455.02

E10 42 08 04.95 70 10 24.40 13,790.27 25,461.28

E11 42 07 55.19 70 11 47.67 13,799.38 25,467.56

E12 42 07 59.84 70 13 03.35 13,806.58 25,474.95

E13 42 07 46.55 70 14 21.91 13,815.52 25,480.62

E14 42 07 27.29 70 15 22.95 13,823.21 25,484.05

E15 42 06 54.57 70 16 42.71 13,833.88 25,487.79

E16 42 07 44.89 70 28 15.44 13,900.14 25,563.22

E17 42 32 53.52 70 35 52.38 13,821.60 25,773.51

E18 42 33 30.24 70 35 14.96 13,814.43 25,773.54

E19 42 33 48.14 70 35 03.81 13,811.68 25,774.28

E20 42 34 30.45 70 34 22.98 13,803.64 25,774.59

E21 42 34 50.37 70 33 21.93 13,795.43 25,770.55

E22 42 35 16.08 70 32 32.29 13,787.92 25,768.31

E23 42 35 41.80 70 31 44.20 13,780.57 25,766.25

E24 42 36 23.08 70 30 58.98 13,772.14 25,766.14

E25 42 37 15.51 70 30 23.01 13,763.69 25,768.12

E26 42 37 58.88 70 30 06.60 13,758.09 25,771.07

E27 42 38 32.46 70 30 06.54 13,755.07 25,774.58

E28 42 39 04.08 70 30 11.29 13,752.75 25,778.35
X. Appendix C. Key Topics and Issues Identified during Public Scoping for Revision of the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary 299

Management Plan

Appendix C. Key Topics and

Issues Identified during Public

Scoping for Revision of the

Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary

Management Plan. 

TOPIC 1: HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM

PROTECTION

Issue A: Alteration of Sanctuary Habitat by Human Activity

Issue B: More Detailed Site Characterization and Assessment of Resource Status

Issue C: Need for Comprehensive Ecosystem Protection

Issue D: Need for Compatibility Determinations and Carrying Capacities

TOPIC 2: IMPACTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES

ON MARINE MAMMALS

Issue A: Need for More Information on Habits and Use of 

Sanctuary Habitats by Whales and Other Marine Mammals

Issue B: Vessel Strikes on Whales and Other Marine 

Mammals

Issue C: Whale Harassment and Behavioral Disturbance

Issue D: Entanglement of Whales and Other Marine 

Mammals in Fishing Gear and Marine Debris

Issue E: Impacts of Vessel Noise and Other Acoustics on 

Marine Mammals

TOPIC 3: CONDITION OF WATER QUALITY

AND CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT

Issue A: No Existing Comprehensive Water Quality Plan

Issue B: Lack of Baseline Water Quality Data Including 

Toxins and Contaminants

Issue C: Appropriateness of Wastewater Discharge by 

Vessels

Issue D: Impacts of Municipal Sewage Outfalls and Other 

Waste Streams

TOPIC 4: LACK OF PUBLIC AWARENESS

Issue A: Low Name Recognition

Issue B: Better Information Dissemination to the Public and 

User Groups

Issue C: Program Support through Leveraged Partnerships

Issue D: Public Education through Curriculum Development

TOPIC 5: PROTECTION OF SUBMERGED 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (SCRs)

Issue A: Need for Inventory and Assessment and Comprehensive Characterization of SCRs

Issue B: No Plan for SCR Management and Protection

Issue C: Lack of Public Outreach and Interpretation of 

SCRs

[Note: The NMSP’s Maritime Heritage Program has since 

substituted the term “Maritime Heritage Resource” for the 

term “Submerged Cultural Resource,” because the new term 

has broader applicability system-wide.]

TOPIC 6: EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT

Issue A: Need Greater Compliance with Regulations

Issue B: New Vessel Types / Activities Require Monitoring

Issue C: Whale Watching Guidelines Need to Become 

Regulations to Avoid Injury to Marine Mammals

TOPIC 7: ADEQUACY OF ADMINISTRATIVE

CAPACITY

Issue A: Base-Level Staffing and Program Support

Issue B: Infrastructure Development and Maintenance

TOPIC 8: SANCTUARY AUTHORITY AND 

CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL INTERACTION

Issue A: Clarification of Overlapping Agency Responsibilities

Issue B: Inter-Agency Coordination and Effectiveness
300 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix D. List of Current

and Former Stellwagen Bank

Sanctuary Advisory Council

Members (2001-2006)

PUBLIC MEMBERS (VOTING):

RESEARCH (1) 

Member: Mason Weinrich 

Executive Director and Chief Scientist

The Whale Center of New England

Gloucester, MA

Alternate: Porter Hoagland, Ph.D.

Public Policy Research Specialist

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Woods Hole, MA

RESEARCH (2)

Member: Peter Auster, Ph.D.

Science Director

National Undersea Research Center

University of Connecticut

Groton, CT

Alternate: Judith Pederson, Ph.D.

Manager, Center for Coastal Resources

MIT Sea Grant College Program

Cambridge, MA

CONSERVATION (1)

Member: Susan Farady, J.D.

Ecosystem Protection Project Manager

The Ocean Conservancy

Portland, ME

Alternate: Regina Asmutis-Silvia

Senior Biologist

Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

Plymouth, MA

CONSERVATION (2) 

Member: Priscilla Brooks, Ph.D.

Director, Marine Conservation Program

Conservation Law Foundation

Boston, MA

Alternate: Rachael Taylor

The Nature Conservancy

Boston, MA

Former: Erin Hesket

Senior Program Officer

Wildlife and Habitat Protection Department

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

Yarmouthport, MA

Gib Chase, 

Wildlife Biologist

Northborough, MA

EDUCATION (1)

Member: Richard Wheeler

Chairman, Board of Trustees

Cape Cod Museum of Natural History

Wareham, MA

Alternate: Sharon Meeker

Marine Education Specialist (ret.)

University of New Hampshire

Sea Grant College Program

Lee, NH

EDUCATION (2)

Member: Peter Borrelli

Executive Director

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies

Provincetown, MA

Former: Kevin C. Chu, Ph.D.

Sea Education Association

Falmouth, MA

Alternate: Jack Crowley

Executive Director

Massachusetts Marine Educators

Fairhaven, MA

Former: J. Michael Williamson, Ph.D.

Director, WhaleNet and 

Associate Professor, Wheelock College

Boston, MA

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

Member: William Eldridge

Owner/Operator

Peabody & Lane Corp./ Mediterranean Shipping Co., Inc.

Boston, MA

Former: Frederick L. Nolan, III

Managing Partner

Boston Harbor Cruises

Boston, MA

Alternate: Captain Martin McCabe

Boston Harbor Pilot

Boston Harbor Pilots Association at Pier 1

East Boston, MA

Former: William Eldridge

Peabody & Lane Corp./ Mediterranean Shipping, Co., Inc.

Boston, MA
X. Appendix D. List of Current and Former Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council Members 301

RECREATION

Member: Barry Gibson

New England Regional Director

Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA)

E. Boothbay, ME

Alternate: Michael Sosik, Jr

President

Northeast Charter Boat Captain’s Association

Sturbridge, MA

Former: Roger Jarvis

Owner/Captain

Jazz Sport Fishing

Duxbury, MA

WHALEWATCHING

Member: Steve Milliken

Owner

Dolphin Fleet

Eastham, MA

Former: Alan (Jerry) Hill

President

Yankee Fleet

Gloucester, MA

Alternate: William Reilly, III

Director of Safety, Special Projects Manager

Boston Harbor Cruises

Boston, MA

Former: David Slocum

Senior Captain

New England Aquarium Whale Watch

Boston, MA

FIXED GEAR COMMERCIAL FISHING

Member: William Adler

Executive Director 

Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association

Scituate, MA

Alternate: David Casoni

Executive Board

South Shore Lobstermen’s Association

Plymouth, MA

Former: John W. Pappalardo

Policy Director

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Assoc.

N.Chatham, MA

MOBILE GEAR COMMERCIAL FISHING 

Member: Edward Barrett

President

Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership

Green Harbor, MA

Former: William H. Amaru

Captain

FV Joanne A. III

South Orleans, MA

Alternate: Vito Giacolone

Executive Board

North East Seafood Coalition

Gloucester, MA

Former: Robert B. MacKinnon

President

MA Bay Inshore Ground Fishermen’s Association, Inc.

Marshfield, MA

BUSINESS/INDUSTRY

Member: Tim Moll

Vice-President

Brewer Plymouth Marine

Plymouth, MA

Former: Jackson Kent III

Board of Directors

Massachusetts Marine Trades Association, 

Inc.

Duxbury, MA

Alternate: David Jenson

Manager

Marina Bay Boston Harbor

Quincy, MA

Former: Peter Davidoff

Co-Owner

BOSPORT Docking and Constitution Marina

Boston, MA

AT LARGE (1)

Member: Deborah Cramer

Marine Science Writer

Gloucester, MA

Former: Richard C. Wheeler

Cape Cod Museum of Natural History

Wareham, MA

Alternate: Steven Tucker

Coastal and Marine Resources Program 

Manager

Cape Cod Commission

Barnstable, MA
302 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Former: Charles Rasak

Creative Director

Creative Resources Group 

Plymouth, MA

AT LARGE (2)

Member: Sally Yozell

Vice President

Battelle Laboratories (Duxbury Operations)

Duxbury, MA

Alternate: Open

Former: Dale Brown

Gloucester Community Representative

Gloucester, MA

Former: Rob Robertson, Ph.D.

Dept of Resource Economics

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH

AT LARGE (3)

Member: Dale Brown

Gloucester Community Representative

Gloucester, MA

Former: John Williamson

Fishing Community Activist

Kennebunk, ME

Alternate: Donald Hourihan

Scituate Waterways Commission 

Scituate, MA

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS (GOVERNMENT 

NON-VOTING):

STATE

Member (1): Major Kathleen Dolan 

Massachusetts Environmental Police

Hingham, MA

Former: Richard A. Murray, Director

Massachusetts Environmental Police

Member (2): Bruce Carlisle

Assistant Director

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone 

Management

Boston, MA

Former: Susan Snow-Cotter

Director, Massachusetts Office of Coastal 

Zone Management

Boston, MA

Former: Thomas W. Skinner

Director, Massachusetts Office of Coastal 

Zone Management

Boston, MA

Member (3): Paul J. Diodati

Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine 

Fisheries

Boston, MA

Designee: David Pierce, Ph.D., Deputy 

Director

FEDERAL

Member (1): Paul J. Howard,

Executive Director

New England Fishery Management Council

Newburyport, MA

Designee: Chris Kellogg, Deputy Director

Member (2): Patricia A. Kurkul

Northeast Regional Administrator 

NOAA Fisheries Service

Gloucester, MA

Designee: Kathi Rodrigues, Policy Analyst

Member (3): Rear Admiral Timothy Sullivan

Commander, First Coast Guard District 

Boston, MA

Designee: LCDR Edward Marohn 

Former: Rear Admiral Vivian S. Crea

Commander, First Coast Guard District

Boston, MA

Former: Rear Admiral David P. Pekoske

Commander, First Coast Guard District

Boston, MA
X. Appendix E. List of Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council Meetings Relating To Management Plan Review 303

Appendix E. List of Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council

Meetings Relating to Management Plan Review

Meeting Date Location Meeting Purpose

2/11/2002 Plymouth Library, Plymouth, MA Overview of MPR Process 

9/09/2002 The Radisson, Rockland, MA Overview of Scoping Process

12/16/2002 The Town Hall, Gloucester, MA Report of Scoping Process

3/27/2003 The Radisson, Woburn, MA Prioritization of Scoping Issues

6/16/2003 The Radisson, Rockland, MA Initiation of Working Groups (WG)

10/01/2003 The Clarion, Hull, MA Review of WG Membership and Guidelines

12/04/2003 The Clarion, Hull, MA WG Status Reports

02/10/2004 The Radisson, Rockland, MA Chair and Team Lead WG Reports

06/08/2004 The Sheraton Colonial, Wakefield, MA MPR Overview and Timetable

10/20/2004 National Academy of Science, Woods Hole, MA Review and Acceptance of all WG Action Plans (AP)

11/05/2004 The State Room, Boston, MA Prioritization of AP Strategies

02/15/2005 The Radisson, Plymouth, MA Compatibility Determination WG status; Formation of 

Zoning WG

06/09/2005 Museum of Science, Boston, MA Review and Acceptance of CD AP

07/11/2005 Sanctuary Office, Scituate, MA Formulation of Sanctuary Vision Statement

11/09/2005 The Commonwealth Museum, Boston, MA Review of draft Condition Report

1/24/2006 The Sheraton Colonial, Wakefield, MA Non-Regulatory MP 

Discussion of Potential Targeted Management Actions

6/12/2006 The Radisson, Rockland, MA Overview of NMSA and NEPA; Zoning WG “ecological 

integrity” definition
304 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix F. List of Working Group Members

This appendix lists the members of the 12 working groups established by the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Advisory Council 

to develop draft action plans for consideration by the Advisory Council. For a list of working group meeting dates refer to 

http://stellwagen.noaa.gov

Members of the Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Regina Asmutis-Silvia Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair International Wildlife Coalition

Nathalie Ward Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Scott MacNeil Shipping Tractobell LNG Co.

Dave Slocum Whale Watch New England Aquarium Whale Watch

Sharon Young Conservation U.S. Humane Society

Carole Carlson Conservation International Fund for Animal Welfare

Jack Kent Recreational Use Massachusetts Marine Trades Association

Donald Hourihan Tuna Fishing Tuna Fishing

Brian Hopper Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office

Dana Hartley Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office

Kim Amaral Academic Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Alternates

Erin Heskett Conservation International Fund for Animal Welfare

Ralph Pratt Tuna Fishing Tuna Fishing

Technical Advisors

Phil Clapham Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Chris Clark Academia Cornell University

Joseph Green Government NOAA, Office of Law Enforcement

Darlene Ketten Academia Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Jooke Robbins NGO Center for Coastal Studies

Peter Tyack Academia Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Pat Gerrior Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region—Protected 

Resources

Members of the Administration Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Richard Wheeler Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Cape Cod Museum of Natural History

Nathalie Ward Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Susan Dowds Museums and Aquariums New England Aquarium

Lisa Reed Museums and Aquariums Mystic Seaport

David Bergeron Business Associations Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnerships

Greg Ketchan Business Associations Gloucester Community Development Corporation

Dan Morast Conservation International Wildlife Coalition

Maggie Geist Conservation Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod

David Clapp Conservation Massachusetts Audubon Society

Stephanie Murphy Academic Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

John Bullard Academic Sea Education Association

Vacant Academic

Robin Peach Conservation Massachusetts Environmental Trust

Steve Tucker Cape Cod Commission Cape Cod Commission
X. Appendix F. List of Working Group Members 305

Technical Advisors

Lori Arguelles Non-profit National Marine Sanctuary Foundation

Mary Enstrom Government National Marine Sanctuary Programs

Paula Jewell Government Massachusetts Bay National Estuary Program

Kathie Abbott Non-profit Island Alliance

Members of the Ecosystem Based Sanctuary Management Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

John Williamson Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Fishing Community Activist

Ben Cowie-Haskell Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Peter Auster Academic University of Connecticut, National Undersea Research 

Center

Larry Madin Academic Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Les Kaufman Academic Boston University

Edward Barrett Fishing Industry Massachusetts Bay Groundfishermen’s Association

Dave Casoni Fishing Industry Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association

Jerry Hill Recreational Use Yankee Fleet

Tom DePersia Recreational Use Big Fish II Sportfishing Charters

Susan Farady Conservation The Ocean Conservancy

Priscilla Brooks Conservation Conservation Law Foundation

Dierdre Kimball Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region

Jon Brodziak Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Paul Howard New England Fishery Management 

Council New England Fishery Management Council

Anthony Wilbur Government Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

David Pierce Government Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

Alternates

David Wiley Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Elizabeth Soule Academic Boston University

Vito Giacolone Fishing Industry Massachusetts Bay Groundfishermen’s Association

John Carver Fishing Industry South Shore Lobstermen’s Association

Tom Conley Recreational Use Yankee Fleet

Michael Doebley Recreational Use Recreational Fishing Alliance

Geoffrey Smith Conservation The Ocean Conservancy

Jud Crawford Conservation Conservation Law Foundation

Kevin Chu Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region

Chris Legault Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Chris Kellogg New England Fishery Management 

Council New England Fishery Management Council

Megan Tyrrell Government Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

Participants of the Ecosystem Alteration Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Porter Hoagland Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

David Wiley Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Micheal J. Kaiser Academic Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Robert Steneck Academic University of Maine

Les Watling Academic University of Maine

Bob Kenney Academic University of Rhode Island
306 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Chris Glass Academic Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences

Frank Mirarchi Fishing Industry Commercial Fisherman

Russell Sherman Fishing Industry Commercial Fisherman

Phillip Michaud Fishing Industry Commercial Fisherman

Mary Beth Tooley Fishing Industry East Coast Pelagics (Herring Fishery)

Richard Ruais Fishing Industry East Coast Tuna Association

Jud Crawford Conservation Conservation Law Foundation

Geoffrey Smith Conservation The Ocean Conservancy

Robert Buchsbaum Conservation Massachusetts Audubon Society

Rachael Taylor Conservation The Nature Conservancy

Stormy Mayo Conservation Center for Coastal Studies

Susan Murphy

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

Fisheries

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Fisheries, Northeast Regional Office

Leslie Ann McGee New England Fishery Management 

Council New England Fishery Management Council

Susan Snow-Cotter Massachusetts Coastal Zone 

Management Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

Alternates

Ben Cowie-Haskell Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Richard Taylor Fishing Industry Sea Scallop Working Group

Luis Ribas Fishing Industry Commercial Fishing

Allison Ferreira

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

Fisheries

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Fisheries, Northeast Regional Office

Tom Nies New England Fishery Management 

Council New England Fishery Management Council

Jason Burtner Massachusetts Coastal Zone 

Management Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

Technical Advisors

Richard Taylor Technical Advisor Sea Scallop Working Group

Allen Michael Technical Advisor Allen D. Michael and Associates

David Pierce Technical Advisor Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries

James Lindholm Technical Advisor Pfleger Institute

Members of the Interagency Cooperation Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Sally Yozell Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Batelle Ocean Sciences (Duxbury Operations)

Ben Cowie-Haskell Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Kathi Rodrigues Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region—Habitat 

Protection

Paul Howard New England Fishery Management 

Council New England Fishery Management Council

Greg Hitchen Enforcement U.S. Coast Guard

Andrew Cohen Enforcement NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region

Kathleen Dolan Enforcement Massachusetts Environmental Police

Tom Fetherstone Military U.S. Navy

Tim Timmerman Government U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Andrew Raddant Government Department of the Interior—Office of Environmental Policy 

and Compliance
X. Appendix F. List of Working Group Members 307

Tom Fredette Government U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Steve Tucker Public Interest Cape Cod Commission

Stephanie Campbell Legal / Policy NOAA, Office of the General Counsel

Susan Snow-Cotter Government Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

Alternates

Kevin Chu Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region

Mike Hennessy Enforcement US Coast Guard

Joseph Green Enforcement NOAA, Office of Law Enforcement

Gail French Government U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Members of the Maritime Heritage Resource Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Jerry Hill Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Yankee Fleet

Ben Cowie-Haskell Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Anne Smrcina Government Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Bruce Terrell Government National Marine Sanctuary Program

Jeff Gray Government Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Ivar Babb Academia University of Connecticut, National Undersea Research 

Center

John Jensen Academia Mystic Seaport

Victor Mastone Government Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archeological Resources

Bill Lee Commercial Fishing Industry Commercial dragger

Don King Commercial Fishing Industry Commercial gillnetter

Steve James Recreational Use Recreational Fishing Industry

Marcie Bilinski Diving Technical Diver

Deborah Cramer Conservation Independent author/writer

David Robinson Private Public Archeology Laboratory, Inc.

Martina Duncan Private Portland Harbor Museum

Alternates

Kevin McBride Academic University of Connecticut

Dave Trubey Government Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archeological Resources

Ned Allen Private Portland Harbor Museum

Technical Advisors

Arnie Carr Private Private New England shipwreck expert

Deborah Marx Government Archeologist, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Matthew Lawrence Government r Archeologist, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Joe Green Enforcement NOAA, Office of Law Enforcement

Greg Hitchen Enforcement U.S. Coast Guard

Members of the Marine Mammal Entanglement Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Regina Asmutis-Silvia Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair International Wildlife Coalition

David Wiley Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Ronnie Hunter Commercial Whale Watch Captain John Boats

William Bartlett Fixed Gear Commercial Trap Fisheries Commercial Fisherman

Gary Ostrom Fixed Gear Commercial Trap Fisheries Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association

David Marciano Fixed Gear Commercial Gillnet 

Fisheries Commercial Fisherman
308 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Stephen Welch Fixed Gear Commercial Gillnet 

Fisheries Commercial Fisherman

John Pappalardo Fixed Gear Commercial Longline 

Fisheries Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association

Dave Morin Conservation Center for Coastal Studies

Sharon Young Conservation U.S. Humane Society

Nina Young Conservation The Ocean Conservancy

Jennifer Kennedy Conservation Blue Ocean Society

Edward Lyman Government Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

David Gouveia Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region

Marjorie Rossman Government NOAA, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Pat Fiorelli New England Fishery Management 

Council New England Fishery Management Council

Tom French Academia Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries

Lisa Conger Academia New England Aquarium Right Whale Program

Alternates

Dan McKiernan Government Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries

Diane Borggaard Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region—Protected 

Resources 

Technical Advisors

Joseph Green Enforcement NOAA, Office of Law Enforcement

Greg Hitchen Enforcement U.S. Coast Guard

Kathleen Dolan Enforcement Massachusetts Environmental Police

Mason Weinrich Non-profit Whale Center of New England

Jooke Robbins Non-profit Center for Coastal Studies

John F. Kenney Government NOAA Fisheries Service

Members of the Marine Mammal Vessel Strikes Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Mason Weinrich Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Whale Center of New England

David Wiley Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Bill Eldridge Shipping Industry Peabody Lane Shipping

Brad Wellock Shipping Industry Massachusetts Port Authority

Rick Nolan Shipping Industry Boston Harbor Cruises

Erin Heskett Conservation International Fund for Animal Welfare

Regina Asmutis-Silvia Conservation International Wildlife Coalition

Karen Steuer Conservation National Environmental Trust

Colleen Coogan Conservation Independent

David Gouveia Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region—Protected 

Resources

Tim Cole Government NOAA, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Moira Brown Academia Center for Coastal Studies

Amy Knowlton Academia New England Aquarium Right Whale Research

Hauke Kite-Powell Academia Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Jack Kent Recreational Use Massachusetts Marine Trades Association

Andy Glynn Tuna Fishing General Tuna Category Association

Mike Bartlett Charter Boats B-Fast Charters

Michael Prew Charter Boats Captain John Boats
X. Appendix F. List of Working Group Members 309

Alternates

Richard Meyer Shipping Boston Shipping Association

Carol Carlson Conservation International Fund for Animal Wellfare

Sharon Young Conservation U.S. Humane Society

Brian Hopper Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region—Protected 

Resources

Technical Advisors

Joe Pelczarski Government Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

Pat Gerrior Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region

Joseph Green Enforcement NOAA, Office of Law Enforcement

Greg Hitchen Enforcement U.S. Coast Guard

Kathleen Dolan Enforcement Massachusetts Environmental Police

Members of the Public Outreach and Education Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Richard Wheeler Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Cape Cod Museum of Natural History

Anne Smrcina Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

William Spitzer Aquariums/Museums New England Aquarium

Maureen McConnell Aquariums/Museums Boston Museum of Science

Andrea Thorrold Public Education Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Jack Crowley Public Education New Bedford Oceanarium/University of Massachusetts, 

Dartmouth

Nicola Micozzi Public Education Plymouth Public Schools

Tracy Hart Academic University of Maine Sea Grant

Jennifer McCann Academic University of Rhode Island, Coastal Research Center

Lou Gainor Media WATD Radio, Nautical Talk

Tom Clark Media Stratagia

Charles Rasak Public Awareness Creative Resources Group

Wendy Northcross Public Awareness Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce

Jennifer FergusonMitchell Conservation International Fund for Animal Welfare

Sue Moynihan Government Public Information Cape Cod National Seashore

Lt. Dean Jones Government Public Information U.S. Coast Guard

Jay Michaud Fishing Industry Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association

Cynde Bierman Whale Watching Ocean Alliance/Cape Anne Whale Watch

Bill Fairbanks Recreational Use Massachusetts Marine Trades Association

Technical Advisors

Beth Daley Media The Boston Globe

Margaret McLaughlin Media capecorps.com

Members of the Water Quality Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Judith Pederson Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sea Grant

Anne Smrcina Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Jack Wiggin Academic University of Massachusetts, Urban Harbors Institute

Douglas Ofiara Academic University of Southern Maine

Carlton Hunt Academic Battelle Laboratories

Frederick Dauphinee Fishing Industry Commercial Fisherman

Jamie Collier Conservation Center for Costal Studies
310 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Tara Nye Conservation Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod

Tom King Recreational Use Charter Boat Captain

Michael Mickelson Massachusetts Water Resources 

Authority Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

Ann Rodney Government U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jan Smith Government Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

Mike Leone Maritime Transportation Massachusetts Port Authority

Lt. Gabrielle McGrath Government U.S. Coast Guard

Alternates

Bill Doherty Fishing Industry Commercial Fisherman

Marcia Duffy Maritime Transportation Massachusetts Port Authority

Brad Wellock Maritime Transportation Massachusetts Port Authority

Technical Advisors

Pierre Lermusiaux Academia Harvard University

Bob Avila Whale watching Captain John Boats

Meng Zhou Academia University of Massachusetts, Boston

Members of the Site Characterization Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Porter Hoagland Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Cape Cod Museum of Natural History

Ben Cowie-Haskell Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Dave Wiley Co-Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Les Kaufman Academia Boston University

Jason Link Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Tim Battista Government NOAA Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean 

Science

Tony Wilbur Government Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

Page Valentine Government U.S. Geological Survey

Mason Weinrich Marine Mammals Whale Center of New England

Technical Advisors

Richard Taylor Fishing Industry Sea Scallop Working Group

Gordon Waring Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Olivia Rugo Fishing Industry Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership

Brian Hooker Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region—Sustainable 

Fisheries

Susan Farady Conservation The Ocean Conservancy

Alan Michaels Private Independent

Frank Mirarchi Fishing Industry Commercial Fisherman

Peter Taylor Conservation Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment

Dave Lincoln Fishing Industry Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership

Dave Casoni Fishing Industry Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association

Mike Michelson Government Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

Jud Crawford Conservation Conservation Law Foundation

Lew Incze Academia University of Southern Maine

Mike Thompson Consultant Perot Systems Government Services
X. Appendix G. Existing Federal and State Authorities Relevant to Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Protection and Management 311

Members of the Compatibility Determination Working Group

Name Seat Affiliation

Susan Farady Sanctuary Advisory Council Chair Ocean Conservancy

Ben Cowie-Haskell Team Lead Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

Dave Bergeron Commercial Fishing MA Fishermen’s Partnerships

Barry Gibson Recreational Fishing Recreational Fishing Alliance

Steve Milliken Whale Watch Industry Dolphin Fleet

Priscilla Brooks Conservation Conservation Law Foundation

Gib Chase Conservation Private Citizen

Tracey Morin Dalton Academia University of Rhode Island

John Duff Legal/ Policy University of Massachusetts—Boston

Dale Brown Government Gloucester Community Development

Kathi Rodrigues Government NOAA Fisheries Service, Northeast Region—Habitat 

Protection

Susan Snow-Cotter Government MA Coastal Zone Management

Richard Meyer Shipping Industry Boston Shipping Association

David Terkla Economist University of Massachusetts—Boston

Technical Advisors

Mary Foley Government National Park Service—Cape Cod National Seashore

Andrew Raddant Government U.S. Department of the Interior

Ward Feurt Government Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge

Stephanie Campbell Legal NOAA Office of General Counsel

Hélène Scalliet Government National Marine Sanctuary Program
312 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix G. Existing Federal

and State Authorities Relevant

to Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary

Protection and Management

Introduction

This appendix presents an overview of the various Federal 

and State management authorities which provide statutory 

responsibility for protecting marine resources in the area of 

the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The following discussion describes relevant legislative mandates, and 

the principal administrative measures taken to implement 

those mandates.

Federal Authorities

Federal statures vary greatly in scope and approach, ranging 

from broad-based legislation addressing resource conservation and environmental protection (such as the Magnuson 

Fishery Conservation Management Act), to regulation of 

specific activities and resources.

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MFCMA) (16 U.S.C. Part 1801 et seq.)

The MFCMA provides for the conservation and management 

of all fishery resources between 3 and 200 nm (5.6 and 380 

km) offshore. The Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries Service, is charged with establishing guidelines for and 

approving fishery management plans (FMPs) prepared by 

regional fishery management councils for selected fisheries. 

These plans determine the levels of commercial and sport 

fishing consistent with achieving and maintaining the optimum yield of each fishery. The waters of the study area are 

within the jurisdiction of the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC).

Benthic continental shelf fishery resources located outside 

state waters, such as lobster and crabs, are subject to 

management under the MFCMA. Within Federal waters 

the MFCMA is enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

and NOAA Fisheries Service. The Act empowers the Secretary of Commerce to enter into agreements with any State 

agency for enforcement purposes in state waters. Such 

agreements exist between the Massachusetts Environmental 

Police (MEP) and NOAA Fisheries Service, whereby both 

parties have been deputized to enforce each other’s laws. 

As a result, Federal enforcement personnel can now enforce 

State fishery laws within 3 nm (5.6km), and State officers 

can enforce Federal fishery laws between 3 and 200 nm 

(5.6 and 370km).

The waters of the sanctuary are within the primary jurisdiction of the NEFMC. However, some fishery management plans (FMPs) developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council and some coastal fishery management 

plans (CMPs) developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission are also applicable to managing fisheries 

occurring within the sanctuary.

Fishery management plans are currently in place for: American lobster; Atlantic sea scallop; northern shrimp; multispecies (covering cod, haddock, Pollack, redfish, yellowtail 

flounder, winter flounder, American plaice, witch flounder, 

windowpane founder. white hake, red hake, silver hake, 

and ocean pout); Atlantic salmon; bluefish; summer flounder; butterfish; squid; quahog; surf clam; and mackerel.

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 U.S.C. part 

971 et. seq.)

The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act authorizes the Secretary 

of Commerce to implement the recommendations of the 

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic 

Tunas (ICCAT). This authority has been delegated to the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. Established in 1969, 

the Convention is responsible for the management of the 

Atlantic bluefin tunas (Thunnus thynnus) in the Atlantic 

Ocean and adjacent seas. After national quotas and other 

management measures are established by ICCAT, NOAA 

Fisheries Service establishes quotas and regulations for U.S. 

commercial and recreational fishing

Atlantic Fisheries Act of 1942 (more commonly known 

as “Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact”, Pub. L. 77-

539, as amended by Pub. L. 81-721.)

This act authorized the creation of the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission. The Commission is composed of all 

Atlantic coastal states, each represented by the head of the 

fisheries administrative agency, a legislative appointee, and 

a governor’s appointee, The Commission provides a forum 

for discussion and resolution of common fishery problems. 

Under amendment I of its charter, the states can develop 

joint management regulations for fishery resources primary 

in state waters and shared by one or more states. Under 

contract from the NOAA Fisheries Service, the Commission administers the Federally-funded Interstate Fisheries 

Management Program. Interstate fisheries management 

plans include northern shrimp, lobster, striped bass, and 

summer flounder.

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, 

16 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. (2001)

The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management 

Act (ACFCMA) was designed to change the nature and 

potency of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Its purpose is to support interstate conservation and 

management of Atlantic coast fisheries through “development, implementation, and enforcement of coastal fishery 

plans.” Coastal fishery management plans (CMPs) must be 

consistent with national standards provided by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), 

and the Secretary of Commerce and NMFS are responsible 

for implementing regulations complementary to CMPs. 

ACFCMA CMPs operate much like MFCMA FMPs, and 

they apply to any fishery resource that moves among, or 

is broadly distributed across, waters under the jurisdiction 
X. Appendix G. Existing Federal and State Authorities Relevant to Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Protection and Management 313

of one or more States or waters under the jurisdiction of 

one or more States and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

The ACFCMA shifts regulatory responsibility for such coastal fishery resources to states – and requires those states to 

implement that responsibility within the framework of the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission – in order to 

combat the “inconsistent” State and Federal regulations 

over Atlantic coastal fishery resources. CMPs are currently 

in place for the following: American eel; horseshoe crab; 

spot; American lobster; northern shrimp; spotted seatrout; 

Atlantic croaker; red drum; striped bass; Atlantic herring; 

scup; summer flounder; Atlantic menhaden; shad and river 

herring; tautog; Atlantic sturgeon; Spanish mackerel; weakfish; black sea bass; spiny dogfish and coastal sharks; winter 

flounder; and bluefish.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. Part 1531-1543.)

The Federal Endangered Species program provides protection for listed species of animals and plants in both state 

water and the waters beyond. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA Fisheries Service determine 

which species need protection and maintain a list of endangered and threatened species. One of the most significant 

protections provided by the Endangered Species Act is the 

prohibition on taking. The term “take” is defined broadly 

to mean “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such 

conduct” (16 USC part 1532(19)). The FWS regulations 

define the term “harm” to mean an act which actually kills 

or injures wildlife, including significant habitat modification 

or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by 

significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The regulations define 

the term “harass” to mean “an intentional or negligent act 

or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife 

by annoying it to such as extent as to significantly disrupt 

normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR 173).

The Endangered Species Act also provides for the indirect 

protection of endangered species and their habitats by 

establishing a consultation process designed to insure that 

projects authorized, funded or carried out by Federal agencies are not likely to jeopardize the continued existences of 

endangered or threatened species, or “result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species 

which is determined to be critical” (16 USC 1536). Critical 

habitat areas for endangered species are designated by the 

FWS and NOAA Fisheries Service. The 1978 amendments 

to the Act establish a Cabinet level committee authorized 

to exempt Federal agencies (through an elaborate review 

process) from compliance with their responsibilities with 

regard to the jeopardy standard and critical habitat.

Several endangered marine mammal species occur within 

the sanctuary area, including: the humpback whale, fin 

whale, northern right whale, sei whale and blue whale. 

Listed species of marine reptiles include: the leatherback 

sea turtle (E), loggerhead sea turtle (T), Kemp’s (or Atlantic) ridley sea turtle (E), and green sea turtle (T). Marine 

mammals and marine reptiles listed under the ESA are 

responsibility of the NOAA Fisheries Service. Listed species 

of birds occurring within the sanctuary area are: the peregrine falcon (E), bald eagle (E), roseate tern (E), and piping 

plover (T). These species are the responsibility of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service.

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 USC 1361 et. 

seq.)

The MMPA provides protection to marine mammals in 

both state waters and the waters beyond. It is designed to 

protect all species of marine mammals. As specified in the 

MMPA, the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), is responsible for the management of polar 

bears, walrus (a Pinniped), northern and southern sea otters, 

three species of manatees, and dugong; the Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Fisheries Service, is responsible for all 

other marine mammals. The Marine Mammal Commission 

advises these implementing agencies and sponsors relevant 

scientific research. The primary management features of 

the MMPA include: 1) a moratorium on “taking” of marine 

mammals; 2) the development of a management approach 

designed to achieve an “optimum sustainable population” (OSP) for all species or population stocks of marine 

mammals, and 3) protection of populations determined to 

be “depleted”.

The MMPA defines “take” broadly to include “harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, 

or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 USC part 

1532(19)). The term “harass” has been interpreted to 

encompass acts unintentional but adversely affecting marine 

mammals, such as operation of motor boats in waters in 

which these animals are found. The MMPA allows certain 

exceptions to the moratorium. First, the Secretary may issue 

permits for public display or scientific research. Second, the 

Secretary may grant exemptions for takes of small numbers 

of marine mammals incidental to other lawful activities. 

Third, the Secretary may make a special waiver of the moratorium on taking for particular species or populations of 

marine mammals, provided that the species or population 

being considered is at or above its determined optimum 

sustainable population. No such waiver, however, has 

been granted concerning any marine mammal found in the 

area of the sanctuary

Marine mammal species whose population is determined 

to be depleted receive additional protection. Under only 

limited circumstances may permits be issued for the taking 

of any marine mammal determined to be depleted, including, but not limited to, scientific research and enhancing 

the survival or recovery of a species or stock of depleted 

species.

The 1988 amendments to the MMPA added requirements 

that observers be carried onboard commercial fishing vessels 

to determine levels of incidental take of marine mammals. 

Commercial fishing activities are divided into categories on 

the basis of gear-type and associated levels of potential incidental take of marine mammals. For example, Category 1 
314 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

vessels such as gillnetters may have to carry an observer, if 

requested by NOAA Fisheries Service, and the Secretary of 

Commerce may place observers on vessels in Categories 2 

and 3 with the consent of the vessel owner. This observer 

program has been in operation since early 1990. Although 

the authority for its management is with the NOAA Fisheries Service, the day-to-day operational management may be 

delegated to state and local authorities.

Marine mammal species whose populations are determined 

to be “depleted” receive additional protection under the 

MMPA. With exception of scientific research permits, no 

permits for taking depleted species may be issued. Species 

occurring within the area of the sanctuary which have been 

determined to be depleted include the humpback whale, 

fin back whale, northern right whale, sei whale and blue 

whale, based on their “endangered” status under the Endangered Species Act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703 et. seq.)

The essential provision of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

which implements conventions with Great Britain, Mexico, 

Russia, and Japan, makes it unlawful except as permitted 

by regulations “to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill... any 

migratory bird, any part, nest or egg” or any product of any 

such bird protected by the Convention (16USC 703). The 

Secretary of the Interior is charged with determining when, 

and to what extent if at all, and by what means, to permit 

these activities. Each treaty establishes a “closed season” 

during which no hunting is permitted. A distinction is made 

between game and nongame birds. The closed season for 

migratory birds other then game birds is year-round.

Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.)

The goal of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. 

To varying degrees, navigable waters of the United States, 

the contiguous zone, and the oceans beyond are subject to 

requirements of the CWA.

The CWA’s chief mechanism for preventing and reducing 

water pollution is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under the NPDES program, 

a permit is required for discharge of any pollutant from a 

point source into the navigable waters of the United States, 

the waters of the contiguous zone, or ocean waters.

Since oil and gas development pursuant to Federal lease 

sales occur beyond state waters, an NPDES permit from 

EPA is required for discharges associated with this activity. 

EPA generally grants NPDES permits for offshore oil and gas 

development based on published effluent guidelines (40 

CFR Part 435). Other conditions beyond these guidelines 

may, however, be imposed by the regional administrator on 

a case-by-case basis.

The CWA prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous 

substances in quantities that may be harmful to the public 

health or welfare or the environment, including but not 

limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private 

property, shorelines and beaches, into or upon the navigable water of the U.S., adjoining shorelines, or into or upon 

the waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection with 

activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the 

Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural 

resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the U.S., except in the case 

of such discharges into or upon the water of the contiguous zone or which may affect the above-mentioned natural resources, where permitted under the Protocol of 1978 

Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention 

of Pollution from Ships.

When harmful discharges do take place, the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) for the removal of oil and hazardous substance discharges (40 CFR Part 300), which is 

designed to minimize the impacts on marine resources, 

take effect. The USCG, in cooperation with EPA, administers the NCP. The NCP establishes the organizational 

framework whereby oil and hazardous substance spills are 

to be cleaned up. To carry out the NCP, regional plans 

have been established; the USCG has issued such a plan for 

Federal Region IX which encompasses the sanctuary area. 

Under the plan, Coast Guard personnel are to investigate 

all reported offshore spills, notify the party responsible (if 

known) of its obligation to clean up the spill, and supervise 

the clean-up. If the party responsible for the spill does not 

promptly begin cleanup operations, the Coast Guard may 

hire private organizations.

The CWA also requires that publicly owned sewage treatment works meet effluent limitations based on effluent 

reductions attainable through the application of secondary treatment by July 1, 1977 [33 USC 1311(b)(1)]. EPA 

does have the authority, however, to waive the July 1, 1977 

deadline for secondary treatment for discharges into marine 

waters under certain circumstances (33 USC1311 (h)).

Permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), which are 

based on EPA guidelines, are required prior to the discharge 

of dredged or fill materials in navigable waters that lie inside 

the baseline from which the territorial sea (defined to be 

three nautical miles off shore) is measured and fill materials 

into the territorial sea (33 USC 1344; $) CFR 230.2).

Finally, the CWA requires vessels to comply with marine 

sanitation regulations issued by EPA and enforced by the 

USCG (33 USC 1322).

Rivers and Harbors Act 1899 (RHA) (33 U.S.C. 401 et. 

seq.)

Section 10 (33 USC 402) of the RHA prohibits the unauthorized obstruction of navigable waters of the United States. 

The construction of any structure or any excavation or 

fill activity in the navigable waters of the U.S. is prohibited without a permit from the COE. Section 13 (33U.S.C. 

407) prohibits the discharge of refuse into navigable water 

of the U.S., but has been largely superseded by the CWA, 

discussed above.
X. Appendix G. Existing Federal and State Authorities Relevant to Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Protection and Management 315

Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1231 

et. seq.)

The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), as amended 

by the Ports and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (and the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990), is designed to promote navigation 

and vessel safety and the protection of the marine environment. The PWSA applies both in state waters and the waters 

beyond out to 200 nautical miles.

The PWSA authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to construct, 

operate, maintain, improve or expand vessel traffic services 

and control vessel traffic in ports, harbors, and other waters 

subject to congested vessel traffic. The Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 amends the PWSA to mandate that the USCG “require 

appropriate vessels, which operate in the areas of a vessel 

traffic service, to utilize or comply with that service.

In addition to vessel control, the U.S. Coast Guard regulates 

other navigational and shipping activities. It has promulgated numerous regulations relating to vessel design, construction, and operations designed to minimize the likelihood of 

as accident and reduce vessel source pollution.

The 1978 amendments of the PWSA establish a comprehensive program for regulating the design, construction, operation, equipping, and banning of all tankers using U.S. ports 

to transfer oil and hazardous materials. These requirements 

are, for the most part, in agreement with protocols (passed in 

1978) to the International Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships, 1973, and the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.

The U.S Coast Guard is also vested with the primary responsibility for maintaining boaster safety, including the tasks of 

conducting routine vessel inspections and coordination of 

rescue operations.

Under the PWSA, the Coast Guard establishes vessel traffic services and systems for ports, harbors and other waters 

subject to congested vessel traffic. Within the area of the 

sanctuary, a vessel traffic separation scheme (TSS) has been 

established directly across Stellwagen Bank, to service the 

major port of Boston. The PWSA regulations also address 

vessel design, construction and operation, and are designed 

to reduce vessel accidents and vessel source pollution.

Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 

1901 et. seq.)

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution 

of the Sea by Oil, 1954, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 

have been superseded by the International Convention for 

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified 

by the 1978 Protocol relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) and 

implemented by the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 

1980, as amended in 1982, 1987, (APPS). The APPS, in 

implementing Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, regulates the 

discharge of oil and oily mixtures from seagoing ships, 

including oil tankers. The APPS, in implementing Annex II 

of MARPOL 73/78, regulates the discharge of noxious liquid 

substances from seagoing ships. Enforcement of the Act is 

the responsibility of the USCG.

When more then 12 nautical miles from the nearest land, 

any discharge of oil or oily mixture into the sea from a ship 

subject to APPS, other than an oil tanker or from machinery 

space bilges of an oil tanker subject to APPS, is prohibited 

except when: 1) the oil or oily mixture does not originate 

from cargo pump room bilges; 2) the oil or oily mixture is 

not mixed with oil cargo residues; 3) the ship is not within a 

Special Area (the sanctuary is not a Special Area for purposes of APPS); 4) the ship is proceeding en route; 5) the oil 

content of the effluent without dilution is less the 100 parts 

per million (PPM); and 6) the ship has in operation oilywater separating equipment, a bilge monitor, bilge alarm or 

combination thereof. 33CFR 151.10 (a).

The restrictions on discharge 12 nautical miles or less 

from the nearest land are more stringent. Within 12 nautical miles of the nearest land, any discharge of oil or oily 

mixture into the sea from a ship other than an oil tanker or 

from machinery space bilge of an oil tanker is prohibited 

except when: 1) the oil or oily mixture does not originate 

from cargo pump room bilges; 2) the oil or oily mixture 

is not mixed with oil cargo residues; 3) the oil content of 

the effluent without dilution does not exceed 15ppm; 4) 

the ship has in operation oily-water separating equipment, 

a bilge monitor, bilge alarm, or combination thereof; and 

5) the oily-water separating equipment is equipped with a 

15ppm bilge alarm. [NOTE: In the navigable waters of the 

U.S., the CWA, section 311 (b)(3) and 40 CFR 110 govern 

all discharges of oil or oil mixtures.] 33CFR 151.10(b).

APPS is amended by the Marine Plastic Pollution Research 

and Control Act of 1987 (MPPRCA), which implements 

Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 in the U.S. The MPPRCA and 

implementing regulations at 33 CFR 151.51 to 151.77 apply 

to U.S. Ships (except warships and ships owned or operated 

by the U.S.) everywhere, including recreational vessels, and 

to other ships subject to MARPOL 73/78 while in the navigable waters or the Exclusive Economic Zone of the U.S. 

They prohibit the discharge of plastic or garbage mixed 

with plastic into any waters and the discharge of dunnage, 

lining and packing materials that float within 25 nautical 

miles of the nearest land. Other unground garbage may 

be discharged beyond 12 nautical miles from the nearest 

land. Other garbage ground to less than one inch may be 

discharged beyond three nautical miles of the nearest land. 

Fixed and floating platforms and associated vessels are 

subject to more stringent restrictions. “Garbage” is defined 

as all kinds of victual, domestic and operational waste, 

excluding fresh fish and parts thereof, generated during the 

normal operations of the ship and liable to be disposed of 

continuously or periodically except dishwater, gray water 

and certain substances. 33 CFR 151.05.

Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (P.L. 101-380, 33 USC 

2701 et. seq.)

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) creates a comprehensive prevention, response, liability, and compensation regime for dealing with vessel and facility-caused oil 

pollution. The OPA provides for environmental safeguards 

in oil transportation greater than those existing before its 
316 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

passage by: setting new standards for vessel construction, 

crew licensing, and manning; providing for better contingency planning; enhancing Federal response capability; 

broadening enforcement authority; increasing penalties; 

and authorizing multi-agency research and development. 

A one billion dollar trust fund is available to cover clean-up 

coats and damages not compensated by the spiller.

Title I creates a liability and compensation regime for tank 

vessel and facility-source oil pollution. Any party responsible for the discharge, or the substantial threat of discharge, 

of oil into navigable waters of adjoining shorelines or the 

Exclusive Economic Zone is liable for the removal costs and 

damages, including assessment costs; for injury, destruction, loss, or loss of use of natural resources, injury to or 

economic losses resulting from destruction of real or personal property; subsistence use of natural resources, net lost 

government revenues, lost profits or impairment of earning 

capacity; and net costs of providing increased or additional 

public services during or after removal activities. NOAA 

has the responsibility of promulgating damage assessment. 

Sums recovered by a trustee for natural resource damages 

will be retained in a revolving trust account to reimburse 

or pay costs incurred by the trustee with respect to those 

resources.

Title II makes numerous amendments to conform to other 

Federal statutes, particularly section 311 of the Clean Water 

Act, and to the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act.

Title III encourages the establishment of an international 

inventory of spill removal equipment and personnel.

Title IV is divided into three subtitles: A) Prevention; B) 

Removal: and C) Penalties and Miscellaneous. Subtitle A 

gives added responsibility to the Coast Guard regarding 

merchant marine personnel, including the review of alcohol and drug abuse and review of criminal records prior to 

issuance and renewal of documentation. It also amends the 

Ports and Waterways Safety Act to: require the Coast Guard 

to “require appropriate vessels which operate in an area of 

vessel traffic service to utilize or comply with that service.” 

and 2) authorize the construction, improvement and expansion of vessel traffic services.

Further, subtitle A establishes double hull requirements for 

tank vessels. Most tank vessels over 5,000 gross tons will 

be required to have double hills by 2010, while vessels 

under 5,000 gross tons will be requires to have a double 

hull or double containment systems by 2015. All newly 

constructed tankers must contain a double hull (or double 

containment systems if under 5,000 gross toms), while existing vessels are phased out over a period of years.

Subtitle B amends subsection 311 (C) of the Clean Water 

Act, requiring the Federal Government to ensure effective 

and immediate removal of a discharge, and mitigation or 

prevention of a substantial threat of a discharge, of oil or 

hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters, on the 

adjoining shorelines, into or on the waters of the Exclusive 

Economic Zone, or that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management 

authority of the U.S. It also requires a revision and republication of the National Contingency Plan within one year 

which will include, among other things, a fish and Wildlife response plan developed in consultation with NOAA 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nothing in subtitle B 

preempts the rights of States to require stricter standards for 

removal actions.

Subtitle C alters and increases civil and administrative 

penalties for illegal discharges and violations of regulations 

promulgated under the Clean Water Act.

Title VII authorizes an oil pollution research and technology 

development program, including the establishment of an 

interagency coordination committee that is chaired by the 

Department of Transportation and composed of representatives from the Departments of Energy, the Interior, Transportation, Commerce (including NOAA), and Defense, and 

the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, as well as such other Federal agencies as 

the President may designate. 

Title IX amends the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 

increases from $500 million to $1 billion the amount that 

can be spent on any single oil spill incident, of which no 

more then $500 million may be spent on natural resource 

damage assessments and claims.

Federal Aviation Act (49 USC 1301 et. seq.)

The Federal Aviation Act gives the Secretary of Transportation broad powers to promote air commerce and to regulate the use of navigable airspace to ensure aircraft safety 

and efficient use of such airspace. In furtherance of this 

mandate, the Federal Aviation Administration within the 

Department of Transportation publishes aeronautical charts 

which provide a variety of information to pilots, including the location of “sensitive” and “areas which should be 

avoided.” Currently, there are no site-specific regulations 

for flights over the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 

Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC 7401 et. seq.)

The Clean Air Act (CAA) sets general guidelines and minimal air quality standards on a nationwide basis in order to 

protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources. States are responsible for developing comprehensive 

plans for all regions within their boundaries. 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 USC 1331 

et. seq.)

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, (OCSLA) as amended in 1978 and 1985, establishes Federal jurisdiction over 

the mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 

beyond 3nm (5.6km) and gives the Secretary of Interior 

primary responsibility for managing OCS mineral exploration and development. The Secretary’s responsibility 

has been delegated to the Minerals Management Service 

(MMS).

In unique or special areas, MMS may impose special lease 

stipulations designed to protect specific geological and 
X. Appendix G. Existing Federal and State Authorities Relevant to Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Protection and Management 317

biological phenomena. These stipulations may vary among 

lease sale tracts and sales.

Lessees are required to include, in exploration and development and production plans, specific information concerning emissions and their potential impacts on coastal areas. 

Such authority includes the enforcement of regulations 

made pursuant to the OCSLA (30 CFR Parts 250 and 256) 

and the enforcement of stipulations applicable to particular 

leases.

In addition to DOI, both the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 

and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) have responsibility over 

OCS mineral development to the extent that such development affects navigation (43 USC 1333). The COE is responsible for ensuring, through a permit system, that OCS structures on the OCS are properly marked and that safe working 

conditions are maintained onboard.

MMS is also charged with supervising OCS operations, 

including approval of exploration and development and 

production plans and applications for pipeline rights of way 

on the OCS.

Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act (MPRSA) (33 USC 1401 et. seq.)

Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), also known as the Ocean Dumping Act, 

Prohibits: 1) any person from transporting, without a permit, 

from the U.S. any material for the purpose of dumping it 

into ocean waters (defined to mean those waters of the open 

seas lying seaward of the baseline from which the territorial 

sea is measured) and 2) in the case of a vessel or aircraft 

registered in the U.S., or flying the U.S. flag, or in the case 

of a U.S. agency, any person from transporting, without 

a permit, from any location, any material for the purpose 

of dumping it into ocean waters. Title I also prohibits any 

person from dumping, without a permit, into the “territorial 

sea,” or the contiguous zone extending 12 nautical miles 

seaward from the baseline of the territorial sea, to the extent 

that it may affect the territorial sea or the territory of the 

U.S., any material transported from a location outside of the 

U.S. The EPA regulates, through the issuance of permits, the 

transportation, for the purpose of dumping, and the dumping 

of all materials except dredged material; the COE regulates, 

through the issuance of permits, the transportation, for the 

purpose of dumping, and the dumping of dredged material. 

The COE permits are subject to EPA review and approval. 

Title I also makes it unlawful after December 31, 1991, for 

any person to dump into ocean waters, or to transport for 

the purposes of dumping into ocean waters, sewage sludge 

or industrial waste. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470 

et. seq.)

The NHPA was established to provide a national framework 

for the preservation of historic properties around the nation. 

To accomplish this goal, Section 101 of the NHPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National 

Register of “districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects 

significant in American history, architecture, archeology, 

and culture.” The National Marine Sanctuary Program 

(NMSP) is required by National Marine Sanctuary Program 

Regulations (15 CFR Part 922.2) to comply with the Federal 

Archaeology Program, a collection of laws and standards 

that includes the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(NHPA).

Two sections of the NHPA relate directly to obligations 

Federal Agencies have to historic and archaeological 

resources. Section 110 of the NHPA sets out the broad 

historic preservation responsibilities of a Federal agency. 

Section 106 of the NHPA, requires a Federal agency to take 

into account the effects of its undertakings on properties 

listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. 

Any federal agency conducting, licensing, or assisting an 

undertaking which may affect a property listed or eligible 

for listing on the National Register must, prior to the action, 

take into account the effect of the undertaking on the property and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed 

action (16USC 470f). The basic criterion applied by the 

Advisory Council is whether the undertaking will change 

the quality of the site’s historic, architectural, archeological, 

or cultural character (36 CFR part 800).

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 USC 9601 et. seq.)

The principal purpose of the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in the 

clean-up of hazardous waste sites consists of four fundamental elements. First, CERCLA creates an information 

gathering and evaluation system to help Federal and State 

governments categorize hazardous waste sites and prioritize responses. Second, CERCLA provides Federal authority 

to respond to releases of hazardous substances. Response 

actions are carried out pursuant to the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Third, CERCLA establishes a Hazardous Substance Trust Fund to pay for removal and remedial 

actions and related costs. Finally, CERCLA makes persons 

responsible for hazardous substance releases liable for 

costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the Federal 

or State governments; other necessary costs of response 

incurred by others; damages for injury, destruction or loss 

of natural resources; and costs of any health assessment or 

health effects study carried out pursuant to the Act.

State Authorities

Because the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is located entirely outside State territorial waters, State 

agencies do not have jurisdiction over the area. However, 

through the following laws, State agencies can influence the 

quality of the sanctuary environment.
318 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

(Mass. General Laws Chapter 21A, Chapter 6A, sections 

2-71, 16 USC 1451 et. seq.)

MCZM is the principal ocean planning and policy agency 

of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its jurisdiction of 

particular relevance here is all State territorial waters, and 

any activity seaward of State territorial waters, that will 

likely have a direct effect on the coastal zone. The MCZM 

plan is embodied in the approved 2002 Coastal Management Plan which also articulates a series of 20 enforceable program policies and associated program principles 

which direct activities or projects proposed for the coastal 

waters and areas adjacent thereto. The policies deal with 

a broad range of issues, from protection of critical areas, to 

port and harbor operations, to offshore oil and gas development. MCZM enforces its program policies through existing 

Massachusetts statutes and their implementing regulations. 

Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act (Mass. General 

Laws Chapter 132A, section 12A – 16F, 18)

The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) 

administers the Ocean Sanctuaries Program. The Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act prohibits activities that may 

significantly alter or endanger the ecology or appearance 

of the ocean, seabed, or subsoil of state ocean sanctuaries 

or the Cape Cod National Seashore. To accomplish this 

goal, the Act prohibits: (1) building structures on or under 

the seabed; (2) construction or operation of offshore or floating electrical generating stations; (3) drilling or removal of 

sand, gravel (except for the purposes of beach nourishment), 

other minerals, gases, or oils; (4) dumping or discharge of 

commercial, municipal, domestic or industrial wastes; (5) 

commercial advertising; and (6) incineration of solid waste 

or refuse on vessels within state ocean sanctuary boundaries. These prohibitions may be waived if a finding of “public 

necessity and convenience” can be made for the proposed 

project or activity. Under the Ocean Sanctuaries Act, DCR 

does not issue any licenses or permits, but acts through the 

regulatory process of other agencies, particularly the Chapter 91 Waterways Program. 

Wetlands Protection Act (Mass. General Laws Chapter 

131, section 40)

This authority is exercised primarily through the city or 

town conservation commission, with appeal to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The Act 

protects wetland resources, the functions and attributes 

therein relevant to the SBNMS may include wildlife habitat, 

fisheries, “land under the ocean,” land containing shellfish, 

and prevention of pollution. The Act applies to any activity which involves “dredging, filling, altering, or removing” 

within the State resource area.

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (Mass. General 

Laws Chapter 30, sections 61-62H)

The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) 

provides for a coordinated State review of generally large 

and complicated projects, allowing more efficient collection 

of essential information covering a wide range of potential 

adverse environmental impacts. The information collected 

during the MEPA process is to be used by regulatory agencies in their regulatory reviews. For example, dredging 

projects involving volumes of dredged material greater than 

10,000 cubic yards would be reviewed by MEPA.

Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act (Mass. General Laws 

Chapter 91)

This authority is primarily involved in the licensing of fill and 

structures in the tidelands of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with a principal regulatory interest in preserving 

safe navigation and public access.

Massachusetts Clean Water Act (Mass. General Laws 

Chapter 21, Section 26-53)

Along with delegated authority under provisions of the Clean 

Water Act at Section 401, the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Pollution Control (DEPDWPC) reviews discharges into waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This Act’s principal interest is the 

protection of water quality.

Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological 

Resources (Mass. General Laws Chapter 6, Sections 179-

180; Chapter 9, Section 26; Chapter 11D’ Chapter 30, 

Section 61; Chapter 91, Section 63, 72)

The Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources 

(BUAR) is responsible for the protection and preservation 

of underwater archaeological resources in the waters of 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A permit from the 

Board is required for activities which affect archaeological 

resources under their jurisdiction.
X. Appendix H. Questions and Answers 319

Appendix H. Questions and

Answers Regarding Regulatory

Coordination on Fishing

between the National Marine

Sanctuary Program and Federal

Fishery Management Agencies

(NMSP Frequently Asked questions—March

2004)

1. Does the National Marine Sanctuary Program

(NMSP) have authority under the National

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) to regulate

fishing activities?

Yes. Section 304(a) of the NMSA provides authority to issue 

regulations as may be necessary to protect the resources and 

qualities for which individual sanctuaries were designated. 

This would include regulations for certain fishing activities 

if determined necessary to protect sanctuary resources or 

qualities. 

The NMSA has specific requirements as to how any sanctuary fishing regulations are to be developed. Specifically, 

Section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA requires NOAA to provide 

the relevant fishery management councils the opportunity 

to prepare draft sanctuary fishing regulations.

The Council has 120 days to act upon the request by the 

sanctuary and will use as guidance the national standards 

of section 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to the extent 

those standards are consistent and compatible with the goals 

and objectives of the sanctuary. If the draft regulations are 

found by NOAA to meet the goals and objectives of the 

sanctuary and the purposes and policies of the NMSA, they 

will be published as sanctuary regulations under the authority of the NMSA. 

The NMSA also states that if the Council declines to make 

a determination as to the need for fishing regulations in the 

Sanctuary, makes a determination that is rejected by NOAA, 

requests that NOAA prepare the draft regulations, or does 

not prepare the draft regulations in a timely manner, NOAA 

will prepare the fishing regulations. Regardless of whether 

the Council or NOAA drafts the sanctuary fishing regulations, NOAA will be responsible for compliance with the 

NMSA, National Environmental Policy Act, Administrative 

Procedure Act, and other applicable requirements. 

The scope of a sanctuary’s regulatory authority is further 

defined in its designation document. A designation document may need to be changed to allow for some regulations. The NMSA has specific procedures and requirements 

for changing a term of designation.

2. There are already federal agencies such as the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as

well as state agencies, which regulate fisheries. 

Why does the NMSP need to be involved in

fisheries issues?

The NMSA focuses on ecosystem protection including 

protection of biological communities and habitats. Fish 

populations and habitat are integral parts of any Sanctuary’s 

ecosystem. Fish populations also play important roles as 

predators and prey for a wide range of species. 

The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) recognizes 

that regulatory authority over fisheries management resides 

with these other fisheries management agencies.

The Sanctuary has an important role in working with these 

regulatory agencies regarding fishing matters as they relate 

to the sanctuaries, as well as working with other partners to 

develop practical solutions for ecosystem protection. 

3. What is a designation document & how does it

limit the NMSP’s ability to regulate activities?

The NMSA defines the terms of designation of a sanctuary 

as:

•	The geographic area of the sanctuary

•	The characteristics of the area that give it conservation,

recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, 

or esthetic value

•	The types of activities that will be subject to regulation to

protect those characteristics

At the time of designation of a sanctuary, NOAA lists the 

activities that may be subject to regulation in the designation 

document and issues regulations addressing what activities 

will be regulated. Both the list of activities subject to regulation as well as the regulations themselves can be amended 

as long as NOAA follows the applicable legal and administrative processes (e.g., the NMSA, National Environmental 

Policy Act and Administrative Procedure Act) required to 

do so.

4. What are the key steps and requirements for

changing a term of designation?

When changing a term of designation NOAA follows the 

applicable NMSA procedures for designation of a sanctuary, 

which are provided in sections 303 and 304 of the Act. 

Key steps in this process include:

•	Making required determinations and considering factors,

as listed in the NMSA

•	Conducting required consultations with Congress,

Federal, State, and local agencies, the appropriate Fishery 

Management Council, and other interested persons

•	Preparing appropriate designation documents which

include an environmental impact statement, resource 

assessments, maps, revised draft management plan with 

the proposed changes to the term(s) of designation, basis 

of determinations, and any proposed regulations 

•	Providing public notice and opportunity to comment on

the proposed designation documents, including holding 
320 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

at least one public hearing

•	Providing the public notice and the proposed designation

documents to Congress and the Governor of any State in 

which the Sanctuary is located

•	Publishing notice of the final designation documents and

providing notice to Congress and the Governor

Final changes to a term(s) of designation, and implementing regulations, shall take effect and become final after the 

close of a review period of 45 days of continuous session of 

Congress.

During this final 45-day review period the Governor has the 

opportunity to certify to NOAA that the change to the term 

of designation in unacceptable, in which case the unacceptable term of designation shall not take effect in that part of 

the sanctuary within the boundary of the state.

5. Can all sanctuaries regulate fishing

activities?

Yes, as long as fishing is listed as being subject to regulation 

in a sanctuary’s designation document. If fishing is not so 

listed, it cannot be regulated without amending the designation document and adhering to the applicable requirements 

of the NMSA, NEPA, and APA.

Under the NMSA, the relevant fishery management council 

would be provided the opportunity to draft the sanctuary 

fishery regulations to achieve the desired resource protection objective.

Any changes to the designation document would be narrowly constructed to address the specific resource protection 

objective.

6. How does a sanctuary decide to regulate

certain fishing activities?

A sanctuary may decide to regulate certain fishing activities 

during a management plan review or as the need arises. 

A management plan review is required for every sanctuary 

every five years and is focused on reassessing the adequacy 

of protection of all sanctuary resources and qualities. During 

this process the working groups, Sanctuary Advisory Council and/or public might raise concerns that could lead to a 

determination that there is a need to regulate some aspects 

of fishing to protect certain sanctuary resources or qualities 

from damage or degradation. Outside of a management 

plan review, the Sanctuary Advisory Council or another 

constituent may raise, or a sanctuary may otherwise become 

aware of, an issue that may need to be addressed by regulating certain fishing activities.

During a management plan review, multi-stakeholder workgroups are convened to plan for priority issues, involving 

fishermen and other parties in developing the recommendations for these groups. The working groups provide a series 

of recommendations for subsequent review and deliberation by the sanctuary’s Advisory Council. 

After reviewing the results of the working groups, Sanctuary 

Advisory Council recommendations, and consultations with 

agency partners, particularly NOAA Fisheries Service and 

the relevant fishery management council, a sanctuary may 

decide to regulate certain fishing activities within the sanctuary. A Sanctuary Advisory Council would also be heavily involved in such a decision and any subsequent action 

outside of a management plan review.

If this were to occur, a sanctuary might need to amend 

its designation document to authorize the specific limited 

NMSA fishing regulation and would have to provide the 

relevant fishery management council the opportunity to draft 

such regulations. This entire process is extremely transparent and would not proceed without significant opportunities for public and constituent involvement, including the 

involvement of the commercial and recreational fishing 

communities.

7. In addition to direct sanctuary regulations, 

what other ways are available to regulate fishing

in a sanctuary? 

In a sanctuary’s discussions with NOAA Fisheries Service 

and the relevant fishery management council or a state fishery management agency, it could be jointly decided that 

the fishery management council or state could best handle 

the identified resource protection problem or goal under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Fisheries Management Act. 

For example, as three of our California Sanctuaries have 

progressed through their joint management plan review 

process, the regulation of krill harvesting has been identified as a significant issue because of krill’s importance as a 

forage species throughout the Pacific coastal region. Those 

sanctuaries are discussing with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) staff whether the PFMC would consider preventing the take of krill under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The sanctuaries could also ask the PFMC to draft sanctuary regulations 

regarding krill, pursuant to the NMSA.

8. What is the National Marine Sanctuary

Program’s policy on marine reserves?

The NMSP does not have a policy on marine reserves. 

Rather, marine reserves are one of a number of tools available to the NMSP to deal with issues and problems. Scientific research has indicated that carefully crafted marine 

reserves can be effective tools for conservation of biodiversity, but may not always be applicable to every sanctuary. The NMSP believes that any consideration of reserves 

should and will be a joint effort with the participation of 

many diverse stakeholders, including strong participation 

of the fishing community to tap into their extensive knowledge and to consider socioeconomic impacts of alternative 

reserve designs, as well as participation from other agencies, environmental organizations and the public.

The process described above is outlined in a draft zoning 

policy undergoing final approval. The NMSP has used 

zoning as a tool for over twenty years and has at least one 

type of zone in most sanctuaries.
X. Appendix I. Regulations 321

Appendix I. Regulations

Subpart N--Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary 

Sec. 922.140 Boundary. 

(a) The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) consists of an area of approximately 638 square nautical miles (NM) of Federal marine waters and the submerged 

lands thereunder, over and around Stellwagen Bank and 

other submerged features off the coast of Massachusetts. The 

boundary encompasses the entirety of Stellwagen Bank; Tillies Bank, to the northeast of Stellwagen Bank; and portions 

of Jeffreys Ledge, to the north of Stellwagen Bank. 

(b) The Sanctuary boundary is identified by the following 

coordinates, indicating the most northeast, southeast, southwest, west northwest, and north-northwest points:

42 deg.45’59.83”N x 70 deg.13’01.77”W (NE);

42 deg.05’35.51”N x 70 deg.02’08.14”W (SE);

42 deg.07’44.89»W x 70 deg.28’15.44»W (SW);

42 deg.32’53.52»N x 70 deg.35’52.38»W (WNW); and 

42 deg.39’04.08»N x 70 deg.30’11.29»W (NNW).

The western border is formed by a straight line connecting 

the most southwest and the west northwest points of the 

Sanctuary. At the most west-northwest point, the Sanctuary border follows a line contiguous with the three-mile 

jurisdictional boundary of Massachusetts to the most northnorthwest point. From this point, the northern border is 

formed by a straight line connecting the most north-northwest point and the most northeast point. The eastern border 

is formed by a straight line connecting the most northeast 

and the most southeast points of the Sanctuary. The southern border follows a straight line between the most southwest point and a point located at 42 deg.06’54.57»N x 70 

deg.16’42.7» W. From that point, the southern border then 

continues in a west-to-east direction along a line contiguous 

with the three-mile jurisdictional boundary of Massachusetts until reaching the most southeast point of the Sanctuary. The boundary coordinates are listed in appendix A to 

this subpart. 

Sec. 922.141 Definitions. 

In addition to those definitions found at Sec. 922.3, the 

following definitions apply to this subpart: 

Industrial material means mineral, as defined in Sec. 922.3. 

Traditional fishing means those commercial or recreational 

fishing methods which have been conducted in the past 

within the Sanctuary. 

Sec. 922.142 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this 

section, the following activities are prohibited and thus 

are unlawful for any person to conduct or to cause to be 

conducted: 

(1)(i) Discharging or depositing, from within the boundary 

of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter except: 

(A) Fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used in 

or resulting from traditional fishing operations in the 

Sanctuary; 

(B) Biodegradable effluent incidental to vessel use 

and generated by marine sanitation devices approved 

in accordance with section 312 of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended, (FWPCA), 33 U.S.C. 

1322 et seq.; 

(C) Water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g., 

cooling water, deck wash down and gray water as defined 

by section 312 of the FWPCA) excluding oily wastes from 

bilge pumping; or 

(D) Engine exhaust. 

(ii) Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundary 

of the Sanctuary, any material or other matter, except those 

listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) (A) through (D) of this section, 

that subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures a Sanctuary resource or quality. 

(2) Exploring for, developing or producing industrial materials within the Sanctuary. 

(3) Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed 

of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning 

any structure, material or other matter on the seabed of the 

Sanctuary, except as an incidental result of: 

(i) Anchoring vessels; 

(ii) Traditional fishing operations; or 

(iii) Installation of navigation aids. 

(4) Moving, removing or injuring, or attempting to move, 

remove or injure, a Sanctuary historical resource. This 

prohibition does not apply to moving, removing or injury 

resulting incidentally from traditional fishing operations. 

(5) Taking any marine reptile, marine mammal or seabird in 

or above the Sanctuary, except as permitted by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, as amended, (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, as amended, 

(ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., and the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, as amended, (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. 

(6) Lightering in the Sanctuary. 

(7) Possessing within the Sanctuary (regardless of where 

taken, moved or removed from), except as necessary for 

valid law enforcement purposes, any historical resource, 

or any marine mammal, marine reptile or seabird taken in 

violation of the MMPA, ESA or MBTA. 

(8) Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an 

investigation, search, seizure or disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of the Act or any regulation or permit issued under the Act. 
322 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

(b) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (1), and (3) through 

(8) of this section do not apply to any activity necessary to 

respond to an emergency threatening life, property or the 

environment. 

(c)(1)(i) All Department of Defense military activities shall be 

carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent 

practicable any adverse impacts on Sanctuary resources 

and qualities. 

(ii) Department of Defense military activities may be 

exempted from the prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (1) and (3) 

through (7) of this section by the Director after consultation 

between the Director and the Department of Defense. 

(iii) If it is determined that an activity may be carried out, 

such activity shall be carried out in a manner that avoids 

to the maximum extent practicable any advance impact 

on Sanctuary resources and qualities. Civil engineering 

and other civil works projects conducted by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers are excluded from the scope of this 

paragraph(c). 

(2) In the event of threatened or actual destruction of, loss 

of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality resulting from 

an untoward incident, including but not limited to spills 

and groundings caused by the Department of Defense, the 

Department of Defense shall promptly coordinate with the 

Director for the purpose of taking appropriate actions to 

respond to and mitigate the harm and, if possible, restore or 

replace the Sanctuary resource or quality. 

(d) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a) (1) and (3) through 

(7) of this section do not apply to any activity executed in 

accordance with the scope, purpose, terms and conditions 

of a National Marine Sanctuary permit issued pursuant 

to Sec. 922.48 and Sec. 922.143 or a Special Use permit 

issued pursuant to section 310 of the Act. 

(e) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) through (7) 

of this section do not apply any activity authorized by any 

lease, permit, license, approval or other authorization issued 

after the effective date of Sanctuary designation (November 

4, 1992) and issued by any Federal, State or local authority of competent jurisdiction, provided that the applicant 

compiles with Sec. 922.49, the Director notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does not object 

to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies 

with any terms and conditions the Director deems necessary 

to protect Sanctuary resources and qualifies. Amendments, 

renewals and extensions of authorizations in existence on 

the effective date of designation constitute authorizations 

issued after the effective date. 

(f) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, in 

no event may the Director issue a permit under Sec. 922.48 

and Sec. 922.143, or under section 310 of the act, authorizing, or otherwise approving, the exploration for, development or production of industrial materials within the Sanctuary, or the disposal of dredged materials within the Sanctuary (except by a certification, pursuant to Sec. 922.47, 

of valid authorizations in existence on November 4, 1992) 

and any leases, licenses, permits, approvals or other authorizations authorizing the exploration for, development or 

production of industrial materials in the Sanctuary issued by 

other authorities after November 4, 1992, shall be invalid. 

Sec. 922.143 Permit procedures and criteria. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by Sec. 

922.142 (a) (1) and (3) through (7) if conducted in accordance with scope, purpose, manner, terms and conditions 

of a permit issued under this section and Sec. 922.48. 

(b) Applications for such permits should be addressed to the 

Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management; ATTN: Manager, Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, 175 Edward Foster Rd., Scituate, MA 02066. 

(c) The Director, at his or her discretion may issue a permit, 

subject to such terms and conditions as he or she deems 

appropriate, to conduct an activity prohibited by Sec. 

922.142(a) (1) and (3) through (7), if the Director finds that 

the activity will have only negligible short-term adverse 

effects on Sanctuary resources and qualities and will: further 

research related to Sanctuary resources and qualities; further 

the educational, natural or historical resource value of the 

Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or near 

the Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine 

casualty; or assist in managing the Sanctuary. In deciding 

whether to issue a permit, the Director may consider such 

factors as: the professional qualifications and financial ability of the applicant as related to the proposed activity; the 

duration of the activity and the duration of its effects; the 

appropriateness of the methods and procedures proposed 

by the applicant for the conduct of the activity; the extent to 

which the conduct of the activity may diminish or enhance 

Sanctuary resources and qualities; the cumulative effects of 

the activity; and the end value of the activity. In addition, 

the Director may consider such other factors as he or she 

deems appropriate. 

(d) It shall be a condition of any permit issued that the 

permit or a copy thereof be displayed on board all vessels 

or aircraft used in the conduct of the activity. 

(e) The Director may, inter alia, make it a condition of any 

permit issued that any data or information obtained under 

the permit be made available to the public. 

(f) The Director may, inter alia, make it a condition of any 

permit issued that a NOAA official be allowed to observe 

any activity conducted under the permit an/or that the permit 

holder submit one or more reports on the status, progress or 

results of any activity authorized by the permit. 
X. Appendix I. Regulations 323

Appendix A to Subpart N of Part 922--Stellwagen Bank National Marine

Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

[Appendix Based on North American Datum of 1927]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point Latitude Longitude

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E1................................ 42 deg.45’59.83 / 70 deg.13’01.77

E2................................ 42 deg.05’35.51 / 70 deg.02’08.14

E3................................ 42 deg.06’8.25 / 70 deg.03’17.55

E4................................ 42 deg.06’2.53 / 70 deg.04’03.36

E5................................ 42 deg.07’02.70 / 70 deg.05’13.61

E6................................ 42 deg.07’13.0 / 70 deg.06’23.75

E7................................ 42 deg.07’35.95 / 70 deg.07’27.89

E8................................ 42 deg.07’42.33 / 70 deg.08’26.07

E9................................ 42 deg.07’59.94 / 70 deg.09’19.78

E10............................... 42 deg.08’04.95 / 70 deg.10’24.40

E11............................... 42 deg.07’55.19 / 70 deg.11’47.67

E12............................... 42 deg.07’59.84 / 70 deg.13’03.35

E13............................... 42 deg.07’46.55 / 70 deg.14’21.91

E14............................... 42 deg.07’27.29 / 70 deg.15’22.95

E15............................... 42 deg.06’54.57 / 70 deg.16’42.71

E16............................... 42 deg.07’44.89 / 70 deg.28’15.44

E17............................... 42 deg.32’53.52 / 70 deg.35’52.38

E18............................... 42 deg.33’30.24 / 70 deg.35’14.96

E19............................... 42 deg.33’48.14 / 70 deg.35’03.81

E20............................... 42 deg.34’30.45 / 70 deg.34’22.98

E21............................... 42 deg.34’50.37 / 70 deg.33’21.93

E22............................... 42 deg.35’16.08 / 70 deg.32’32.29

E23............................... 42 deg.35’41.80 / 70 deg.31’44.20

E24............................... 42 deg.36’23.08 / 70 deg.30’58.98

E25............................... 42 deg.37’15.51 / 70 deg.30’23.01

E26............................... 42 deg.37’58.88 / 70 deg.30’06.60

E27............................... 42 deg.38’32.46 / 70 deg.30’06.54

E28............................... 42 deg.39’04.08 / 70 deg.30’11.29

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
324 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix J. Preliminary Species List for the Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary

Family Vernacular Name Genus Species Reference

PHYLUM: PYRROPHYCOPHYTA (dinoflagellates, phytoplankton)

Ceratiaceae Ceratium sp. 1

Coscinodiscaceae Coscinodiscu sp. 1

Thalassiosiraceae Thalassiosira nordenskioldii 1

PHYLUM: PORIFERA (sponges)

Clionidae Boring Sponge Cliona celata 1, 7

Clionidae Naked sea buterfly Clione limacina 1

Chalinidae Gellius arcoferus 1

Halichondriidae Breadcrumb Sponge Halichondria panicea 1

Chalinidae Finger Sponge Haliclona oculata 1

Chalinidae Haliclona urceola 1

Halisarcidae Slime Sponge Halisarca dujardini 1

Hymedesmiidae Hymedesmia sp. 1

Myxillidae Iophon nigricans 8, 10

Myxillidae Iophon pattersoni 6

Isodictyidae Palmate Sponge Isodictya palmata 1

Myxillidae Leptosia sp. 8

Leucosoleniidae Leucosolenia botryoides 1

Mycalidae Mycale lingua 1

Myxillidae Myxilla fimbriata 1

Chalinidae Chalice Sponge Phakellia ventilabrum 1

Hymedesmiidae Plocamionida ambigua 1

Polymastiidae Polymastia hispida 2

Polymastiidae Polymastia infrapilosa 1, 8

Polymastiidae Polymastia robusta 1

Sycettidae Scypha ciliata 1

Spongiidae Yellow Sponge Spongia barbara 2

Stylocordylidae Stylocordyla borealis 6

Suberitidae Suberitechnius hispidus 1

Suberitidae Suberites ficus 11

Sycettidae Sycon ciliata 2

Subertidae Tentorium semisuberites 6

PHYLUM: CNIDARIA (anemones and corals)

Gorgonacea Acanella 6

Hormathiidae Actinauge feline 7

Actinostolidae Actinostola callosa 6

Alcyonacea Alcyonium sp. 6

Actinostolidae Antholoba perdix 6

Rhizangiidae Astrangia sp. 6

Actinidae Bolocera tuediae 8, 10

Cerianthidae Ceriantheopsis americanus 6

Cerianthidae Cerianthus borealis 6, 8

Edwardsiidae Edwardia sulcata 6

Epizoanthidae Epizoanthus incrustatus 6

Epizoanthidae Epizoanthus sp. 6
X. Appendix J. Preliminary Species List for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 325

Alcyonacea Gersemia rubiformis 7

Caryophylliidae Lophelia pertusa 6

Metridiidae Metridium senile 6

Gorgonacea Paragorgia arborea 6

Pennatulacea Pennatula Aculeata 6, 12

Gorgonacea Primnoa reseta 6

Pennatulacea Stylatula elegans 6

Actinidae Urticina felina 6

Tubularia Tubularia crocea 7

PHYLUM: CTENOPHORA (comb jellies)

Pleurobrachiidae Beroe’s comb jelly Beroe cucumis 1

Mertensiidae Arctic Sea gooseberry Mertensia ovum 1

Pleurobrachiidae Pleurobrachia pileus 1

PHYLUM: NEMERTEA (ribbon worms)

Amphiporidae Amphiporus angulatus 2

Amphiporidae Tachycineta bicolor 2

PHYLUM: BRYOZOA (moss animals)

Calloporidae Amphiblestrum septentriona 6

Calloporidae Amphiblestrum trifolium 6

Bugulidae Bugula sp. 7

Candidae Caberea ellisii 6

Scrupocellariidae Caberea ellisii 8, 10

Calloporidae Callopora craticula 6

Calloporidae Callopora lineata 6

Hincksinidae Cauloramphus cymbaeformis 6

Celleporidae Celleporaria agglutinans 6

Cribrilinidae Cribrilina punctata 6

Bugulidae Dendrobeania murrayana 6

Escharellidae Disporella sp 6

Escharellidae Escharella abyssicola 6

Escharellidae Escharella ventricosa 6

Scrupariidae Eucratea loricata 6

Hippodiplosia Hippodiplosia americana 6

Hippodiplosia Hippodiplosia hippopus 6

Hippodiplosia Hippodiplosia pertusa 6

Hippoporinidae Hippomenella vellicata 6

Retiporidae Hippoporella hippopus 6

Hippothoidea Hippothoa hyalina 6

Tubuliporidae Idmirdronea atlantica 6, 8

Microporellidae Microporella ciliata 6

Bryocryptellidae Palmicellaria skenei 6

Smittinidae Palmicellaria skenei 6

Mucronellidae Parasmittina trispinosa 6

Myriaporidae Porella reduplicata 6

Myriaporidae Porella smitti 6

Smittinidae Pyripora catenularia 6

Umbonulidae Ragionola rosacea 6

Bryocryptellidae Rhamphostomella bilaminata 6

Schizoporellidae Schizomavella auriculata 6

Smittinidae Smittina bella 6

Stomachetosellidae Stomachetosella sinuosa 6
326 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Scrupocellariidae Tricellaria gracilis 6

Tubuliporidae Tubulipora 6, 8

Umbanulidae Umbonula arctica 6

PHYLUM: RHYNCHOCOELA (unsegmented worms)

Tubulanidae Rhynchocoela sp. 4

Lineidae Tubulanus sp. 4

PHYLUM: MOLLUSCA (molluscs)

Rissoidae Alvania sp. 4

Anomiidae Anomia aculeata 6

Anomiidae Anomia simplex 6

Anomiidae Anomia sp 6

Anomiidae Anomia squamula 1

Aplacophora sp. 4

Arcticidae Ocean quahog Arctica islandica 1, 6

Astartidae Astarte castanea 1

Astartidae Astarte crenata-subequilatera 6

Astartidae Astarte elliptica 6

Astartidae Astarte quandrans 6

Astartidae Astarte undata 1, 4

Octopodidae Bathypolypus arcticus 2

Buccinidae Waved Whelk Buccinum undatum 1

Calliostomatidae Calliostoma sp. 2

Cardiidae Cerastoderma pinnulatum 6

Cardiidae Clinocardium ciliatum 4

Buccinidae Pygmy Whelk Colus pygmaeus 1

Flabellinidae Red-gilled nudibranch Coryphella rufibranchialis 1

Mytilidae Crenella decussata 4

Cardiidae Cyclocardia borealis 6

Dendronotidae Dendronotus sp. 1

Onchidorididae Doris sp. 1

Solenidae Ensis directus 6

Epitoniidae Epitonium sp. 2

Hamineidae Haminoea solitaria 4

Ommastrephidae Short fin squid Illex illecebrosus 1

Ischnochitonidae Red Chiton Ischnochiton ruber 1

Loliginidae Long finned squid Loligo pealei 1

Naticidae Lunatia heros 1

Lyonsiidae Lyonsia hyalina 4

Tellinidae Macoma balthica 6

Tellinidae Macoma calcarea 6

Trochidae Top Shell Margarites sp. 1

Thyasiridae Mendicula ferruginosa 6

Mytilidae Northern Horse Mussel Modiolus modiolus 1

Montacutidae Montacutidae sp. 4

Myidae Mya arenaria 4

Mytilidae Mytilus edulis 4

Nassariidae Nassarius trivitattus 1

Buccinidae Ten-Ridged Whelk Neptunea lyrata decemcostata 1

Nuculidae Nucula delphinodonta 4

Nuculidae Nucula proxima 4

Periplomatidae Periploma margaritaceum 4
X. Appendix J. Preliminary Species List for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 327

Veneridae Pitar morrhuanus 6

Pectinidae Sea scallop Placopecten magellanicus 1

Turridae Pyrgocythara plicosa 4

Solenidae Siliqua costata 6

Mactridae Spisula solidissima 6

Mactridae Spisula solidissima 1

Lottiidae Tectura testudinalis 1

Tellinidae Tellina agilis 4

Thyasiridae Thyasira equalis 6

Thyasiridae Thyasira flexuosa 1

Thyasiridae Thyasira gouldii 6

Thyasiridae Thyasira trisinuata 4

Ischnochitonidae Tonicella rubra 1

Nuculanidae Yoldia sp. 4

PHYLUM: ANNELIDA (segmented worms)

Ampharetidae Ampharete finmarchica 4

Terebellidae Amphitrite sp. 6

Ampharetidae Anobothrus gracilis 1

Cirratulidae Aphelochaeta sp. 4

Apistobranchidae Apistobranchus tullbergi 4

Trochilidae Archilochus colubris 2

Paraonidae Aricidea quadrilobata 1

Paraonidae Aricidea catherinae 4

Paraonidae Aricidea cerrutii 4

Paraonidae Aricidea quadrilobata 4

Paraonidae Aricidea taylori 4

Maldanidae Asychis biceps 6

Maldanidae Axiothella eatenata 9

Maldanidae Axiothella mucosa 4

Capitellidae Capitella capitata 4

Cirratulidae Caulleriella sp. 4

Chaetopteridae Chaetopterus variopedatus 6

Cirratulidae Chaetozone setosa 1

Apodidae Chaetura pelagica 2

Sabellidae Chone infundibuliformis 1

Cirratulidae Cirratulidae sp. 4

Cirratulidae Cirratulus sp. 6

Paraonidae Cirrophorus ilvana 4

Pectinariidae Cistenides sp 6

Maldanidae Clymenella sp. 1

Cossuridae Cossura longocirrata 1

Cossuridae Cossura delta 4

Cossuridae Cossura soyeri 4

Fringillidae Dendroica coronata 2

Onuphidae Plumed worm Diopatria cupera 1, 6

Spionidae Diospio sp. 6

Spionidae Dipolydora quadrilobata 4

Spionidae Dipolydora socialis 4

Enchytraeidae Enchytraeidae sp. 4

Phyllodocidae Eteone longa 4

Sabellidae Euchone incolor 4

Eunicidae Eunice pennata 6

Syllidae Exogone hebes 1
328 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Syllidae Exogone verugera 1

Serpulidae Lacy Tube Worm Filograna implexa 1, 8

Oweniidae Galathowenia oculata 4

Glyceridae Glyceridae sp. 4

Goniadidae Goniada maculata 4

Goniadidae Goniadella sp. 1

Goniadidae Goniadella gracilis 4

Polynoidae Harmothoe sp. 4

Capitellidae Heteromastus filiformis 1

Onuphidae Hyalinoecia tubciola 6

Serpulidae Hydroides dianthus 1

Muscicapidae Hylocichla mustelina 2

Spionidae Laonice sp. 6

Orbiniidae Leitoscoloplos sp. 4

Paraonidae Levinsenia gracilis 4

Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris sp. 6

Maldanidae Maldane sarsi 1, 9

Maldanidae Maldane glebifex 4

Maldanidae Maldanopsis elongata 9

Capitellidae Mediomastus ambiseta 1

Capitellidae Mediomastus californiensis 4

Ampharetidae Melinna cristata 6

Hesionidae Microphthalmus sp. 4

Cirratulidae Monticellina baptisteae 4

Oweniidae Myriochele oculata 1

Sabellidae Fan Worm Myxicola infundibulum 1, 11, 8, 9

Nephtyidae Nephtyidae sp. 4

Nephtyidae Nephtys ciliata 4

Nephtyidae Nephtys incisa 4

Nereidae Nereis grayi 4

Maldanidae Nicomache lumbricalis 1, 9

Lumbrineridae Ninoe nigripes 4

Onuphidae Nothria conchylega 6

Onuphidae Onuphis eremite 6

Onuphidae Onuphis opalina 6

Onuphidae Onuphis quadricuspis 6

Opheliidae Ophelia sp 1

Opheliidae Ophelina acuminata 4

Oweniidae Owenia fusiformis 4, 9

Onuphidae Paradiopatra sp. 6

Paraonidae Paraonis gracilis 1

Syllidae Parapionosyllis longicirrata 4

Dorvilleidae Parougia caeca 4

Pectinariidae Trumpet worm Pectinari gouldi 1, 7

Pholoidae Pholoe minuta 1

Phyllodocidae Phyllodoce maculata 4

Phyllodocidae Phyllodocidae sp. 4

Terebellidae Polycirrus sp. 4

Spionidae Polydora cornuta 4

Polygordiidae Polygordius sp. 4

Polynoidae Polynoidae sp. 4

Sabellidae Potamilla sp. 6

Maldanidae Praxillella sp. 9
X. Appendix J. Preliminary Species List for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 329

Maldanidae Praxillura longissima 1

Spionidae Prionospio steenstrupi 1

Dorvilleidae Protodorvillea kefersteini 4

Maldanidae Rhodine sp. 9

Sabellidae Sabella sp. 6

Ampharetidae Samythella sp. 4

Scalibregmatidae Scalibregma inflatum 4

Lumbrineridae Scoletoma fragilis 4

Lumbrineridae Scoletoma verrilli 4

Serpulidae Serpula sp. 1

Sphaerodoridae Sphaerodoropsis minuta 4

Syllidae Sphaerosyllis brevifrons 4

Spionidae Spio filicornis 1

Spionidae Spio pettiboneae 1

Spionidae Spio limicola 4

Chaetopteridae Spiochaetopterus sp. 6

Spionidae Spiophanes bombyx 4

Serpulidae Spiral Tube Worm Spirorbis spirorbis 1

Fringillidae Spizella pusilla 2

Sternaspidae Sternaspis scutata 1

Terebellidae Streblosoma spiralis 1

Spionidae Streblospio benedicti 4

Syllidae Streptosyllis arenae 4

Syllidae Syllides longocirrata 4

Syllidae Syllis alosae 4

Trichobranchidae Terebellides stroemi 4

Cirratulidae Tharyx acutus 4

Terebellidae Thelepus cincinnatus 1

Trochochaetidae Trochochaeta multisetosa 1

Tubificidae Tubificidae sp. 4

PHYLUM: ARTHROPODA (crabs, lobsters, shrimp)

Aeginellidae Aeginella longicornis 4

Caprellidae Aeginina longicornis 6

Ampeliscidae Aeginellidae sp. 4

Ampeliscidae Ampelisca macrocephala 6

Ampeliscidae Ampelisca vadorum 4

Eusiridae Amphithipsis sp 6

Anthuridae Anoplodactylus lentus 4

Axiidae Axius serratus 6

Aoridae Balanus balanus 4

Aoridae Balanus crenatus 4

Balanidae Rough Barnacle Balanus hameri 1

Balanidae Brisaster fragilis 1

Ampeliscidae Byblis gaimardi 1

Bodotriidae Calanus finmarchicus 1

Calliopidae Calliopius laeviusculus 6

Axiidae Calocaris templemanni 6

Bodotriidae Campylaspis rubicunda 6

Calanidae Cancer borealis 1

Cancridae Cancer borealis 6

Cancridae Cancer irroratus 6

Portunidae Carcinus maenas 6
330 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Hipolytidae Caridon gordoni 6

Gammaridae Casco bigelowi 6

Cancridae Jonah Crab Centropages typicus 1

Centropagidae Chiridotea caeca 1

Chaetiliidae Corophium sp. 1

Clausocalanidae Crangon septemspinosis 1

Crangonidae Crangon septemspinosa 6

Corophiidae Crassicorophium crassicorne 1

unknown Decapoda crustacea 6

Corophiidae Desmosomatidae sp. 4

Crangonidae Dichelopandalus leptocerus 1

Pandalidae Dichelopandalus pubescens 6

Crangonidae Dulichia porrecta 1

Cylindroleberididae Edotia montosa 4

Epimeriidae Epimeria loricata 6

Desmosomatidae Erichthonius difformis 4

Euchaetidae Ericthonius sp. 1

Hipolytidae Eualus fabricii 6

Hipolytidae Eualus pusiolus 6

Euphausiidae Euchaeta norvegica 1

Euphausiidae Eudorella pusilla 1

Eusiridae Eusirus cuspidatus 6

Hippolytidae Euthemisto sp. 1

Geryonidae Geryon quinquedens 6

Caprellidae Harloops tubicola 6

Hyperiidae Harpinia propinqua 1

Nephropidae American Lobster Homarus americanus 4

Idoteidae Hyas coarctatus 4

Majidae Hyas coarctatus 6

Hyperidae Hyperia galba 6

Hyperidae Hyperoche medusarum 6

Hipolytidae Lebbeus groenlandicus 6

Hipolytidae Lebbeus polaris 6

Hipolytidae Lebbeus zebra 6

Aoridae Lembos websteri 6

Isaeidae Leptocheirus pinguis 4

Ischyroceridae Leptocuma sp. 4

Lithodidae Lithodes maja 6

Leuconidae Lysianassidae sp. 4

Lithodidae Meganyctiphanes norvegica 2

Lysianassidae Metopella angusta 4

Majidae Toad Crab Metridia lucens 1

Oedicerotidae Monoculodes tuberculatus 6

Nannastacidae Oithona sp. 4

Nephropidae Pagurus arcuatus 1

Oedicerotidae Pagurus asadianus 4

Paguridae Pagurus pubescens 6

Pandalidae Pandalus montagui 6

Pandalidae Pandalus propinquus 6

Pandalidae Northern pink shrimp Pandalus borealis 1

Oedicerotidae Paroediceros lynceus 6

Paguridae Pasiphaea sp. 1

Pasiphaeidae Pasiphaea multidentata 6
X. Appendix J. Preliminary Species List for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 331

Paguridae Hairy Hermit Crab Petalosarsia declivis 1

Pandalidae Photis sp. 1

Pandalidae Phoxocephalus holbolli 1

Paramunnidae Pleurogonium spinosissimum 4

Pleustidae Pleustes panoplus 6

Isaeidae Podoceropsis nitida 6

Crangonidae Pontophilus norvegicus 6

Melitidae Protomedia fasciata 6

Phoxichilidiidae Long-leggedlentil sea spider Pseudocalanus mintus 1

Phoxocephalidae Ptilanthura tenuis 4

Crangonidae Sabinea sarsii 6

Crangonidae Sabinea septemcarinata 6

Crangonidae Sclerocrangon boreas 6

Phoxocephalidae Sclerocrangon boreas 4

Hipolytidae Spirontocaris liljeborgii 6

Hipolytidae Spirontocaris spinus 6

Pleustidae Spirontocaris sp. 4

Pleustidae Stegocephalus inflatus 6

Pleustidae Stenopleustes sp 6

Podoceridae Synasterope cushmani 4

Pseudocumatidae Temora longicornis 4

Stenothoidae Thysanoessa sp. 4

Corophiidae Unciola irrorata 6

Temoridae Unciola irrorata 1

PHYLUM: PHORONIDA (marine worms)

Phoronidae Phoronis sp. 4

PHYLUM: ECTOPROCTA (moss animals)

Bugulidae Spiral Tufted Bryozoan Bugula turrita 1

Scrupocellariidae Caberea ellisii 1

Bugulidae Dendrobeania murrayana 1

Lichenoporidae Disporella hispida 1

Hippothoidae Hippothoa hyalina 1

Tubuliporidae Idmidronea atlantica 1

Schizoporellidae Schizomavella auriculata 1

Tubuliporidae Tubulipora lilacea 1

PHYLUM: BRACHIOPODA (lamp shell)

Cancellothyrididae Northern Lamp Shell Terebratulina septentrionalis 1

PHYLUM: ECHINODERMATA (sea stars, cucumbers, urchins)

Asteriidae Northern Sea Star Asterias vulgaris 1

Asteroidea sp. 4

Amphiuridae Axiognathus squamatus 1

Solasteridae Spiny Sunstar Crossaster papposus 1

Porcellanasteridae Ctenodiscus crispatus 1

Cucumariidae Orange Footed Cucumber Cucumaria frondosa 1

Echinarachniidae Common Sand Dollar Echinarachnius parma 1

Echinoidea sp. 4

Gorgonocephalidae Northern basket star Gorgonocephalus arcticus 1

Antedonidae Hathrometra sp. 1

Echinasteridae Blood Sea Star Henricia sanguinolenta 1
332 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Goniasteridae Horse Star Hippasteria phrygiana 1

Asteriidae Leptasterias sp. 1

Molpadiidae Molpadia oolitica 1

Ophiacanthidae Ophiacantha sp. 1

Ophiactidae Daisy Brittle Star Ophiopholis aculeata 1

Ophiuridae Ophiura robusta 1

Ophiuridae Ophiura sarsi 1

Poraniidae Badge Star Porania insignis 1

Psolidae Scarlet Cucumber Psolus fabricii 1

Psolidae Psolus sea cucumber Psolus fabricii 1

Psolidae Psolus phantapus 1

Pterasteridae Pteraster militaris 2

Solasteridae Smooth Sunstar Solaster endeca 1

Asteriidae Stephanasterias albula 1

Strongylocentrotidae Green Sea Urchin Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis 1

PHYLUM: CHAETOGNATH (arrow worm)

Eukrohniidae Eukrohnia sp. 1

Sagittidae Sagitta elegans 1

Sagittidae Sagitta lyra 1

PHYLUM: UROCHORDATA (tunicates)

Polyclinidae Sea Grape Aplidium constellatum 1

Polyclinidae New York Sea Grape Aplidium pallidum 1

Ascidiidae Ascidia callosa 1

Pyuridae Boltenia echinata 1

Pyuridae Boltenia ovifera 1

Styelidae Botrylloides diegense 1

Cionidae Ciona intestinalis 1, 8

Styelidae Dendrodoa carnea 1

Didemnidae Didemnum albidum 1

Pyuridae Halocynthia pyriformis 1

Molgulidae Northern White Crust Molgula citrina 1

Molgulidae Molgula manhattensis 1

Styelidae Styela sp. 1

Polyclinidae Synoicum pulmonaria 1

Didemnidae Sea Vase Trididemnum solidum 1

PHYLUM: CHORDATA—FISHES

Alopiidae Thresher shark Alopias vulpinus 13

Clupeidae Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 3

Clupeidae Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 3

Clupeidae American shad Alosa sapidissima 1, 3

Ammodytidae American sand lance Ammodytes americanus 1, 3

Anarhichadidae Atlantic Wolfish Anarhichas lupus 1, 3

Gasterosteidae Fourspine stickleback Apeltes quadracus 3

Argentinidae Atlantic argentine Argentina silus 3

Ariommatidae Silver rag Ariomma bondi 3

Agonidae Alligatorfish Aspidophoroides monopterygius 1, 3

Clupeidae Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus 3

Lotidae Cusk Brosme brosme 1, 3

Carcharhinidae Sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus 13

Carcharhinidae White shark Carcharodon carcharias 13
X. Appendix J. Preliminary Species List for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 333

Serranidae Black sea bass Centropristis striata 1, 3

Cetorhinidae Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus 13

Paralichthyidae Gulfstream flounder Citharichthys arctifrons 3

Clupeidae Atlantic herring Clupea harengus 1, 3

Cryptacanthodidae Wrymouth Cryptacanthodes maculatus 3

Cyclopteridae Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus 1, 3

Lotidae Fourbeard Rockling Enchelyopus cimbrius 1, 3

Cyclopteridae Atlantic spiny lumpsucker Eumicrotremus spinosus 3

Gadidae Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua 1, 3

Gasterosteidae Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus 3

Pleuronectidae Witch flounder Glyptocephalus cynoglossus 1, 3

Scorpaenidae Blackbelly rosefish Helicolenus dactylopterus 3

Hemitripteridae Sea raven Hemitripterus americanus 1, 3

Pleuronectidae American plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides 1, 3

Pleuronectidae Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus 1, 3

Carcharhinidae Shortfin mako Isurus oxyrinchus 13

Carcharhinidae Porbeagle Lamna nasus 13

Ophidiidae Fawn cusk eel Lepophidium cervinum 3

Lophiidae Goosefish Lophias americanus 1, 3

Stichaeidae Snakeblenny Lumpenus lumpretaeformis 1, 3

Stichaeidae Daubed shanny Lumpenus maulatus 1, 3

Zoarcidae Wolf eelpout Lycenchelys verrilli 3

Zoarcidae Ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus 1, 3

Osmeridae Capelin Mallotus villossis 1

Sternoptychidae Pearlsides Maurolieus muelleri 3

Gadidae Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus 1, 3

Zoarcidae Atlantic soft pout Melanostigma atlanticum 3

Atherinopsidae Atlantic silverside Menidia menidia 3

Merlucciidae Silver hake (Whiting) Merluccius bilinearis 1, 3

Gadidae Tomcod Microgadus tomcod 2

Molidae Ocean sunfish Mola mola 1

Moronidae Striped bass (Rockfish) Morone saxatilis 1

Cottidae Grubby Myoxocephalus anaeus 3

Cottidae Longhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus 1, 3

Cottidae Shortnose sculpin Myoxocephalus scorpius 3

Myxinidae Hagfish Myxine glutinosa 1, 3

Nemichthyidae Slender snipe eel Nemichthys scolopaceus 3

Paralichthyidae Summer flounder Paralichthys denatus 1

Paralichthyidae Fourspot flounder Paralychthis oblongus 1, 3

Stromateidae Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus 1, 3

Ophichthidae Snake eel Ophichthus cruentifer 3

Pleuronectidae Winter flounder Pleuronectes americanus 1, 3

Pleuronectidae Yellowtail flounder Pleuronectes ferrungineus 3, 4

Gadidae Pollack Pollachius virens 1, 3

Pomatomidae Bluefish (snapper) Pomatomus saltatrix 1

Carcharhinidae Blue shark Prionace glauca 13

Triglidae Northern Sea robin Prionotus carolinus 1, 3

Rajidae Clearnose skate Raja eglanteria 3

Rajidae Little skate Raja erinacea 1, 3

Rajidae Barndoor skate Raja laevis 1

Rajidae Winter skate Raja ocellata 1, 3

Rajidae Thorny skate Raja radiata 3

Rajidae Smooth skate Raja senta 3
334 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Salmonidae Atlantic salmon Salmo salar 3

Scombridae Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus 1, 3

Scomberesocidae Atlantic saury Scomberesox saurus 3

Scophthalmidae Windowpane flounder Scophthalmus aquosus 1, 3

Sebastidae Redfish Sebastes fasciatus 1, 3

Squalidae Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias 1, 3

Sparidae Scup (Porgy) Stenotomus chrysops 1, 3

Syngnathidae Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus 1, 3

Labridae Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus 1, 3

Scombridae Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus 1

Cottidae Mustache sculpin Triglops murrayi 3

Stichaeidae Radiated shanney Ulvaria subbifurcata 3

Phycidae Red hake Urophycis chuss 1, 3

Phycidae Spotted hake Urophycis regia 1, 3

Phycidae White hake Urophycis tenuis 1, 3

PHYLUM: CHORDATA—MARINE REPTILES

Cheloniidae Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta 1

Cheloniidae Green turtle Chelonia mydas 1

Dermochelyidae Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea 1

Cheloniidae Kemp’s ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempi 1

PHYLUM: CHORDATA—BIRDS

Alcidae Razorbill Alca torda 5

Alcidae Dovekie Alle alle 5

Anatidae Common Eider Ardea herodias 5

Anatidae Atlantic Brant Branta bernicla 5

Laridae South Polar Skua Calidris minutilla 5

Procellariidae Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea 5

Laridae South polar skua Catharacta maccormickii 5

Laridae Great skua Catharacta skua 5

Alcidae Black guillemot Cepphus grylle 5

Laridae Black tern Chlidonias niger 5

Anatidae Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 5

Procellariidae Yellow-nossed albatross Diomedea chlororhynchos 5

Procellariidae Black-browed albatross Diomedea meleanophris 5

Falconidae Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 5

Laridae Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica 5

Procellariidae Northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis 5

Gaviidae Common loon Gavia immer 5

Gaviidae Red-throated loon Gavia stellata 5

Laridae Herring gull Larus argentatus 5

Laridae Laughing gull Larus articilla 5

Laridae Ring-billed gull Larus delwarensis 5

Laridae Iceland gull Larus glaucoides 5

Laridae Glaucous gull Larus hyperboreus 5

Laridae Great Black-backed gull Larus marinus 5

Laridae Bonaparte’s gull Larus philadelphia 5

Anatidae White-winged scoter Melanitta deglandi 5

Anatidae Black scoter Melanitta negri 5

Anatidae Surf scoter Melanitta perspicillata 5

Sulidae Northern Gannet Morus bassanus 5

Hydrobatide Wilson’s Storm-Petrel Oceanites oceanicus 5
X. Appendix J. Preliminary Species List for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary 335

Hydrobatide Leach’s Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma leaucorhoa 5

Phalacrocoracidae Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 5

Phalacrocoracidae Great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 5

Scolopacidae Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicaria 5

Scolopacidae Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 5

Procellariidae Greater Shearwater Puffinus gravis 5

Procellariidae Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus 5

Procellariidae Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus 5

Laridae Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla 5

Anatidae Red-breasted merganser Somateria mollisima 5

Laridae Long-tailed jaeger Stercorarius longicaudus 5

Laridae Parasitic jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus 5

Laridae Pomarine jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus 5

Laridae Least tern Sterna albifrons 5

Laridae Roseate tern Sterna dougalii 5

Laridae Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri 5

Laridae Common tern Sterna hirundo 5

Laridae Royal tern Sterna maxima 5

Laridae Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea 5

Alcidae Common Murre Uria aalge 5

Alcidae Thin-billed murre Uria lomvia 5

Laridae Sabine’s gull Xema sabini 5

PHYLUM CHORDATA—MARINE MAMMALS

Balaenopteridae Minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata 1

Balaenopteridae Sei whales Balaenoptera borealis 1

Balaenopteridae Blue whales Balaenoptera musculus 1

Balaenopteridae Fin whales Balaenoptera physalus 1

Delphinidae Common dolphins Delphinus delphis 1

Balaenidae Northern right whales Eubalaena glacialis 1

Delphinidae Short-Finned Pilot whales Globicephala macrorhynchus 1

Delphinidae Long-Finned Pilot whales Globicephala melaena 1

Physeteridae Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus

Delphinidae Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus 1

Phocidae Gray seal Halichoerus grypus 1

Delphinidae White-sided dolphins Lagenorhynchus actutus 1

Delphinidae White-beaked dolphins Lagenorhynchus albirostris 1

Balaenopteridae Humpack whales Megaptera novaeangliae 1

Delphinidae Orca whales Orcinus orca 1

Phocidae Harbor seal Phoca vitulina 1

Phocidae Hooded seal Cystophora cristata

Phocidae Ringed seal Pusa hispida

Phocidae Harp seal Phoca groenlandica 1

Phocoenidae Harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena 1

Delphinidae Striped dolphins Stenella coeruleoalba 1

Delphinidae Bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus 1
336 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

References for Species List

1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan, 

Volumes I and II: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, July 1993, Silver Spring, MD.

2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, 2006. SBNMS Seafloor 

Habitat Recovery Monitoring Program (SHRMP) Database.

3. Auster, P.J., 2002. Representation of biological diversity of the Gulf of Maine Region at Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary (Northwest Atlantic): Patterns of Fish Diversity and Assemblage Composition. Managing Protected Areas 

in a Changing World. S. Bondrup-Nielson et al., eds., Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, 

NS, Canada, 1096-1125.

4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), 2006. An 

Ecological Characterization of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Region: Oceanographic, Biogeographic, 

and Contaminants Assessment. Prepared by NCCOS’s Biogeography Team in cooperation with the National Marine Sanctuary Program. Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Technical Memorandum NCCOS 45. 356 pp.

5. Petersen, W.R. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Massachusetts Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program. http://www.massaudubon.org/Birds_&_Beyond/IBAs/index.php. 

6. Theroux, R.B. and R.L. Wigley, 1998. Quantitative Composition and Distribution of the Macrobenthis Invertebrate 

Fauna of the Continental Shelf Ecosystems of the Northeastern United States, United States Department of Commerce, 

NOAA Technical Report, NMFS 140. 240 pp.

7. Ward, N.F.R., 1995. Stellwagen Bank: A Guide to the Whales, Sea Birds, and Marine Life of the Stellwagen Bank National 

Marine Sanctuary. Down East Books, Camden, ME. 232 pp.

8. McNaught, D., in preparation. Boulder and Gravel Invertebrate Epifauna in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.

9. Grannis, B.M., 2005. Impacts of mobile fishing gear and a buried fiber-optic cable on soft-sediment benthic community 

structure. Master’s Thesis, University of Maine, Orono, ME.

10. Gosner, K.L., 1971. Guide to Identification of Marine and Estuarine Invertebrates. New York: Wiley-Interscience, Division of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

11. Auster, P.J., R.J. Malatesta, S.C. LaRosa, R.A. Cooper, and L.L. Stewart, L.L., 1991. Microhabitat utilization by the megafaunal assemblage at a low relief outer continental shelf site – Middle Atlantic Bight, USA. Journal of Northwest Atlantic 

Fisheries Science, 11, 59-69.

12. Langton, R.W., E.W. Langton, R.B. Theroux, and J.R. Uzmann, 1990. Distribution, Behavior and Abundance of Sea 

Pens, Pennatula aculeata, in the Gulf of Maine. Marine Biology, 107, 463-469.

13. Skomal, G. MDMF, personal communication, 2007.
X. Appendix K. Description of Typical Waste Discharges in the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary 337

Appendix K. Description of

Typical Waste Discharges in the

Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary

Black water, gray water, bilge water, ballast water, hazardous 

materials and solid waste are the significant types of vessel 

discharge in the sanctuary. This appendix explains what the 

wastes are produced from, what they include, how much 

is produced, and indicates principal regulations pertaining to each type of discharge. The information provided is 

based on typical cruise ship operations, but these types of 

discharges are not limited to that class of vessel and can 

vary in degree and kind.

Black Water

Produced from: vessel sewage. It is more concentrated than 

land-based sources since it is diluted with less water (3 qts/

flush vs. 3-5 gal/flush).

Includes: bacteria, viruses, nutrients, chemicals and deodorants (chlorine, ammonia, formaldehyde).

Production: typical cruise ship produces an est. 210,000 

gal/week; no data on other vessels.

Regulations: Federal regulations under the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) classify sewage as a pollutant. Cruise ships are 

not subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitting program, which requires landbased facilities to obtain permits for discharges. Section 312 

of CWA regulates black water (sewage) from cruise ships 

where vessels are required to possess a U.S. Coast Guard 

certified marine sanitation device (MSD). 

Specifics:

•	requires the use of MSDs for all vessels within 3 nautical

miles of the coast.

•	vessels over 65 feet must have a type II or type III MSD

(type II = standard of 200 fecal coliform per per 100 ml of 

water discharged; type III unit is to contain sewage until it 

can be disposed of [i.e., a holding tank]).

•	CWA can be applied to any discharge beyond the 3-mile

limit that affects water quality within that limit.

•	raw sewage can be legally discharged beyond 3 nautical

miles.

Gray Water

Produced from: wastewater from sinks, showers, laundry 

and galleys.

Includes: suspended solids, oil, grease, ammonia, nitrogen, 

phosphates, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, 

detergents, cleaners, other metals, pesticides, medical and 

dental waste.

Production: typical cruise ship produces an estimated 

1,000,000 gal/week; no data on other vessels.

Regulations: Federal regulations do not prohibit discharge 

in state or U.S. waters, except for the Great Lakes and state 

waters of Alaska.

Bilge Water

Produced from: fuel, oil, and wastewater from engines and 

machinery that collects at the bottom of a ships hull, from 

spills, leaks, routine operations and condensation.

Includes: fuel, oil, fresh and salt water, rags, cleaning agents, 

paint, metal shavings and live organisms.

Production: typical cruise ship produces an estimated 

25,000 gal/week; estimated up to 2 million gallons per day 

released in U.S. by all vessels.

Regulations: Section 311 of CWA states:

•	discharge of oil content < 15 parts oil per one million

parts water (ppm) <= 12 nautical miles is prohibited,

•	discharges with oil content > 100ppm > 12 nautical miles

is prohibited.

•	Also discharge of oily waste is addressed under MARPOL

and under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 

(APPS).

Ballast Water

Produced from: Ballast water is used for trim, safety and 

stabilization of vessels and adapted to loads and sea conditions. The International Maritime Organization, the USCG, 

Canada and several other countries and states have either 

voluntary guidance or legislation requiring ballast water 

management. Because of the lack of alternative treatments, 

the preferred interim treatment is ballast water exchange in 

mid-ocean for vessels entering the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ). Unfortunately, it is difficult to access the level 

of voluntary compliance, even with the mandatory reporting 

forms. The USCG has a report to Congress that says compliance is very low (NBIC, 2001). In New England, only about 

35% of the vessels submit forms, an insufficient number to 

draw conclusions. Moreover, coastal vessels do not have to 

report ballast water exchange or submit forms. 

Studies indicate that ballast water is one of the major vectors 

for exotic species introductions. Over 80% of the world’s 

goods are transported by ships that globally discharge 

approximately 10 billion metric tons of ballast water each 

year. Over 3,000-7,000 species are carried in ballast 

tanks daily, and though few become established and fewer 

become invasive, those that do may cause economic and 

ecological harm. The greatest concern has been focused on 

coastal areas where introduced species have dramatically 

impacted nearshore ecosystems, aquaculture and harbor 

and port infrastructure. 

Unfortunately, once marine organisms are established, it is 

virtually impossible to remove them. Thus, prevention is 

the best option for managing introduced species. Current 

efforts in the northeast are focusing on a regional ballast 

water management plan as other efforts at the international 

and national levels move forward. These efforts include 
338 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

identification of scientifically based alternative ballast 

water exchange zones, actions for ports and harbors, and 

increased pressures for compliance with current voluntary 

ballast water management efforts.

Includes: thousands of marine species including larvae, fish 

eggs, microorganisms.

Production: typical cruise ship uses millions of gallons.

Regulations: No federal regulations. Ballast Water Management for Control of Nonindigenous Species Act in California 

requires vessels to exchange ballast water in waters beyond 

200 nautical miles from land and at least 2,000 meters 

deep, or to retain all ballast water, but until recently coastal 

traffic vessels (e.g., those within the EEZ or 200 miles of 

the coast) are exempt. Cruise vessels are exempt, however 

new regulations require vessels to exchange ballast before 

entering the EEZ and to report ballast treatment for coastal 

traffic vessels.

Hazardous Materials

Produced from: by-products of dry cleaning and photo 

processing operations, paints and solvents, batteries, fluorescent light bulbs containing mercury, and print shop wastes 

from cruise ships and metals, oil, solvents and a variety of 

other materials from other vessels. 

Includes: chemicals and dry cleaning agents, photo processing chemicals, paints and solvents, mercury, and inks and 

dyes from printing processes.

Production: typical cruise ship produces an est. 110 gal/

week photo processing chemicals, 5 gal/week of dry cleaning wastes, 10 gal/week of used paint; unknown amounts 

for other vessels (Royal Caribbean, 2000).

Regulations: RCRA requires hazardous substances be 

offloaded to land-based treatment or disposal facilities for 

all cruise ships and other vessels that generate or transport 

such materials.

Solid Waste

Produced from: normal vessel operations.

Includes: food waste, cans, glass, wood, cardboard, paper 

and plastic. Also ash of incinerated wastes is discharged at 

sea. Other waste is disposed on shore and/or recycled on 

shore. Solid waste can take from weeks to years to dissolve 

in the ocean depending on the material. 

Production: typical cruise ship produces an est. 8 tons/week; 

no data on other vessels.

Regulations: APPS and CWA. Marine Plastic Pollution and 

Control Act regulates the disposal of plastic and garbage. 

Specifics: 

•	disposal of plastics is prohibited in any waters

•	floating dunnage and packing materials are prohibited in

navigable water within 25 nautical miles from land

•	other garbage (paper, glass, rags, metal and similar

material) is prohibited within 12 nautical miles from 

shore (unless it is macerated, where it can be disposed of 

beyond land)
X. Appendix L. Cetacean and Pinniped Species Descriptions 339

Appendix L. Cetacean and 

Pinniped Species Descriptions

BALEEN WHALES

Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), the largest animal 

on earth measuring up to 100 ft. (33 m), are rarely seen in 

the sanctuary. Like other mysticetes, blue whales tend to 

travel alone or in small, short-lived groups. The distribution 

of blue whales in the western North Atlantic ranges from 

the Arctic to at least mid-latitude waters (NOAA, 2005a). 

Small, periodic concentrations of krill on Stellwagen Bank 

may support a stray blue as it moves to its primary feeding 

grounds further north, to the Gulf of St. Lawrence during 

spring and summer. Blue whales are pelagic, primarily found in deep, offshore waters, and are rare in shallow 

waters. The current minimum estimate for the western 

North Atlantic stock is 308 whales (NOAA, 2005b). 

Fin whales (Balenoptera physalus), second to the blue 

whale in size, are sighted year-round in the sanctuary. They 

occur widely in the mid-Atlantic throughout the year, with 

concentrations from Cape Cod north in summer and from 

Cape Cad south in winter. The GoM and New England 

coast is a major feeding ground for fin whales from spring 

to fall. Relatively little is known about the movements and 

behavior of fin whales: they travel quickly and individuals 

are difficult to identify in the field, making research a challenge. Photo-identification of fin whales (Agler et al., 1993) 

has begun to clarify their natural history. 

The fin whale’s unique asymmetrical pigmentation on its 

lower jaw — black on the left, white on the right — is 

diagnostic at close range. Most individuals have a “blaze” 

(swirls) on the right side of the head and a V-shaped chevron across the back behind the blowholes. The pattern of 

these markings, together with the shape of the dorsal fin, 

is often used to identify individuals. Tagging and photoidentification studies suggest considerable site fidelity on 

feeding grounds (NOAA 2006). Segregations seem to occur 

at least in summer, with larger mature whales arriving at 

feeding areas earlier, and departing later, than the smaller 

individuals. Within the GoM, lactating females and their 

calves primarily occupy, or at times are the only ones occupying, this southern portion of their summer feeding range 

(Agler et al., 1993).

Although fin whales appear to be migratory, their overall 

broad latitudinal range is confusing and likely complex 

(Christensen et al., 1992). Regular mass movements along 

well-defined migratory corridors, with specific end-points, 

have not been documented by sightings. However, acoustic recordings from passive-listening hydophone arrays 

indicate a southward “flow pattern” in the fall from Labrador-Newfoundland region, south past Bermuda, and into 

the West Indies (Clark, 1995). It is assumed that fin whales 

breed in the middle North Atlantic, with mating and calving 

occurring from November to March; however, the location 

of their wintering grounds is poorly known (NOAA, 2006). 

The best population estimate for this species in the western 

North Atlantic is 2,814 individuals (Waring et al., 2001).

Humpback whales (Megaptera noavaeangliae) are highly 

migratory animals, spending spring through fall on feeding 

grounds in mid- or high-latitude waters, and wintering on 

calving grounds in the tropics. As with other baleen species 

in the sanctuary, the abundance of humpbacks may be tied 

to the abundance of their preferred food, sand lance. In 

years of low regional sand lance productivity humpbacks 

may bypass the sanctuary area for more productive areas 

further north or offshore.

Individual humpbacks are identified by the black and white 

pigmentation patterns and scars on the underside of their 

flukes (tails). Photographs of these natural markings have 

allowed researchers to monitor the movements, health and 

behavior of individual humpbacks in the GoM since the 

early 1970s. Photo-identification studies have demonstrated that North Atlantic humpback whales return each spring 

to specific feeding grounds, such as the GoM (including the 

sanctuary), Gulf of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, Labrador, 

Greenland, Iceland and Norway. The GoM (including 

sanctuary waters) was identified as a discrete feeding population based on high rates of annual return and low rates of 

exchange with other oceanic feeding grounds (Katona and 

Beard, 1990; Katona and Beard, 1991). These data also 

confirmed exchange between the GoM feeding ground 

and the West Indies breeding ground (Katona and Beard, 

1990). 

The study of humpback whales in the sanctuary and the 

GoM is one of the longest contiguous studies of a baleen 

whale population anywhere in the world. In the GoM, 

whale watching data demonstrated that the high return rates 

of calves to the GoM region reflect maternally-directed site 

fidelity (Clapham and Mayo, 1987). Despite site fidelity, 

whales from all feeding grounds migrate to common breeding areas in the West Indies, where they mate and calve 

(Katona and Beard, 1990). The largest breeding population of North Atlantic humpbacks is found on Silver Bank 

in the Dominican Republic. NOAA and the Santuario de 

Mamiferos Marinos de la Republica Dominicana (SMMRD) 

have collaborated to establish a sister sanctuary relationship 

between the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary and the SMMRD to 

protect this resource on both ends of its migratory range. 

GoM whale watching data have provided observations 

on humpback whale reproductive behavior, based upon 

longitudinal studies of known females (Robbins, 2000). 

The number of years between successive calves (calving 

interval) was determined for humpback whales (as well as 

fin whales and northern right whales) from GoM sightings. 

Other findings include gross annual rates of calf production in the population, and prediction of discrete events 

such as weaning. Annual resightings of GoM humpback 

whales permitted the slow accumulation of information on 

the age of first reproduction (Robbins, 2000). The North 

Atlantic humpback whale population has been estimated 

at 10,400 animals (Smith et al., 1999). It is estimated that 

there are fewer than 7,000 humpbacks in U.S. waters. The 
340 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

best population estimate for the GoM stock is a minimum of 

647 whales (NOAA, 2005c). 

Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) have been observed 

sporadically in the sanctuary in late summer or autumn 

and are likely related to prey abundance. They have been 

dubbed “switch hitters” as they have been observed with 

right whales skim feeding on euphasids and copepods 

as well as feeding on small fish close to humpback and 

finbacks. Presence of sei whales may be a good indicator of cyclical changes on Stellwagen Bank. For example, 

during the summer of 1986 (Schilling et al., 1992), whalewatchers were surprised by the fact that very few humpback 

whales were present on Stellwagen Bank. The population 

of sand lance, the small fish that makes up the bulk of the 

humpback’s diet there, was exceptionally low. Numbers of 

copepods, the main source of food for sand lance, exploded 

in their absence, creating a temporary hot spot for feeding 

sei and right whales. Perhaps coincidentally, one of the few 

sightings of a blue whale, another planktivorous species, 

came from this year as well. The population size of the 

sei whale in U.S. North Atlantic waters is unknown. In the 

spring and summer, sei whales occur in the southern end 

of their range, which includes the GoM and Georges Bank 

(NOAA, 2006b). 

Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), the smallest 

baleen whale, are commonly seen in the sanctuary and the 

GoM in spring and summer. During the fall, there are fewer 

minke whales in New England waters, while during winter 

the species appears to be largely absent. The number of 

minke whales that use the sanctuary changes from year to 

year and calves are rarely observed (Murphy, 1995). Minke 

whales usually travel alone or in very loose groups, generally don’t create a spout when at the surface and often change 

direction quickly. All of these characteristics make them a 

challenge to observe or to individually identify. 

Minke whales off the eastern coast of the U.S. are considered to be part of the Canadian East Coast stock. Studies of 

minkes in other areas indicate that their diet may be more 

diverse than other local baleen whales, their diet including 

copepods, krill, capelin, herring, sand lance and squid. The 

total number of minke whales in the Canadian East Coast 

population is unknown but a minimum population estimate 

is 3,113 (NOAA, 2005d).

North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) are critically endangered with a total population estimate between 

300 to 350 individuals. Individual right whales are identified by callosities, the rough, light-colored areas found on 

the top of the head, around the blowholes, chin, jawline 

and above the eyes. These callosity patterns do not change 

over the lifetime of the individual.

Seasonal movements are generally between rich summer 

feeding grounds and warm winter calving grounds with 

peak migration periods in November/December and March/

April. From late winter to early fall, North Atlantic right 

whale distribution tends to correlate with the location of 

their preferred copepod prey, Calanus finmarchicus. Primary GoM feeding grounds in the spring and early summer, 

where particularly dense patches of prey occur, include 

designated critical habitats of Cape Cod Bay and portions 

of Stellwagen Bank (late winter) and Great South Channel 

(spring). While whales have been sighted year round in 

Cape Cod Bay, the peak period of feeding in that area is 

January to May. 

During summer and fall most of the population feeds on 

different banks in Southeast Canada such as the Bay of Fundy. 

“Courtship groups” are also seen at this time. Typically, 

pregnant females, females with young calves, and juveniles, 

as well as a few atypical individuals migrate seasonally 

along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and Canada between 

calving grounds in the south and feeding areas in the north, 

generally via near shore waters in the mid-Atlantic. Right 

whales spend about one-third of their time surface feeding 

in the Cape Cod/Massachuetts Bay and GoM areas, which 

may increase ship strike and entanglement risk from buoy 

line and surface fishing line systems (NOAA, 2006a). It is 

unknown where the bulk of the non-calving population 

spends the winter.

TOOTHED WHALES 

Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), the largest of the 

toothed whales, grow up to 18 m (60 ft.) in length. Among 

cetaceans, this species displays the greatest difference in 

size between males and females. They are usually seen in 

deep, offshore waters, but they can occur near shore, where 

the continental shelf is narrow and the water deep, well 

away from the relatively shallow waters of Stellwagen Bank. 

Sightings in our area are extremely rare, usually amounting 

to a stranding of lone individuals along our beaches.

Belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) have been sighted in 

the sanctuary area on occasion. Individuals from the St. 

Lawrence, Canada, population may follow cold water 

currents south (as far south as Long Island, NY). In 1971, a 

medium-sized, white whale with no dorsal fin was spotted 

inside the Cape Cod Canal. Another sighting occurred in 

Massachusetts Bay a few years ago.

Orcas (Orcinus orca) are the largest delphinid (dolphin). 

Up to 9 m (30 ft.) in length, these massive predators use 

the sanctuary and surrounding waters only rarely. Over 

the years most sightings of orca in our area have occurred 

in August and September, perhaps tied to the end of the 

northward run of bluefin tuna. Different social groups of 

these whales may specialize on different prey items in the 

GoM, including herring and cod. Almost nothing is known 

about the North Atlantic orca populations, including where 

they come from, general movements, social structure, etc. 

Sightings of orca are sporadic at best; many years may pass 

between sightings.

Long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melaena) are 

seasonal residents of the sanctuary area but, like most other 

toothed whales, their abundance from year to year depends 

upon the presence of their favored prey. These whales 

are sexually dimorphic in size and, to some extent, shape. 

Males tend to be larger than females, growing up to 6 m (20 

ft.), and develop a more pronounced ‘pothead’ and more 
X. Appendix L. Cetacean and Pinniped Species Descriptions 341

rounded dorsal fin. They are all black (hence the common 

name ‘blackfish’) except for a light anchor patch on the 

belly between the flippers. Some individuals may have faint 

gray markings behind the eyes or behind the dorsal fin. As 

schooling fish migrate inshore during the late summer and 

fall, so do the squid and pilot whales. Adult female pilot 

whales may direct the tight knit pods, numbering from less 

than a dozen to over a hundred, to the changeable feeding grounds. In some populations, pilot whale calves may 

remain in their maternal pods. To reduce inbreeding, many 

pods may form massive herds, especially in early summer.

Sightings of pilot whales in the sanctuary can occur throughout the year with a peak in fall. As pilot whales head inshore 

to forage they can be sighted from land. Such sightings often 

preclude a mass stranding where entire pods come ashore. 

Records show that such strandings have occurred throughout history but reactions toward these strandings have 

changed. Until the 1920s, Cape Cod communities would 

actively herd pilot whales toward shore or take advantage of 

strandings for meat and oil. Large-scale human efforts today 

work at returning the whales to sea or reducing the amount 

of suffering.

DOLPHINS AND PORPOISES

White-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) are 

closely related to the white-sided dolphins and, like them, 

are found only in the North Atlantic. Little is known about 

this species as sightings and strandings are quite rare on this 

side of the Atlantic. Pods tend to be smaller in number 

than in the white-sided dolphin, and they have been seen 

moving in echelon formation (side-by-side as a front). Their 

diet seems to be more tied to squid than fish and sightings 

may be correlated to the abundance of these invertebrates.

Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) were 

relatively uncommon in our area prior to the late 1970s, 

and white-beaked dolphins were common. Both of these 

related species have a somewhat varied diet but differ in 

their preferences: white-beaked tends to favor squid while 

white-sides favor small, schooling fish. About two decades 

ago, sand lance populations exploded in the sanctuary and 

sightings of white-beaked became rare while white-sides 

increased.

Pod structure seems to be based upon closely related 

females, accompanied by calves of all ages and a few unrelated males. These highly mobile groups are not permanent 

residents of the sanctuary. They range widely throughout 

the GoM and are sighted where food, such as herring and 

sand lance, are most abundant. Pods may also join other 

species of whales during feeding, such as humpbacks and 

pilot whales. New calves are most commonly seen in May, 

June and July. Migration is still poorly understood and may 

be characterized as inshore for winter, offshore for summer. 

In early fall (August) a few scattered pods may be sighted 

becoming more common through late fall and winter. 

By mid-April most pods leave the area, perhaps to more 

offshore and northern feeding grounds. Mass strandings are 

most common in fall and spring.

Common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) are a more offshore 

species, preferring the warmer, deeper waters south and east 

of Georges Bank. It has been dubbed saddle back dolphin 

due to their dark, saddle-shaped marking on its mid-back. 

Only a few individuals have been sighted over the years in 

the sanctuary area, especially during the summer months. 

Stranded individuals may come ashore during the winter.

Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are large, robust 

dolphins found in cool water habitats further to the south 

of the sanctuary. At least two forms of bottlenose exist: the 

larger offshore populations and the smaller, more familiar 

inshore populations. It is not clear whether the few live 

sightings of individuals in the sanctuary area are of the 

offshore or inshore forms. Both forms occasionally strand 

along the coasts of Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay. 

Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus) are animals of warmer, deeper waters to the south of the sanctuary. They 

are believed to be squid hunters and the few sightings of 

live individuals may represent strays during warm water 

episodes or during northward movements of their favored 

prey. A few individuals have been found stranded on Cape 

Cod beaches.

Harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) are among the 

smallest cetaceans in the world reaching 1.7 m (6 ft.) and 

63 kg (140 pounds) in weight. These are coastal animals 

and are only rarely found transiting the sanctuary area. 

More often they are spotted around harbors by observers 

heading out for whale watches or research cruises. They 

tend to be shy, inconspicuous animals that are difficult to 

spot. Despite their size and more coastal affinities, harbor 

porpoises are prodigious divers, reaching down to 230 m 

(760 ft.) in search of prey. Like most marine mammals, 

porpoises are opportunistic feeders, taking advantage of 

whatever is locally abundant. Yet the distribution and 

movements of porpoises in the GoM seems to be intimately 

tied to the annual movements of different species of herring. 

As herring move toward spawning rivers in spring and early 

summer, harbor porpoises are likely to follow. As the young 

herring head out to sea so do the porpoises (sightings of 

porpoises in the GoM are very rare during the winter).

As coastal animals tied to a relatively restricted diet, harbor 

porpoise populations are susceptible to a variety of human 

disturbances. Some of the highest concentrations of 

industrial pollutants have been found in tissue samples of 

porpoise, including large loads of PCB’s and heavy metals. 

Entanglements in gillnets pose a serious threat to the population throughout the GoM.

SEALS

Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) are the most abundant pinniped species in eastern U.S. waters. They are widely distributed along the coast, preferring sheltered and undisturbed 

rocky ledge haul-out areas in bays and estuaries from Maine 

south to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. During the first half of 

the 20th century, harbor seals bred as far south as Cape Cod 

Bay, but currently are only seasonal residents in the sanctuary and southern New England (from late September until 
342 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

late May). Breeding occurs from late April until late June, 

exclusively north of Massachusetts. 

Since passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 

1972, harbor seal abundance in New England has increased 

nearly five-fold (NOAA, 2001). NOAA Fisheries Service has 

not identified harbor seals as a “strategic stock” because the 

known human-caused mortality and serious injury is below 

that level thought to inhibit the recovery of the species 

(n=1,859). In the shallower waters adjacent to Cape Cod, 

and within the sanctuary, harbor seals feed almost exclusively on sand lance. Data from the NOAA Fisheries Service 

Observer Program demonstrate that harbor seals are caught 

and killed in the sanctuary by the sink gillnet fishery, but the 

total number is not currently known.

Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) occurring in the sanctuary 

are part of an abundant (143,000) and increasing population 

that has a distribution from New England to Labrador and is 

centered on the Sable Island area of Nova Scotia, Canada. 

NOAA Fisheries Service has not designated gray seals as a 

“strategic stock” (NOAA, 2001) and no gray seals “takes” 

were documented in the sanctuary by the NOAA Fisheries 

Service Observer Program in the years 2000-2002.

Harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandica), Hooded seals 

(Cystophora cristata ) and Ring seals (Pusa hispida) are ice 

seals that are generally distributed in and around the pack 

ice of the North Atlantic Ocean. In late spring after the 

breeding season, both species migrate north to summer 

feeding grounds, following the receding ice edge. They 

share much of their range and habitat in the North Atlantic, although hooded seals tend to live farther offshore and 

feed in deeper water. Because of this, the hooded and harp 

species only gather together in the same areas during part of 

their breeding season (Lavingne and Kovacs, 1988). Over 

the past decade, there has been an increase of extralimital occurrences of harp and hooded species, extending 

their range south of their historic northern range along the 

east coast of North America. It has not been determined, 

however, whether these occurrences are due to an increase 

in population abundance or to a shift in habitat use. Sightings of ring seals are rare in the sanctuary.

Go to the following URLs for additional species information: 

IUCN Redlist: 

http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/search-basic 

NMFS Stock Assessment: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/
X. Appendix M. Northeast Region Whale Watch Guidelines Including the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary 343

Appendix M. Northeast Region

Whale Watch Guidelines

Including the Stellwagen Bank

Sanctuary

All whales, dolphins and porpoises in the northeast region 

are federally protected by the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) and most large whales in the area are further 

protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under 

these Acts, it is illegal to “harass, hunt, capture or kill” any 

marine mammal. Prohibited conduct includes any “negligent or intentional act which results in the disturbing or 

molesting of marine mammals.” The following operational 

procedures are intended to avoid harassment and possible 

injury to large whales, particularly the finbacks, humpbacks 

and minke whales commonly seen by vessels engaged in 

whale watching. Following the guidelines can help protect 

both you and the whale you wish to watch and keep you 

from accidentally violating federal law. 

**The right whale is protected by separate State and Federal regulations that prohibit approach within 500 yards of 

this species. Any vessel finding itself within the 500 yard 

buffer zone created by a surfacing right whale must depart 

immediately at a safe slow speed. The only vessels allowed 

to remain within 500 yards of a right whale are vessels with 

appropriate research permits, commercial fishing vessels in 

the act of hauling back or towing gear, or any vessel given 

prior approval by NOAA Fisheries Service to investigate a 

potential entanglement. 

OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES WHEN IN SIGHT OF 

WHALES: 

2 miles to 1 mile away: 

•	Reduce speed to 13 knots.

•	Post a dedicated lookout to assist the vessel operator in

monitoring the location of all marine mammals. 

•	Avoid sudden changes in speed and direction.

•	Aircrafts should maintain a minimum altitude of 1,000

feet over water. 

1 mile to 1⁄2 mile away: 

•	Reduce speed to 10 knots.

1⁄2 mile or less: 

•	Reduce speed to 7 knots.

•	Maneuver to avoid head-on approach.

CLOSE APPROACH PROCEDURE: 

600 feet or closer: 

•	Parallel the course and speed of moving whales up to the

designated speed limit within that distance. 

•	Do not attempt a head-on approach to whales.

•	Approach and leave stationary whales at no more than

idle or “no wake” speed, not to exceed 7 knots. 

•	Do not intentionally drift down on whales.

•	Vessels in multi-vessel approaches should maintain

communication with each other (via VHF channels 9, 13, 

or 16 for hailing) to coordinate viewing. 

•	Take into account the presence of obstacles (vessels,

structures, fishing gear, or the shoreline). All vessels in 

close approach must stay to the side or behind the whales 

so they do not box in the whales or cut off their path. 

STAND-BY ZONE 300 feet to 600 feet away: 

•	Two vessel limit within the 300- to 600-foot Stand-By

Zone at any one time. 

CLOSE APPROACH ZONE 100 feet to 300 feet away: 

•	One vessel limit.

•	Other vessels stand off (up to two vessels in Stand-By

Zone – others outside 600 feet). 

•	If more than one vessel is within 600 feet, the vessel within 300 feet should limit its time to 15 minutes in close 

approach to whales. 

NO INTENTIONAL APPROACH WITHIN 100 FEET. 

•	Do not approach within 100 feet of whales. If whales

approach within 100 feet of your vessel, put engines in 

neutral and do not re-engage propulsion until whales are 

observed clear of harm’s way from your vessel. 

DEPARTURE PROCEDURE

All vessels should leave the whales following the same 

speed and distance procedures described above. 

•	In order for vessels to be clear of whales before dark,

vessels should cease whale watching and begin their 

return to port 15 minutes before sunset. 

Penalties: A violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

may result in fines or civil penalties of up to $10,000 or 

criminal penalties of up to $20,000 plus IMPRISONMENT 

and/or SEIZURE OF VESSEL and other personal property. A 

violation of the Endangered Species Act may result in fines 

or civil penalties of up to $25,000 or criminal penalties of 

up to $50,000 plus IMPRISONMENT and/or SEIZURE OF 

VESSEL and other personal property. 

CONTACT NUMBERS 

Whale Watching Information For more information on the 

whale watching guidelines or laws pertaining to marine 

mammals, call: NOAA Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division: 978-281-9300 x-6505 

Right Whale Sighting All sightings of a right whale should 

be called in to the NOAA Fisheries Service Sighting Advisory System: 978-585-8473 (pager) 

Entangled Whale Any sighting of an entangled whale should 

be reported. Vessels should stand-by and keep the whale 

in sight until help arrives (an estimated 45 min. or more) 

or arrange for another vessel to maintain contact with the 

whale. Disentanglement HOTLINE (weekdays): 800-900-

3622 or Disentanglement pager: 508-307-5300 or NOAA 

Fisheries Service Stranding & Entanglement HOTLINE: 978-

281-9351 or USCG on VHF CH-16 
344 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Entangled Right Whale Maintain 500 yards. To report or get 

authorization to approach, call: Disentanglement Hotline 

(weekdays): 800-900-3622 or Disentanglement pager: 508-

307-5300 or NOAA Fisheries Service Stranding & Entanglement Hotline: 978-281-9351 

Dead Whale Any sighting of a dead whale should be reported to the NOAA Fisheries Service Stranding & Entanglement 

Hotline: 978-281-9351 

Potential Violations Any activity that appears to be an intentional or negligent action leading to a collision or harassment incident should be reported to the NOAA Enforcement 

HOTLINE: 800-853-1964 
X. Appendix Federal Regulations on Approach to Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales 345

Appendix N. Federal

Regulations on Approach to

Endangered North Atlantic

Right Whales

[The following regulations are excerpted from 50 CFR, 

subpart F, §224.103. For the latest version of these regulations including their coordinates refer to http://www.nmfs.

noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale.htm]

(c) Approaching right whales

(1) Prohibitions. Except as provided under paragraph (c)(3) of 

this section, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, attempt to commit, 

to solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed any 

of the following acts: 

(i) Approach (including by interception) within 500 yards 

(460 m) of a right whale by vessel, aircraft, or any other 

means; 

(ii) Fail to undertake required right whale avoidance 

measures specified under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

(2) Right whale avoidance measures. Except as provided 

under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the following avoidance measures must be taken if within 500 yards (460 m) of 

a right whale: 

(i) If underway, a vessel must steer a course away from the 

right whale and immediately leave the area at a slow safe 

speed. 

(ii) An aircraft must take a course away from the right whale 

and immediately leave the area at a constant airspeed. 

(3) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply to this section, 

but any person who claims the applicability of an exception 

has the burden of proving that the exception applies: 

(i) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply if a 

right whale approach is authorized by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service through a permit issued under part 222, 

subpart C, of this chapter (General Permit Procedures) or 

through a similar authorization. 

(ii) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply 

where compliance would create an imminent and serious 

threat to a person, vessel, or aircraft. 

(iii) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply 

when approaching to investigate a right whale entanglement or injury, or to assist in the disentanglement or rescue 

of a right whale, provided that permission is received from 

the National Marine Fisheries Service or designee prior to 

the approach. 

(iv) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply 

to an aircraft unless the aircraft is conducting whale watch 

activities. 

(v) Paragraph (c)(2) of this section does not apply to the 

extent that a vessel is restricted in her ability to maneuver 

and, because of the restriction, cannot comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 
346 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appen

dix

O. Prioritize

d

Strategy

I

m

plementation

B

ase

d on Fun

ding

Scenarios

Action Plan/Objective Strategy

Strategy 

Prioritization

Partner 

Requirement 

Strategy implementation 

based on funding

Scenario 

I [1]

Scenario 

II [2]

Scenario 

III [3]

CAPACITY BUILDING

Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure (ADMIN)

ADMIN.1 Improve Site Staffing and Support Capabilities for SBNMS Programs

(1.1) Integrate staff capabilities with changing program needs.

H

❍

●

●

●

(1.2) Hire additional staff and streamline organizational structure.

H

❍

●

■

❍

(1.3) Enhance operation of the sanctuary advisory council.

H

❍

●

●

❍

ADMIN.2 Maintain and Enhance the Infrastructure of the Site

(2.1) Maintain and acquire vessels as necessary.

H

■

●

■

❍

(2.2) Work with NMSP to develop and implement a long-range facilities plan that prioritizes opportunities with the town of Scituate.

H

●

●

■

❍

(2.3) Maintain a database for sanctuary permitting.

H

❍

●

●

●

(2.4) Meet the equipment needs of an expanded SBNMS diving program.

H

❍

●

■

❍

(2.5) Develop an effective enforcement program.

H

●

●

■

❍

ADMIN. 3 Develop a SBNMS Volunteer Organization to Support Sanctuary Programs and Enhance Site Visibility

(3.1) Develop SBNMS volunteer program.

H

●

●

■

❍

(3.2) Maintain and expand the volunteer dive corps activities.

H

●

●

■

❍

(3.3) Develop and support international exchange of volunteers between SBNMS and other MPAs. L ■

●

❍

❍

Interagency Cooperation (IC)

IC.1 Facilitate Cooperation and Coordination Between Agencies

(1.1) Re-establish discussions regarding a possible MOU between the NOAA/SBNMS and the NOAA Fisheries Service, NERO and the NEFMC to facilitate cooperation and coordination.

H

■

●

●

●

(1.2) Coordinate proposed activities with the NOAA Fisheries Service NERO

H

■

●

●

●

(1.3) Facilitate cooperative research and outreach between NOAA/SBNMS and the NOAA Fisheries Service, NEFSC.

H

■

●

●

●

(1.4) Evaluate the MOA between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NOAA Fisheries Service for commenting on proposed activities occurring at the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site (MBDS).

H

■

●

●

●

IC.2 Establish Mechanisms for Improving Information Sharing

(2.1) Provide information via the web on the responsibilities and activities of multiple agencies that have roles pertinent to the SBNMS.

M

■

●

●

●

(2.2) Provide regular updates to the USCG Area Contingency Plans.

M

■

●

●

●

(2.3) Establish a mechanism for informal consultation with the EPA, NEFMC, MWRA, MADEP and MACZM Office on water quality issues.

M

■

●

●

❍

BUDGET SCENARIOS: [1] Scenario I (full funding: $2.4M not including federal salaries) [2] Scenario II (20% increase from level funding) [3] Scenario III (level funding: $1.46M)

● Full

■ Partial

❍ None
X. Appendix O. Prioritized Strategy Implementation Based on Funding Scenarios 347 Action Plan/Objective Strategy Strategy Prioriti- zation Partner Require- ment Strategy implementation based on funding Scenario I [1] Scenario II [2] Scenario III [3] IC.2 Establish Mechanisms for Improv- ing Information Sharing, continued (2.4) Update and continue to implement the sanctuary cooperative enforce- ment program.

H

●

●

■

❍

(2.5) Continue to convene meetings of the sanctuary advisory council’s Interagency Cooperation Working Group. L ■

●

●

●

(2.6) Participate in the GoM Council and other regional initiatives. 

M

■

●

●

●

(2.7) Participate on relevant advisory panels of the NEFMC.

H

■

●

●

●

(2.8) Depiction of sanctuary boundary.

H

●

●

●

●

Public Outreach and Education (POE)

POE.1 Improve Outreach and Education Capacity to Increase Sanctuary Visibility, Awareness, and Stewardship

(1.1) Produce public outreach products and programs that best address sanctuary visibility needs.

H

■

●

●

●

(1.2) Develop and implement outreach programs with stakeholder groups to increase sanctuary visibility and promote sanctuary stewardship.

H

■

●

■

❍

(1.3) Work with NMSP to develop and implement a long-range facilities plan that prioritizes partnering opportunities with interpretive centers and articulates federal funding needs.

H

■

●

■

❍

(1.4) Establish a Media Outreach Program.

H

■

●

■

❍

POE.2 Improve Capacity for Formal and Informal Education Programs that Support Management Goals

(2.1) Develop an action plan for establishing education partnerships and identify the types of programs and objectives that would best be achieved.

H

■

●

■

❍

(2.2) Support K-12 Educational Programming.

M

■

●

■

❍

(2.3) Support Undergraduate and Graduate Education Programming.

M

■

●

■

❍

(2.4) Support Adult Education Programming.

H

■

●

■

❍

Compatibility Determination (CD)

CD.1 Develop a Framework for Sanctuary Compatibility Determination (1.1) Demonstrate the application of S-CAP.

H

■

●

■

❍

(1.2) Refine S-CAP by incorporating results of ongoing sanctuary monitoring.

M

■

●

■

❍

ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION

Ecosystem-based Sanctuary Management (EBSM)

EBSM.1 Establish a Science Review Protocol

(1.1) Establish a science advisory working group.

H

●

●

●

❍

(1.2) Convene a sanctuary science symposium.

M

■

●

■

❍

(1.3) Form a science consortium. L ●

●

●

❍

EBSM.2 To Establish an Information Management System

(2.1) Design and implement an information management system.

H

❍

●

■

■

(2.2) Design and implement a web portal for public access to databases. L ❍

●

■

❍

EBM.3 Understand Ecosystem Structure and Function (3.1) Define and operationalize the term ecological integrity. 

H

■

●

■

■

BUDGET SCENARIOS: [1] Scenario I (full funding: $2.4M not including federal salaries) [2] Scenario II (20% increase from level funding) [3] Scenario III (level funding: $1.46M)

● Full

■ Partial

❍ None
348 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment Action Plan/Objective Strategy Strategy Prioriti- zation Partner Require- ment Strategy implementation based on funding Scenario I [1] Scenario II [2] Scenario III [3] EBM.3 Understand Ecosystem Struc- ture and Function, continued (3.2) Develop programs to monitor and evaluate ecological integrity within the sanctuary. 

H

■

●

■

■

(3.3) Establish research programs directed at informing EBSM.

H

■

●

■

■

(3.4) Develop models that afford a predictive capability to better understand sanctuary dynamics and to guide EBSM.

M

■

●

■

❍

EBM.4 Protect Ecological Integrity

(4.1) Establish a Zoning WG of the sanctuary advisory council to: (1) evaluate the adequacy of existing zoning schemes in the SBNMS, (2) satisfy the scientific requirements of EBSM, and, if needed, (3) develop a modified zoning scheme including consideration of fully protected reserves.

H

● ● 

●

●

EBM.5 Evaluate the Need and Feasibility of Modifying the Sanctuary Boundary (5.1) Evaluate the need and feasibility of modifying the sanctuary boundaries to include Jeffrey’s Ledge. L ■

●

❍

❍

Ecosystem Alteration (EA)

EA.1 Reduce Impacts of Laying Cables and Pipelines

(1.1) Establish minimum criteria for special use permit applications for the laying of cables and pipelines. L ❍

●

❍

❍

EA.2 Reduce Alteration of Benthic Habitat by Mobile Fishing

(2.1) Develop a process to establish reference areas that serve as benchmarks for discerning human and natural impacts on habitat quality.

H

■

●

●

●

(2.2) Develop a science plan to assess and mitigate benthic habitat alteration.

H

■

●

●

❍

EA.3 Reduce Impacts of Biomass Removal by Fishing Activity

(3.1) Minimize bycatch and discard of all species, in all fisheries (commercial and recreational), by all gear types. 

H

■

●

■

■

(3.2) Determine the effects of the biomass removal of targeted species by commercial and recreational fishing on the ecological integrity of the sanctuary.

H

■

●

■

❍

(3.3) Develop a management strategy with NOAA Fisheries Service and the NEFMC to evaluate and protect an optimal forage base to maintain the ecological integrity of the sanctuary.

H

■

●

●

●

Water Quality (WQ)

WQ.1 Assess Water Quality and Circulation

(1.1) Develop and implement a water quality monitoring plan.

H

■

●

■

❍

(1.2) Characterize the contaminant loading to the sanctuary from sources. L ■

●

❍

❍

(1.3) Encourage research of endocrine disrupters and their effects on sanctuary resources. L ■

●

❍

❍

WQ.2 Reduce Pollutant Discharges and Waste Streams That May Affect the Sanctuary

(2.1) Reduce threats to sanctuary water quality from vessel wastewater discharges (other than ballast water).

H

■

●

■

❍

(2.2) Reduce ballast water exchanges in the sanctuary.

H

■

●

■

❍

BUDGET SCENARIOS: [1] Scenario I (full funding: $2.4M not including federal salaries) [2] Scenario II (20% increase from level funding) [3] Scenario III (level funding: $1.46M)

● Full

■ Partial

❍ None
X. Appendix O. Prioritized Strategy Implementation Based on Funding Scenarios 349 Action Plan/Objective Strategy Strategy Prioriti- zation Partner Require- ment Strategy implementation based on funding Scenario I [1] Scenario II [2] Scenario III [3] WQ.2 Reduce Pollutant Discharges and Waste Streams That May Affect the Sanctuary, continued (2.3) Reduce impacts of municipal and other shore-based waste water streams. L ■

●

❍

❍

(2.4) Develop contingency plans to address actions and responsibilities to remediate catastrophic water quality events in the sanctuary and support programs that prevent water pollution events.

M

■

●

■

❍

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION

Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance (MMBS)

MMBD.1 Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance by Vessels

(1.1) Develop and implement management measures that mitigate behavioral disturbance and risk to whales due to vessel speed and close approach

H

■

●

●

■

(1.2) Develop a process to consider prohibiting vessels from transiting through humpback whale bubble clouds and/or nets.

H

■

●

●

■

(1.3) Conduct risk assessment on other activities that could disturb marine mammals. L ■

●

❍

❍

(1.4) Develop a research program to better understand vessel interactions with whales.

H

■

●

■

❍

MMBD.2 Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance by Noise

(2.1) Establish a Marine Noise Consortium to identify noise sources and possible effects.

H

■

●

●

●

(2.2) Develop a marine acoustics research program to establish baseline noise levels and long-term noise budgets.

H

■

●

●

■

(2.3) Develop a policy framework for investigating and mitigating noise impacts within the sanctuary.

H

■

●

●

●

MMBD.3 Reduce Marine Mammal Behavioral Disturbance by Aircraft

(3.1) Identify information gaps to gather additional data on overflight activities to understand the potential disturbance of marine mammals. L ■

●

❍

❍

(3.2) Develop outreach advisories with NOAA Fisheries Service to inform the aviation community regarding overflight in proximity to whales. L ●

●

■

❍

Marine Mammal Vessel Strike (MMVS)

MMVS.1 Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strike Between Large Commercial Ships and Whales

(1.1) Consult with NOAA Fisheries Service on their proposed strategy to reduce ship strike to North Atlantic right whales and evaluate how such measures would affect the sanctuary.

H

●

●

●

●

(1.2) Develop, demonstrate and evaluate the SBNMS Information and Reporting Center.

H

■

●

■

■

(1.3) Determine the conservation benefit of reconfiguring the existing Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) within the sanctuary to reduce the risk of ship strike to whales.

H

■

●

●

●

MMVS.2 Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strike Through Speed Restrictions

(2.1) Institute year-round voluntary speed restrictions for all vessels operating in the sanctuary.

H

■

●

●

❍

BUDGET SCENARIOS: [1] Scenario I (full funding: $2.4M not including federal salaries) [2] Scenario II (20% increase from level funding) [3] Scenario III (level funding: $1.46M)

● Full

■ Partial

❍ None
350 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment Action Plan/Objective Strategy Strategy Prioriti- zation Partner Require- ment Strategy implementation based on funding Scenario I [1] Scenario II [2] Scenario III [3] MMVS.3 Support and Develop Research Programs To Reduce the Risk of Vessel Strikes (3.1) Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to support their ongoing database of all known vessel strikes in and around the sanctuary.

H

●

●

●

●

(3.2) Work with NOAA Fisheries Service to institute a toll free number to enable callers to anonymously report vessel strikes in the sanctuary.

M

●

●

●

■

(3.3) Investigate research strategies to determine responses of whales to approaching vessels.

H

■

●

●

●

(3.4) Conduct year-round monitoring to identify type, size, speed, and route of vessels in the sanctuary.

H

■

●

●

■

(3.5) Investigate use of forward-looking sonar or other real-time detection technologies. L ■

●

■

❍

Marine Mammal Entanglement (MME)

MME.1 Aid Disentanglement Efforts

(1.1) Maximize the degree to which entangled animals in the sanctuary are sighted and reported.

H

■

●

●

●

(1.2) Maximize ability of vessels and aircraft to stand-by entangled animals.

H

■

●

●

●

(1.3) Undertake activities leading to improved understanding and prevention of entanglement events in SBNMS and improvements in disentanglement efforts.

M

■

●

■

■

MME.2 Reduce Marine Mammal Interaction with the Trap/Pot Fishery (2.1) Require gear modifications.

H

■

●

●

■

(2.2) Serve as test-bed to develop and demonstrate low-risk fishing gear. 

M

■

●

■

■

MME.3 Reduce Marine Mammal Interaction with the Gillnet Fishery (3.1) Require gear modifications.

H

■

●

●

■

(3.2) Develop research programs.

M

■

●

■

❍

MARITIME HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

Maritime Heritage (MH)

MHR.1 Establish a MHR Program

(1.1) Develop the foundation and infrastructure for a MH program and integrate the MH program into existing sanctuary programs.

H

❍

●

●

●

(1.2) Identify and pursue additional sources of funding beyond the NMSP.

H

■

●

●

●

(1.3) Identify and form partnerships, relationships, and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with entities that have specialized knowledge and abilities that support the documentation and interpretation of the sanctuary’s MHR.

M

●

●

■

❍

BUDGET SCENARIOS: [1] Scenario I (full funding: $2.4M not including federal salaries) [2] Scenario II (20% increase from level funding) [3] Scenario III (level funding: $1.46M)

● Full

■ Partial

❍ None
X. Appendix O. Prioritized Strategy Implementation Based on Funding Scenarios 351 Action Plan/Objective Strategy Strategy Prioriti- zation Partner Require- ment Strategy implementation based on funding Scenario I [1] Scenario II [2] Scenario III [3] MHR.2 Inventory, Assess and Charac- terize MHR (2.1) Characterize prehistoric and historic use patterns to assist with the loca- tion of historical resources through the identification and collection of histori- cal, archaeological, and anthropological documentation.

H

■

●

■

❍

(2.2) Conduct systematic field surveys to locate, identify, and inventory historical resources.

H

❍

●

●

■

MHR.2 Inventory, Assess and Characterize MHR, continued (2.3) Assess historical resources for their NRHP eligibility and nominate appro- priate sites to the NRHP.

H

■

●

●

■

(2.4) Characterize historical resources within the SBNMS.

H

❍

●

●

■

MHR.3 Protect and Manage MHR

(3.1) Implement a management system that protects historical resources while allowing for uses compatible with resource protection.

H

❍

●

●

■

(3.2) Implement a assessment protocol to establish appropriate site designations for sanctuary historical resources. 

H

■

●

●

■

(3.3) Identify partnerships and relationships for site monitoring and compliance of historical resource permits and regulations.

M

●

●

■

❍

(3.4) Develop and implement an interpretive enforcement program

H

●

●

■

❍

(3.5) Develop and implement a mooring buoy system on historical resources in collaboration with affected parties and regional scuba diving charter operators

M

■

●

■

❍

(3.6) Implement the NMSP Permitting Guidelines for archaeological research (i.e., survey and inventory permit and archaeological research permit).

H

❍

●

●

■

(3.7) Develop and implement collection and conservation policies for artifacts previously recovered from SBNMS before and after designation. L ■

●

❍

❍

MHR.4 Develop and Implement a MHR Outreach and Education Program

(4.1) Identify and partner with regional museums, through MOU/Agreements, to conduct MH exhibits and other outreach programs. 

H

●

●

■

❍

(4.2) Develop and implement an artifact documentation and curation program through partnerships and relationships with local or regional maritime museums. 

L ●

●

■

❍

MHR.5 Assess Shipwrecks and Other Submerged Objects for Potential Hazards

(5.1) Establish an inventory of shipwrecks and submerged objects, inside and outside of SBNMS boundaries that may pose environmental threats to resources.

M

■

●

■

❍

(5.2) Coordinate information exchanges pertaining to shipwrecks and other submerged objects as environmental threats with NOAA’s HAZMAT division and the National Marine Sanctuary Program for the development of the SHIELDS and RUST database systems. 

M

■

●

■

❍

(5.3) Identify shipwrecks and other submerged sites to be examined with remote sensing technology and report findings to state and federal trustees. 

M

■

●

■

❍

(5.4) Establish a monitoring program for shipwreck and submerged sites that have been located and are considered a threat to SBNMS.

M

■

●

■

❍

BUDGET SCENARIOS: [1] Scenario I (full funding: $2.4M not including federal salaries) [2] Scenario II (20% increase from level funding) [3] Scenario III (level funding: $1.46M)

● Full

■ Partial

❍ None
352 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix P. Stellwagen Bank

Sanctuary Cooperative

Enforcement Plan

I. Philosophy

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary’s enforcement philosophy 

is to prevent damage to sanctuary resources through public 

education and voluntary compliance, as well as through 

prosecution of violations of the National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act and its implementing regulations, and other regulations 

that are applicable.

II. Mission

The mission of sanctuary enforcement is to ensure compliance with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC 

§1431 et seq.), the regulations of the sanctuary (15 CFR 

§922), and other applicable regulations. 

III. Approach

The sanctuary is committed to “interpretive” law enforcement with an emphasis on community-oriented policing 

and problem solving. In general, interpretive law enforcement strives to achieve voluntary compliance of regulations 

through public outreach. A consistent high-visibility presence on the water and proactive contacts with users shoreside are the hallmarks of this approach.

IV. Authority

Section 307 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to conduct enforcement activities for carrying out the Act, specifies civil penalties, powers of authorized officers, use of the personnel, 

services, and facilities of State and other Federal agencies 

on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis, and provides 

for the recovery of penalties by the Secretary. The Secretary 

has delegated enforcement authority to the Administrator 

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), who assigned the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) with responsibility to conduct enforcement 

actions.

V. Cooperating Agencies

A successful enforcement program requires cooperation 

between State and Federal agencies. The primary agencies 

involved in this enforcement plan are the Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary and the NOAA OLE and Protected Resources Division (PRD). The United States Coast Guard 

and the Massachusetts Environmental Police may become 

part of the enforcement program depending on their resources, priorities, and the development of a memorandum of 

understanding. Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard auxiliary 

and the sanctuary volunteers can assist with the outreach 

component of the interpretive enforcement program. 

VI. Needs

The Stellwagen Bank sanctuary needs the following enforcement capabilities:

•	Regular patrol of the sanctuary waters including distribution of enforcement educational outreach packages

•	Detection, investigation, and prosecution of violations

•	Twenty-four hour response capability (sea or air)

•	Deputization training and updates

•	Inter/intra-agency coordination and coordination of

enforcement assets

•	Administrative, legal and technical support

•	Enforcement outreach to affected commercial and recreational users

VII. Strategy

The above needs will be met via the following plan 

elements: 

A. Planning

The Sanctuary Superintendent and designee of the Special 

Agent in Charge (SAC) shall confer no later than July 31 

each year on the effectiveness of current enforcement efforts 

and programs within the sanctuary and shall identify desired 

funding initiatives for the next fiscal year. 

An annual strategic enforcement plan shall be developed 

by April 1 of each year by the Superintendent, Sanctuary 

Protected Resources Enforcement Coordinator (EC), Sanctuary Enforcement Liaison (SEL), PRD liaison and MEP liaison. This plan will describe enforcement objectives for the 

year and how they will be met. The plan will include an 

outreach component.

Regular patrol schedules shall be established jointly between 

the SEL, EC and the MEP liaison for each month by no later 

than the 10th day of the preceding month. Patrol schedules 

will be subject to change, and all changes shall be coordinated through the SEL.

Tactical planning sessions may be convened ad hoc or 

conducted during monthly patrol planning sessions described 

in item c. of this section. Tactical planning sessions shall be 

directed by the EC and the SEL and will be the forum for 

production of most response action plans.

B. Management

Overall supervision of the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary 

Enforcement Program will be the joint responsibility of the 

sanctuary Superintendent and the EC.

Daily management of the sanctuary Enforcement Program 

will require close coordination between the SEL, the EC, 

and the NMFS PRD liaison.

The EC will directly supervise the tactical assets employed 

for general patrol, surveillance, investigations, inspection 

and field interaction with the public. 
X. Appendix P. Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Cooperative Enforcement Plan 353

The scope of assistance and authority of MEP performing 

Federal enforcement action in support of the sanctuary will 

be defined in a Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperative Enforcement Agreement between the sanctuary, 

NMFS, and the MEP (see section D).

C. Personnel and Duties

1. Sanctuary Superintendent

•	Supervises the Sanctuary Enforcement Liaison.

•	Reviews overall implementation of the sanctuary

Enforcement Program and directs/recommends changes 

as appropriate.

•	Identifies short and long-term threats to sanctuary

resources that may require enforcement action.

•	Coordinates with the DSACand ECto ensure thatsanctuary

enforcement and outreach concerns are addressed.

•	Meets with the NOAA General Counsel for Enforcement

and Litigation (GCEL), NMFS NE PRD and DSAC on an 

as needed basis to ensure adequate legal support for 

sanctuary/NMFS NE PRD case management.

•	Reviews/recommends candidates for Sanctuary

Enforcement Agent (SEA).

•	Approves sanctuary enforcement expenditures.

•	Approves MOU development or revisions and annual

strategic enforcement plans.

2. EC

•	Reports to DSAC.

•	Coordinates with the Sanctuary Superintendent to ensure

that sanctuary enforcement concerns are addressed.

•	Supervises the Sanctuary Enforcement Agent(s) (SEA).

•	Supervises daily coordination of sanctuary enforcement

efforts between the State, NOAA including OLE and PRD, 

and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

•	Reviews overall sanctuary Enforcement Program and

directs/recommends changes as appropriate.

•	Develops and manages enforcement program budget.

•	Oversees agreements and serves as COTR on all

enforcement contracts.

•	Works in partnership with SEL and MEP liaison to jointly

develop patrol schedules, response action plans and 

interpretive enforcement programs.

•	Manages enforcement MOU development, revision and

implementation.

•	Coordinates deputization training for SEOs.

•	Supervises investigation of potential sanctuary violations.

•	Meets with the Sanctuary Superintendent, NMFS NE PRD

and GCEL on an as needed basis to ensure adequate legal 

support for sanctuary/PRD case management.

•	Attends Protected Resources Enforcement Team meetings

as required.

•	Primary responsibility for responding to government and

public inquiries about the sanctuary Enforcement Program 

in coordination with SEL.

3. SEL

•	Reports to the Sanctuary Superintendent on the status of

the EP and concerns.

•	Maintains coordination / communication link between

SEA, Sanctuary Superintendent, and the Education 

Coordinator.

•	Responds to government and public inquiries about the

sanctuary Enforcement Program.

•	Provides coordination for administrative and technical

support for enforcement activities (e.g., data gathering, 

logistics, field support, fiscal management).

•	Attends Protected Resources Enforcement Team meetings

as required.

•	Assists the EC with training of SEO’s.

4. SEA(s)

•	Reports to the EC.

•	Conducts duties directly related to sanctuary enforcement

priorities and NMFS NE PRD enforcement priorities.

•	Monitors and inspects activities permitted by the

sanctuary.

•	Primary responsibility for conducting presentations/

briefings describing the sanctuary Enforcement Program 

in coordination with SEL.

•	Coordinates with NOAA GCEL concerning case

development and penalty recovery.

•	Prepares enforcement program status reports.

•	Conducts surveillance activities.

•	Receives Enforcement Action Reports and Offense

Investigation Reports from SEOs and the Coast Guard, 

conducts investigations, and coordinates with NOAA 

GCEL concerning case development and prosecution.

•	Attends Protected Resources Enforcement Team meetings

as required.

•	Assists with the development of the sanctuary Summary

Settlement Schedule

5. SEO(s)

•	Reports to the MEP liaison

•	Conducts duties directly related to sanctuary enforcement

priorities.

•	Conducts routine patrols and surveillance.

•	Conducts on-the-water outreach activities.

6. PRD liaison

•	Meets regularly with EC and SEL

•	Contributes to development of annual enforcement plan
354 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

•	Provides technical assistance to EC for protected resources

cases

7. MEP liaison

•	Coordinates with EC on patrols

•	Contributes to development of annual enforcement plan

•	Participates in tactical planning meetings

D. Agency agreements 

MEP

A MOU will be developed between NOS, NMFS and the 

USCG that enables the USCG to enforce the Endangered 

Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act in the sanctuary.

VIII. Acronyms

COTR Contracting Officer Technical Representative

DSAC Deputy Special Agent In Charge

EC Sanctuary Protected Resources Enforcement 

Coordinator

GCEL General Council for Enforcement and 

Litigation

MEP Massachusetts Environmental Police

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NOVA Notice of Violation and Assessment

OLE Office of Law Enforcement

PRD NMFS Protected Resources Division

SAC Special Agent in Charge

Sanctuary Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

SEA Sanctuary Enforcement Agent (NMFS)

SEL Sanctuary Enforcement Liaison

SEO Sanctuary Enforcement Officer (usually state 

MEP officer)

SEP Sanctuary Enforcement Plan

USCG United States Coast Guard
X. Appendix Q. Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary Zoning Working Group Charge and List of Members 355

Appendix Q. Stellwagen Bank

Sanctuary Zoning Working

Group Charge and List of

Members

This appendix describes the establishment of a Zoning 

Working Group pursuant to the proposed Ecosystem-Based 

Sanctuary Management Action Plan, as approved by the 

Sanctuary Advisory Council on October 20, 2004.

NOTE: Given the context of this activity in the Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management Action Plan, the intent 

of this working group is to focus on habitat zoning and 

ecological function. The bounds are relatively narrow and 

do not extend to all aspects of potential sanctuary zoning. 

Other action plans recommend activities to address different zoning considerations (e.g., Marine Mammal Vessel 

Strike –vessel traffic, approach distance; Water Quality – no 

discharge).

Origination

Activity 5.1 from the Ecosystem-Based Management Action 

Plan: Establish a Zoning Working Group (ZWG) to evaluate the adequacy of existing zoning schemes in Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary to satisfy the scientific 

requirements and meet the goals of Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management (EBSM) as defined by the EcosystemBased Management Working Group (EBM WG) in 2004, 

and if needed, develop a modified zoning scheme (including a consideration of fully protected reserves) to meet those 

goals and requirements. 

Purpose

The ZWG was established by the Sanctuary Advisory Council at its November 2004 meeting for the purpose of reviewing and evaluating data and information as it becomes 

available through various venues (e.g., New England Fishery Management Council Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat 

Amendment process, other sanctuary efforts) and making a 

recommendation to the SAC and ultimately to the sanctuary 

superintendent. The membership of the ZWG shall be of 

representative stakeholder groups similar to the EBM WG. 

The ZWG shall begin meeting in January 2005 in order to 

efficiently utilize the time that the final management plan is 

in preparation.

The ZWG shall develop metrics for zone performance 

based on the objectives of the various zones as determined 

by the WG. These metrics shall form the foundation of a 

monitoring program designed to determine the efficacy of 

the zoning scheme and recommend any needed changes to 

accomplish the goals of the zoning scheme and EBSM.

The ZWG shall make recommendations to the SAC regarding the zoning scheme within two years of the implementation of the final management plan as defined by the publication date for the Federal Register Notice notifying the public 

of the availability of the final management plan.

Process

1. ZWG convenes and assigns a subgroup to come up 

with 2-3 operational definitions of ecological integrity 

with measurable parameters.

2. Subgroup makes recommendation on definition of 

ecological integrity appropriate for the sanctuary.

3. ZWG evaluates existing zoning scheme based on agreed 

upon criteria associated with the scientific requirements 

and goals of EBSM.

4. ZWG makes recommendation to SAC on adequacy of 

existing zoning scheme.

5. SAC makes recommendation to superintendent on 

adequacy of existing zoning scheme and future of the 

ZWG.

6. If necessary, the ZWG continues deliberations to develop a modified zoning scheme (including a consideration 

of fully protected reserves) for the purpose of meeting 

the scientific requirements and goals of EBSM within 2 

years of final management plan implementation.
356 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Membership

Chair (1) John Williamson

Team Lead (1) Ben Cowie-Haskell

Academics (3) Les Kaufman, Boston University

Larry Madin, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Lew Incze, University of Southern Maine

Fishing Industry (3)

a. Bottom Mobile Gear Ed Barrett, Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership

b. Bottom Fixed Gear Dave Casoni, Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association

c. Midwater Mary Beth Tooley, East Coast Pelagics

Recreational Fishing (2)

a. Charter Tom DePersia, Stellwagen Bank Charter Fishermen’s Association

b. Private Charles Casella 

Conservation (3) Priscilla Brooks, Conservation Law Foundation

Susan Farady, The Ocean Conservancy

Peter Borelli, Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies

At-large (1) Deborah Cramer, Science Writer

National Marine Fisheries Service (2) Brian Hopper, Protected Species

Susan Murphy, Sustainable Fisheries

Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries (1) David Pierce

Mass. Coastal Zone Management (1) Kate Killerlain Morrison

Total membership (18)
X. Appendix R. Existing Marine Resource Management Zones that Overlap the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 357

Appendix R. Existing Marine

Resource Management Zones

that Overlap the Stellwagen

Bank Sanctuary

a. Cape Cod Critical Habitat For The North

Atlantic Right Whale

[For coordinates for this area refer to http://www.nero.noaa.

gov/nero/regs/]

A critical habitat designation does not set up a preserve or 

refuge—it merely establishes a geographic area that is critical to the survival of an endangered species. Within this 

designated critical habitat, Federal agencies must ensure 

that any actions they authorize (permit), fund, or carry out 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its designated 

critical habitat.

b. Western GOM Essential Fish Habitat Closure

Area

[The following regulations are excerpted from 50 CFR, 

subpart F, §648.81. For the latest version of these regulations including their coordinates refer to http://www.nero.

noaa.gov/nero/regs/]

No fishing vessel or person on a fishing vessel with bottom 

tending mobile gear on board the vessel may enter, fish in, 

or be in the Essential Fish Habitat Closure Areas described 

below, unless otherwise specified.

c. Inshore Restricted Roller Gear Area

[The following regulations are excerpted from 50 CFR, 

subpart F, §648.81. For the latest version of these regulations including their coordinates refer to http://www.nero.

noaa.gov/nero/regs/]

Rockhopper and roller gear restrictions. For all trawl vessels 

fishing in the GOM/GB Inshore Restricted Roller Gear Area, 

the diameter of any part of the trawl footrope, including 

discs, rollers, or rockhoppers, must not exceed 12 inches 

(30.5 cm).

d.-g. GOM Rolling Closure Areas

[The following regulations are excerpted from 50 CFR, 

subpart F, §648.81. For the latest version of these regulations including their coordinates refer to http://www.nero.

noaa.gov/nero/regs/]

No fishing vessel or person on a fishing vessel may enter, 

fish in, or be in; and no fishing gear capable of catching 

NE multispecies, unless otherwise allowed in this part, may 

be in, or on board a vessel in GOM Rolling Closure Areas 

I through V, as described below, for the times specified, 

except as specified below and or under the transiting provisions.

Exceptions to Rolling Closures - Paragraph (1) above does not 

apply to persons aboard fishing vessels or fishing vessels: 

•	That have not been issued a multispecies permit and that

are fishing exclusively in state waters; 

•	That are fishing with or using exempted gear as defined

under this part, subject to the restrictions on midwater 

trawl gear, and excluding pelagic gillnet gear capable of 

catching multispecies, except for vessels fishing with a 

single pelagic gillnet not longer than 300 ft and not greater than 6 ft deep, with a maximum mesh size of 3 inches, 

provided: 

•	The net is attached to the boat and fished in the upper

two-thirds of the water column; 

•	The net is marked with the owner’s name and vessel identification number; 

•	There is no retention of regulated species; and

•	There is no other gear on board capable of catching NE

multispecies; 

•	That are fishing under charter/party or recreational regulations, provided that: 

For vessels fishing under charter/party regulations in a Rolling Closure Area described above, provided it has on board 

a letter of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, which is valid from the date of enrollment through the 

duration of the closure or 3 months duration, whichever is 

greater; for vessels fishing under charter/party regulations 

in the Cashes Ledge Closure Area or Western GOM Area 

Closure, described above, provided it has on board a letter 

of authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, 

which is valid from the date of enrollment until the end of 

the fishing year; 

•	With the exception of tuna, fish harvested or possessed by

the vessel are not sold or intended for trade, barter or sale, 

regardless of where the regulated species are caught; 

•	The vessel has no gear other than rod and reel or handline

on board; and 

•	The vessel does not use any NE multispecies DAS during

the entire period for which the letter of authorization is 

valid; 

•	That are fishing with or using scallop dredge gear when

fishing under a scallop DAS or when lawfully fishing in 

the Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Area, provided 

the vessel does not retain any regulated NE multispecies 

during a trip, or on any part of a trip; or 

•	That are fishing in the Raised Footrope Trawl Exempted

Whiting Fishery,, and in the GOM Rolling Closure Area 

V. 

Exempted Gear - With respect to the NE multispecies fishery, means gear that is deemed to be not capable of catching NE multispecies and includes: Pelagic hook and line, 

pelagic longline, spears, rakes, diving gear, cast nets, tongs, 

harpoons, weirs, dipnets, stop nets, pound nets, pelagic 
358 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

gillnets, pots and traps, purse seines, shrimp trawls (with a properly configured grate as defined under this part), surfclam 

and ocean quahog dredges, and midwater trawls.

Midwater Trawl Gear - Trawl gear that is designed to fish for, is capable of fishing for, or is being used to fish for pelagic 

species, no portion of which is designed to be or is operated in contact with the bottom at any time.
X. Appendix R. Existing Marine Resource Management Zones that Overlap the Stellwagen Bank sanctuary. 359
360 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix S. List of Acronyms

Acronym .................. Meaning

A

ACRU.......................Atlantic Cetacean Research Center

ACTVNY ..................Activities New York

ADMIN ....................Administrative Capacity and Infrastructure

AIS ...........................Automatic Identification System

ALWTRP...................Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

AP ............................Action Plan

ARU .........................Automatic Recording Units

ASMFC.....................Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council

B

BEM ......................... Bays Eutrophication Model

BHNIP...................... Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement 

Project

C

CD ...........................Compatibility Determination

CERCLA....................Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act

COST .......................Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test

CRU .........................Cetacean Research Unit

CSO .........................Combined Sewer Overflows

CWA ........................Clean Water Act

D

DAM ........................ Dynamic Area Management

DAMOS.................... Disposal Area Monitoring System

DAS.......................... Days at Sea

DWPA...................... Deep Water Port Act

E

EA ............................ Ecosystem Alteration

EBM ......................... Ecosystem Based Management

EBSM........................ Ecosystem-Based Sanctuary Management

ECNASAP................. East Coast of North America Strategic 

Assessment Project

EFH .......................... Essential Fish Habitat

EPA........................... Environmental Protection Agency

ESA........................... Endangered Species Act

EIS............................ Environmental Impact Statement

F

FAA .......................... Federal Aviation Administration

FADS........................ Foul Area Disposal Site

FERC ........................ Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FMC ......................... Fishery Management Council

FMP.......................... Fishery Management Plan

FWPCA..................... Federal Water Pollution Control Act

G

GIS........................... Geographic Information System

GLOBEC Program..... Global Ocean Ecosystems Dynamics 

Program

GoM......................... Gulf of Maine

GoMLME.................. Gulf of Maine Large Marine Ecosystem

GoMOOS................. Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System

GoMMPAS ............... Gulf of Maine Marine Protected Areas

GPS.......................... Global Positioning System

H

HAB ......................... Harmful Algal Blooms

HAZMAT.................. Hazardous Materials

HMS......................... Highly Migratory Species

HPTRP...................... Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan

I

ICCAT....................... International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tuna

IC ............................. Interagency Cooperation

IMO ......................... International Maritime Organization

IWS .......................... Industrial Waste Site

J

JEA ........................... Joint Enforcement Agreement

L

LME.......................... Large Marine Ecosystem

LNG ......................... Liquefied Natural Gas

M

MACZM ................... Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

MAFMC.................... Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council

MARPOL.................. International Convention for the Prevention 

of Pollution from Ships

MARAD.................... Maritime Administration

MBDS....................... Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site

Massport................... Massachusetts Port Authority

MEP.......................... Massachusetts Environmental Police

MFCMA.................... Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act

MFP.......................... Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership

MGD........................ Massachusetts Water per Day

MHR ........................ Maritime Heritage Resources

MOU........................ Memorandum of Understanding

MOA........................ Memorandum of Agreement

MITSG...................... Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea 

Grant

MMBD ..................... Marine Mammals Behavioral Disturbance

MME ........................ Marine Mammal Entanglement

MMIRC..................... Marine Mammal Information and Reporting 

Center

MMRA...................... Marine Mammal Research Association

MMS ........................ Mineral Management Service

MMPA...................... Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMVS...................... Marine Mammal Vessel Strikes

MOSA ...................... Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act

MPPRCA................... Marine Plastic Pollution Research and 

Control Act

MPRSA..................... Marine Protection, Research and 

Sanctuaries Act

MPR ......................... Management Plan Review

MSD......................... Marine Sanitation Devices

MSO......................... Marine Safety Office
X. Appendix S. List of Acronyms 361

MWRA ..................... Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

N

NAO......................... North Atlantic Oscillation

NDZ......................... No Discharge Zone

NEAQ....................... New England Aquarium

NEFSC...................... Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NEFMC..................... New England Fishery Management Council

NEPA........................ National Environmental Policy Act

NERO....................... Northeast Regional Office (NOAA)

NHPA....................... National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS....................... National Marine Fisheries Service

NMSF....................... National Marine Sanctuary Foundation

NMSA ...................... National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NMS......................... National Marine Sanctuary

NMSP....................... National Marine Sanctuary Program

NOAA...................... National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

NOAA’s ARCH.......... NOAA’s Archaeological Database

NOS......................... National Ocean Service

NGO........................ Nongovernmental Organization

NPDES ..................... National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System

NRHP....................... National Register of Historic Places

NSF .......................... National Science Foundation

NURC UCONN........ National Undersea Research Center at the 

University of Connecticut

O

OMSAP .................... Outfall Monitoring Science Advisory Panel

OPA ......................... Oil Pollution Act

OPCA....................... Oil Pollution Control Act

OCS ......................... Office Coast Survey

OCSLA ..................... Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

OLE.......................... Office of Law Enforcement

P

PAH.......................... Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCB.......................... Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PCCS........................ Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies

POE.......................... Public Outreach and Education

POTW...................... Publicly Owned Treatment Works

PWC......................... Personal Water Craft

R

RAS .......................... Rapid Assessment Survey

RFA .......................... Recreational Fishing Alliance

ROV......................... Remote Operated Vehicle

RUST........................ Resource Under-Sea Threat Database 

System

RV............................ Research Vessel

S

SAC.......................... Sanctuary Advisory Council

SBNMS..................... Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

S-CAP....................... Sanctuary Compatibility Analysis Process

SCUBA..................... Self-Contained Underwater Breathing 

Apparatus

SD............................ Standard Deviation

SHIELDS................... Sanctuaries Hazardous Incident Emergency 

Logistics Database System

SHRMP..................... Seafloor Habitat Recovery Monitoring 

Program

SMP.......................... Saba Marine Park

SUP.......................... Special Use Permit

T

TRT .......................... Take Reduction Team

TSS........................... Traffic Separation Scheme

U

UNH ........................ University of New Hampshire

UHI.......................... University of Hawaii

UCONN................... University of Connecticut

UMaine.................... University of Maine

USCG....................... United States Coast Guard

USGS ....................... United States Geological Survey

USACE ..................... United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDOC.................... United States Department of Commerce

USDOD ................... United States Department of Defense

USFWS..................... United States Fish and Wildlife Service

V

VERP ........................Visitor Experience Resource Protection

VMS .........................Vessel Monitoring System

VTR..........................Vessel Trip Report

VTSS.........................Vessel Transportation Separation scheme

W

WWAG ....................Whale Watch Advisory Group

WCI..........................Whale Conservation Institute

WCNE......................Whale Center of New England

WG ..........................Working Group

WGoMCA ................Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area

WQ..........................Water Quality

WWF........................World Wildlife Fund
362 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Appendix T. Glossary

A

Anadromous species...............is an animal that spawns in freshwater and lives its life in salt water.

Autotrophic.............................ability to produce complex organic compounds from simple molecules and an external 

source of energy, such as light or chemical reactions of inorganic compounds. Autotrophs 

are considered producers in a food chain.

B

Bacteriophage.........................is a virus that attacks bacteria as the primary host

Bathymetry .............................water depth measurement information used to produce depth-contoured charts

Benthos ..................................is the layer of the ocean that is near and/ or at the bottom, only a few feet above the 

sediment. This is also known as the Benthic Zone.

Biodiversity.............................the variability among living organisms from all sources including inter alia, terrestrial, 

marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a 

part. This is also known as Biological diversity.

Bioinvader .............................is a species and organisms that have moved into as areas outside of their natural geographic 

range.

Biomass .................................is the mass of living material in a given area or volume of habitat.

Bioprospecting .......................the process by which new, useful applications and products are developed form the natural 

environment through scientific discovery and research.

C

Catadromous Species..............A fish species that spawns in saltwater but feeds and spends most of its life in estuarine or 

fresh water

Coccolithiphores.....................are small algae covered by calcium carbonate hubcap-like disks called coccoliths. Chalk 

is made of billions of coccoliths that lithify into rock.

Cryptophyta ............................are small biflagellated protoctistids also known as cryptomonads, some of which are 

autotrophs, others heterotrophs.

Cyclonic storms systems ........a windstorm with a violent whirling movement; a system of rotating winds over a vast area, 

spinning inward to a low pressure center (counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere) 

generally causing stormy weather

D

Diatoms..................................are a major group of eukaryotic algae, and are one of the most common types of 

phytoplankton. Most diatoms are unicellular, although some form chains or simple colonies. 

A characteristic feature of diatom cells is that they are encased within a unique cell wall 

made of silica.

E

Ecological Integrity .................DRAFT definition provided by Zoning working group (Aug.24, 2006): Ecological integrity 

is defined as the degree to which the system is structurally intact and functionally resilient 

within the context of historical baselines. Structurally intact means the native parts of the 

system are maintained as well as their interrelationships. Functional resilience is the system’s 

ability to resist changes caused by human or environmental perturbations, or should change 

occur, to recover over time.

Ekman spiral ..........................a theoretical model of the effect on water of wind blowing over the ocean. The surface layer 

is expected to drift at an angle of 45* to the right of the wind in the Northern Hemisphere 

and 45* to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Water at successively lower layers drifts 

progressively to the right (N), or left (S), though not a swiftly as the surface flow.

Ekman transport .....................the net transportation of water, the sum of layer movement, due to the Ekman spiral. 

Theoretical Ekman transport is the Northern Hemisphere is 90* to the right of the wind 

direction
X. Appendix T. Glossary 363

Endangered species ................is a species that is in danger of becoming extinct, that is protected by the Endangered 

Species Act (EDA).

Endemic .................................is restricted to or native to a particular area or region.

Eutrophication .......................the process by which nutrient-rich waters bring about a high level of biological productivity 

that may ultimately lead to reduced dissolved oxygen levels

F

Fauna......................................animal life of a particular region

Flora .......................................plant life of a particular region

Foraminifera............................are large amoeboid protoctistids with often beautiful shells (tests) constructed of calcium 

carbonate. Benthic foraminifera live on the seabottom.

G

Glaciation ..............................the processes by which glaciers are formed and reformed to create various geological 

structures.

H

Halocline ...............................the zone of the ocean in which salinity increases rapidly with depth.

Heterotrophic .........................ability to derive nutrition either by eating other things or by photosynthesizing. For plankton, 

often means absorbing dissolved organic matter directly.

Holozooplankton ...................species will spend their entire life suspended in the water.

Hydrography ..........................is the study, description, and mapping of oceans, lakes, and rivers with an emphasis on 

navigation.

I

Infaunal .................................organisms that live buried in sediments, including a variety of polychaetes, burrowing 

crustacean, and mollusks

K

Keystone species ....................a single species whose activities determine community structure; a species whose presence 

if critical to that community

L

Lightering ...............................is the process of transferring fuel from one transportation unit (barge or ship) to a smaller 

vessel. This is useful when having to deliver oil and gas products to harbors with shallow 

channels that would not be able to handle a larger tanker vessel.

Local extinction ......................is the eradication of any geographically discrete population of individuals while others of 

the same species or subspecies survive elsewhere.

M

Macrophytes...........................refers to large, fleshy plants like seaweeds or seagrasses.

Microhabitat ..........................refers to both the physical substratum (e.g., sand waves, cobbles, boulders) and any 

associated structure-forming taxa (e.g., anemones, sponges, amphipod tubes). In addition 

to the organisms that form them, microhabitats are critical for a variety of fish species at 

different life history stages.

Mictic ....................................refers to the mixing of organisms

N

Nanoplankton.........................is the fraction of plankton (small eukaryotic protists) composed by cells between 2-20 μm) 

Nektonic ................................highly motile organisms, such as fishes and squids that live in, or above, the seagrass 

canopy

Nonpoint source pollutant .....those pollutant discharges not associated with a specific location (e.g., urban and agricultural 

pesticide runoff)

Nertic Zooplankton ................are larval stages of various benthic organisms, such as barnacles, worms, bivalve and 

gastropod mollusks, decapod crustaceans and echinoderms, that spend a short time 

suspended in the water.
364 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Nor’easter (Northeaster) .........is any energetic extra-tropical cyclone that sweeps the eastern seaboard of North America 

in winter.

North Atlantic Oscillation ......is a large scale mode of climate variability that has important impacts on the weather and 

climate of the North Atlantic Region and surrounding continents. It has a significant effect 

on both temperature and precipitation, this causes a major impact on marine ecosystems. 

These impacts include sea surface temperature, mixed layer depth, upper ocean heat 

content, surface Ekman transport, sea ice cover, uptake of gases, altered nutrient balances 

and primary production. These changes can have a direct impact on the dispersion and 

growth of marine life

Nutrient mixing ......................this is the process of transferring and mixing, of those constituents required by organism for 

maintenance and growth, of nutrients between the components of a food web.

P

Pelagic ...................................the realm of open water--also known as the pelagic zone.

Phytoplankton.........................are photosynthetic planktonic algae

Physical Oceanography ..........is the aspects of the physical Ocean environment that affects living organisms, such as light, 

salinity, or temperature.

Picoplankton...........................is the fraction of plankton composed by cells between 0.2 and 2 μm that can be either 

photosynthetic or heterotrophic

Planktonic ..............................organisms dependent on water movement and currents as their means of transportation, 

including phytoplankton, zooplankton, and ichthyoplankton

Point source pollutant ............the discharges of pollutants from a distinct and identifiable source, such as a sewer or 

industrial pipe

Protists....................................are a diverse group of organisms, comprising those eukaryotes that are not animals, plants, 

or fungi. They are usually treated as the kingdom Protista or Protoctista. The protists are 

a paraphyletic grade, rather than a natural (monophyletic) group, and do not have much 

in common besides a relatively simple organization (unicellular, or multicellular without 

highly specialized tissues). Essentially, the Kingdom Protoctista is made up of organisms 

which cannot be classified into any other kingdom.

S

Salinity ...................................a measure of the dissolved solids in seawater, usually expressed in grams per kilogram or 

part per thousand by weight. Standard seawater has a salinity of 35 0/00 at 0*C (32*F)

Stratification ...........................is the presence of different and distinct respective horizons within the water column. This 

is the layering of different factors, such as any physical or biological effects, within the 

water.

“Strategic Stock” ....................This means that the average annual fishing related mortality and serious injury exceeds the 

number of animals that can be removed form the stock without inhibiting recovery.

T

Thermocline ...........................the zone of the ocean in which temperature decreases rapidly with depth.

Taxa .......................................the shortened form of Taxonomic group. It also is a more general term then species when 

identifying animals.

Threatened species .................plant or animal species believed likely to move into the endangered category in the near 

future if causal factors at work continue to persist

U

Upwelling ..............................a circulation pattern in which deep, cold, usually nutrient-laden water moves toward the 

surface. Upwelling can be caused by winds blowing parallel to shore or offshore.
X. Appendix U. Metric Conversion Table 365

Appendix U. Metric Conversion Table

Linear Measurement Area Measurement

1 foot

 = 0.3048 meter

1 meter

 = 3.28084 feet

 = 0.001 kilometer

1 kilometer

 = 1,000 meters

 = 0.621371 statute mile

1 statute mile

 = 5,280 feet

 = 1.60934 kilometers

 = 0.8689 nautical mile

1 nautical mile

 = 6,076.12 feet

 = 1.852 kilometers

 = 1.15078 statute miles

1 acre

 = 43,560 square feet

 = 4,046.86 square meters

 = 0.404684 hectare

 = 0.0015625 square statute mile

1 hectare

 = 2.47105 acres

 = 10, 000 square meters

 = 0.01 square kilometer

 = 0,003861 square statute mile

1 square kilometer

 = 247.105 acres

 = 100 hectares

 = 0.386102 square statute mile

1 square stature mile

 = 640 acres

 = 258,999 hectares

 = 2.58999 square kilometers

 = 0,755 square nautical mile

1 square nautical mile

 = 847.5443 acres

 = 3.43 square kilometers

 = 1.324288 square statute miles

Mass Measurement Unit Abbreviations

1 pound 

 = 0.002 ton

 = 0.453592 kilogram

1 ton

 = 2,000 pounds

 = 0.907185 metric ton

1 kilogram

 = 2.20462 pounds

 = 0.001 metric ton

Foot-(ft)

Hectare-(ha)

Kilometer-(km)

Meter-(m)

Nautical mile- (nmi)

Pound-(lb)

Square kilometer-(km2)

Square meter-(m2)

Square nautical mile-(nmi2)

Square statute mile-(mi2)

Statute mile-(m)
366 Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Draft Management Plan/Environmental Assessment

Notes
Whales and birds feeding at sunset in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.

Do not follow 

where the path may lead. 

Go, instead, 

where there is no path 

and leave a trail. 

—Ralph Waldo Emerson