by Andrea Cohen, MIT Sea Grant

"Whales know no international boundaries," says David Matilla. A researcher with the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, Mass., Matilla has studied whales all over the world. And he’s found that while these massive marine mammals may navigate without regard for boundaries manufactured by humans, they, and the oceans they inhabit, are nonetheless affected by human activities.

To ensure the protection and preservation of special marine areas, Congress passed the Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Currently, there are 12 national marine sanctuaries, ranging in size from 1 square mile to more than 5,000 square miles. In New England, an 832-square-mile area stretching from Massachusetts’ Cape Cod northward to Cape Ann was designated the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary in 1992.

This occurred in large part because of the area’s diverse ecosystem, which attracts endangered northern right whales, humpbacks, and fin whales for feeding. Each year from April to December, the whales return to the feeding grounds of their mothers, where thick blooms of plankton nourish them.

But along with nourishing whales, Stellwagen bank also feeds a variety of human needs. Fishermen, ecologists, educators, whale watchers, scientists such as Matilla, and others all rely on the ocean’s riches there. As at other sanctuaries, the role of management at Stellwagen is to protect the area’s resources while making it available for activities that don’t adversely affect it. One way that managers achieve that balance is through monitoring, which involves collecting baseline data and examining changes over time.

The 12 national marine sanctuaries are mandated by Congress to implement monitoring plans. Currently, "most are doing some monitoring, but there’s a big range in the extent of it," says Charles Wahle, chief of the technical projects branch of the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division of NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). Historically, the national sanctuaries have had very limited funds to conduct any kind of monitoring. As a result, they have relied, well, if not on the kindness of strangers, on the support and expertise of other federal and state agencies, as well as academic institutions.

One such effort is a project funded by MIT Sea Grant in which a class of graduate students in MIT’s department of ocean engineering developed an extensive monitoring plan for the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Under the guidance of Judy Kildow, MIT ocean engineering professor, the students examined the specific needs of Stellwagen’s manager, Brad Barr, taking into account "limitations such as an unreliable, limited budget," says Kildow. She explains that "Barr needed a flexible plan that didn’t lock him in financially and that could be implemented in phases."

One major concern for the sanctuary was the state’s $4 billion outfall pipe project, slated to discharge treated Boston sewage effluent into Massachusetts Bay. In addition, restricted fishing on Georges Bank was expected to potentially drive more fishermen into the area.

The graduate students, who acted as consultants to the sanctuary, were advised by numerous coastal managers and scientists, including Judy Pederson, MIT Sea Grant manager for coastal resources. "Before coming to MIT," says Pederson, "I worked in putting together a statewide monitoring plan. So, I brought that perspective to the project."

Student Michael Lohse describes that project as something of a symbiotic relationship. "It worked out very well," says Lohse, "because the sanctuary got gratis work, and the class got experience in a real-life situation."

Kildow adds that the class provided students with a chance to work with "macrobiology in a way that they’d never gotten before. They examined the linkage of ecosystems, how to link social systems, and the impact of human activities on frailties and limitations of ecosystems."

In developing their plan, the students studied monitoring plans put forth by both the National Research Council and the Army Corps of Engineers. Their eventual plan looked at sediment and benthos, living resources, and the water column, using data gathered by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and the U.S. Geological Survey. Working within the legal framework and cost constraints, the class came up with a plan that establishes baselines from which potentially threatening changes can be detected.

"Our plan is a straw man to pick at," explains Lohse. "People can look at it, review it, and modify it. Our perspective was different from that of a science advisory team; we were outsiders looking in."

According to the students’ final report, "Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Monitoring Plan," developing a database with baseline information would provide historical data and could be used to test theories and hypotheses. The plan also recommends partnering with other groups, including the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has conducted population studies through semiannual trawls of the area for the last 20 years.

In addition, the plan suggests establishing a no-drag area to determine if dragging the ocean floor has detrimental effects. Les Watling, University of Maine oceanography professor, echoes the need for a reserve, or no-take zone, within Stellwagen. "The basic effect of mobile fishing gear," says Watling, "is that the trawls smooth the rocky bottom, and remove or smash anything that is large. A no-take zone would allow researchers the opportunity to monitor how trawl gear affects biodiversity."

According to Watling, a group of scientists presented a proposal for a no-take zone to the New England Fisheries Management Council. The proposal was turned down, mainly, contends Watling, because fishermen are intent on retaining their turf and have been pretty successful in doing so.

While noting the fishermen’s opposition to sanctuaries, Watling also points out that no-take zones throughout the world have proven to be good sites for reproduction and growth of commercially important species. "There are three reserves in the Florida Keys Sanctuary," says Watling. "A lot of emotion and sweat and blood was expended to get those reserves, and now two years later everyone in the Keys thinks these are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Outside of the reserves, people are seeing stocks increasing and they see the connection."

Lessons from reserves in the Florida Keys may one day have an impact at Stellwagen and other sanctuaries. While the individual sanctuaries have their own research and monitoring programs in varying stages of implementation, "the goal is to have a more uniform approach," says OCRM’s Wahle. "It’s time to get more systematic and set priorities" in monitoring plans, he says. Toward that end, the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division is now at work on "a science plan that takes research, monitoring, and restoration into consideration, with national and regional priorities" notes Wahle. In developing that plan, the agency will look at programs worldwide, such as advanced monitoring on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and in some internationally protected sites in New Zealand and Europe.

"It’s difficult to assess the effectiveness and design of new management strategies for specific resources without a plan," acknowledges Wahle. And in order to show that sanctuaries are indeed worthwhile, "We need monitoring data to show demonstrable improvement in the health of the ecosystem," information that’s cohesive, not patchwork, he stresses. "Public understanding [about sanctuaries] varies widely. Monitoring will help us show why it’s worth having them."

While Stellwagen’s Barr would be the last person who’d need convincing about the worth of sanctuaries, he admits that proving that worth is tricky. "Measuring success is hard. I can’t say that we have more fish than in 1992," when the area was designated. "We try to put the resource first," he says. "The regulations say that you can do anything as long as it doesn’t have adverse effects on resources." The benchmark, says Barr, is whether or not an activity can be carried out in a sustainable way over time. "A lot is subjective," he allows. "We conduct research to try to understand resources."

In addition to research, Stellwagen supports groundfishing, a budding herring fishery, and a bluefin tuna fishery. Some 30 whale-watching boats regularly patrol the waters, carrying between 500,000 and 600,000 marine mammal-loving tourists per year. In addition, approximately 230 vessels cross the sanctuary each month. So, while "sanctuary" might conjure the notion of a peaceful seascape unfettered by human commerce, the reality reflects a sometimes bustling compromise amidst nature’s bounty.

And behind the activity in the sanctuary itself are the integrated machinations of the many agencies that all must work together in governing the area. "We bring together people who are comanagers," says Barr, ticking off a list that includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, Massport, and private concerns.

Balancing all those interests, says Barr, "is an art, not a science." As for resistance in the fishing community, the manager says, "Anything with federal regulations is seen as negative and the beginning of a slippery slope." He points to skepticism surrounding restrictions developed and passed by the Fisheries Management Council whereby fishermen on Jeffrey’s Ledge must use 6-inch mesh to protect young cod and haddock. "We’re trying to get fishermen to understand that we’re here to better understand the resource and protect it," he states.

One way that can be achieved is through the Sanctuary Manager’s Advisory Council, a group of fishermen, environmentalists, educators, scientists, and citizens who share ideas and insights about Stellwagen’s future. Bob MacKinnon, a fisherman out of Marshfield, Mass. and a member of the council, has fished on Stellwagen Bank for 20 years. "Research is no problem as long as it doesn’t affect fishermen," says MacKinnon. "But I’m always skeptical about what government may do.

"I’ve fished for everything," he says. "Groundfish, dogfish, lobster flounder. Nothing’s changed since it became a sanctuary." And while that lack of change may disturb some scientists, MacKinnon prefers it that way.

Another member of that council is Cliff Goudey, MIT Sea Grant extension leader. Goudey plays up the importance of evaluating the sanctuary’s effectiveness. "The sanctuary was put into place for good reasons," he says. "But it desperately needs to be evaluated to see it it’s meeting its goals."

Barr believes the work done by the MIT students can pave the way for that assessment: "MIT gave us a good model, and we’ll be evaluating it on a national level" to see if it’s also a good model for a uniform program. MIT’s Kildow points out that the monitoring system incorporates a computer-based tool that links a series of data sheets and allows a user to look at individual parameters and their links to one another. "The computer disk is not just for Stellwagen" she says. "It’s a model that could be used anywhere. It tells you principal signals you need to look for and ways of categorizing what you’re monitoring."

Currently, Stellwagen is able to draw on monitoring efforts by other groups. The MWRA’s water quality monitoring evaluates numerous parameters, including ammonia, nitrate, phosphate, irradiance, phytoplankton and zooplankton diversity six times per year at two stations in the sanctuary. Those efforts complement an ongoing study at a proposed outfall site that is 11 nautical miles from the sanctuary.

The MWRA also studies fish in Stellwagen, measuring PCBs, pesticides, and mercury levels in winter flounder. NMFS conducts surveys to determine populations of commercially important groundfish. And in addition to the Center for Coastal Studies, the New England Aquarium, Gloucester’s Cetacean Unit, and other groups collect extensive data on marine mammals.

Such collaborative efforts are essential, given the low funding available to the sanctuaries. The OCRM’s Wahle pegs national funding for monitoring at perhaps $200,000 per year for 11 of the sanctuaries, with another $300,000 going into the more heavily monitored Florida Keys Sanctuary.

Wahle hopes that once a national monitoring plan is in place, annual funds of at least $1 million will be committed nationwide for these efforts, including funds for centralized data management and analysis.

As 1998 ushers in the Year of the Ocean, the National Marine Sanctuaries edge into the second quarter-century since their inception. Increased funding for monitoring would help ensure that the original goals for forming these specially protected areas are met. And that, in turn, could mean that generations of marine mammal researchers like Matilla—and the creatures he studies—can count on Stellwagen Bank to remain fertile waters.

Take the National Marine Sanctuaries Quiz