Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
● Summary of Sand Habitat Research● Findings of 2020 Condition Report● Update on Management Plan Review
Pete DeCola, SuperintendentBen Haskell, Deputy SuperintendentDavid Wiley, Research Coordinator
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary
Productivity and Ecology of Sand HabitatsFunding: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
2018 – 2020; $1,197,000
Partners:Stellwagen Bank NMS – lead – Wiley/Silva/ThompsonBoston University – Kaufmann/KlienUniversity of Connecticut – Baumann/ MurrayUniversity of Massachusetts: Dartmouth – Fay/SilvaWoods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Llopiz/Suca
2
Are Sand Habitats Productive?FisheriesProtected Species
Why are sand habitats productive?Sand lance
Decision support toolsVulnerability MatrixMIMES – Boston University
3
Percent pounds by species landed in sand, gravel, mud and boulder habitats for 19 commercial fish species for the years 2007 -2016. Data calculated from National Marine Fisheries Service vessel trip reports for SBNMS. Data provided by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Gloucester, MA.
4
Pounds landed by habitat type showing the relative importance of sand habitat as compared to gravel, mud, and boulder habitats. Sand habitat provided the most pounds landed in 8 of the 19 species (blue text), including the highly valuable bluefin tuna and scallop fisheries. Sand habitat was the second most productive habitat in 10 other species, including cod and haddock.
5
Pounds landed in sand habitat by species / month
6
Distributions of the center of gravity and inertia for sand lance and select commercial fish species in and around SBNMS. Data comes from closed trawl video surveys conducted in April 2017 by K. Stokesbury. Black points = trawl locations. The center of gravity is the mean location of the population (located at center of cross hairs). The inertia is the variance of locations and describes the dispersion of the population around the center of gravity (ellipse). Sand lance overlaps with all fish species here, particularly cod and flatfish. 7
Are seabirds preferentially selecting sand habitat ?
Seabirds, with the exception of large gulls, select cells with over 60% sand
SandGravel
Mud
SBNMS sediment maps by Valentine, USGS
8
Satellite tagging and tracking of Great Shearwater seabirds show overlap with sand habitats in the Gulf of Maine
9
10
Why are sand habitats productive?
Northern sand lance (eel) (Ammodytes duibius)
Small (11-20 cm) bentho-pelagic forage fish
Require coarse-grained sand for burying
Restricted to sandy banks11
Sand lance (eel) are a major component of commercial fish diets in SBNMS.
Data provided by Brian Smith; NEFSC 12
Great Shearwater seabirds:DNA analysis of fecal material and satellite tracked movements show importance of sand lance. 13
# Sand lance vs # humpback whales in SBNMS
Humpback whales feed on sand lance at the surface and along the seabed.
14
Overall, 72 regional predators including 45 species of fishes, two squids, 16 seabirds and nine marine mammals were found to consume Ammodytes.
15
Sand Lance Life History
Single, brief spawning period (<2 weeks) in November.
Histology of the ovary of a northern sand lance female post-spawning at the end of November 2017. Only small, primary “reservoir” oocytes remain. This is consistent with a single spawning peak.
Histology of the ovary of a northern sand lance female prior to spawning. All Oocytes are of the same size and developmental stage, supporting the single, narrow spawning window for this species.
Gonado-somatic index, shows sudden increase and then immediate decrease at the end of November, consistent with a single, short spawning peak
16
Otoliths were used to calculate larval SL settled on SB after ~ 70 days.
Spawning in late November, 6-week demersal egg period, 70-day pelagic larvae period = settlement on SB in March / April.
Diet by biomass by month of adult sand lance collected in 2019. Dominated by Calanus.
17
Monthly percent lipid composition of sand lance (total body).
von Bertalanffy curves fitted to length by month for age-2 and age-3 for adult sand lance collected in 2019. 18
Sand lance presence in SBNMS coincides with Calanus abundance
19
Otolith-based age distributions of northern sand lance on Stellwagen Bank in 2014-2016 (scaled to population sample). In 2014, catches were almost exclusively dominated by the new age-0 cohort, with very few older individuals. That strong year-class is apparent as age-1 in 2015 and age-2 in 2016. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that large pulses arrive in the sanctuary and then slowly dissipate.
20
What is the origin of sand lance occurring in SBNMS ?
Location of sand lance samples to be included in the genomic study.
Results from using one hundred and eighty day back-tracking of 1000 particles released at 1 km spacing from the sanctuary (blue box) on May 1st 2016..Black dots indicate predicted hatch locations for the simulated “settlers” (particles). 21
Vulnerability Matrix for sand lance life history categories
Sand lance would be least vulnerable to disturbance in August & September
Growth completed, feeding slowed, lipid concentration high, no spawning or settlement.
None
Very High
Very Low
Vulnerability Scale
High
Moderate
Low
22
Vulnerability Matrix for SBNMS use categories
Pounds landed by fishery/month# whale watching trips/month# animal sightings per month
Combined average vulnerabilities indicate August and September would be least disruptive to ecosystem services.
None
Very High
Very Low
Vulnerability Scale
High
Moderate
Low
23
Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES)Boumans R, & J Roman, I Altman, L Kaufman (2015). The Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems. Ecosystem Services 12: 30-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.004.
24
25
Questions on Sand HabitResearch?
26
SBNMS Condition Report
• Update to First Condition Report (2007)• Best available science• Assesses trends from 2007-2018• Identifies Gaps In Data and Current
Monitoring Efforts• Identifies Issues and Topics for
Management Plan Review • First Step in Management Plan Review
Process
https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/media/docs/2020-stellwagen-condition-report.pdf 27
SBNMS Condition Report: Process
• External Panel of Experts Consulted
• Robust/Repeatable Process• Staff Reviewed Expert
Ratings• Drafted Report• Invited Review• Peer Review• Final Report
Invited Review
28
SBNMS Condition Report: Participants
Expert Workshop Participants and ReviewersJennifer Anderson (NOAA), Michelle Bachman (NEFMC), Kevin Blinkoff (On The Water), Diane Borggaard (NOAA), Arne Carr (retired), Peter Christopher (NOAA), Danielle Cholewiak (NOAA), Amy Costa (Center for Coastal Studies), Tracey Dalton (University of Rhode Island), John Galluzzo (South Shore YMCA), Vito Giacalone (Gloucester Fishing Community), Porter Hoagland (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), Carlton Hunt (retired), Ken Keay (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority), Marty Klein (Martin Klein Consultants), Heather Knowles (Northern Atlantic Dive Expeditions), Joe Levine (Researcher), Charles Mayo (Center for Coastal Studies), Calvin Mires (Bridgewater State University), Wayne Peterson (Massachusetts Audubon Society), Kevin Powers (retired), Kimberly Starbuck (University of Massachusetts-Boston), Kevin Stokesbury (University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth), Bruce Terrell (NOAA ONMS), Eric Thunberg (NOAA), Page Valentine (US Geological Survey).
Invited Partner ReviewersKevin Blinkoff (On The Water), Todd Callaghan (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management), Deborah Cramer (Independent), Susan Farady (University of New England), Paula Fratatoni (NOAA), Erica Fuller (Conservation Law Foundation), Laura Howes (Boston Harbor Cruises), Heather Knowles (Northern Atlantic Dive Expeditions), Scott Large (NOAA), John Mandelman (New England Aquarium), Brad McHale (NOAA), Frank Mirarchi (retired commercial fisherman), Tom Noji (NOAA), Cate O’Keefe (Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries), Kevin Powers (retired), Jeffrey Rosen (independent), Michelle Staudinger (U.S. Geological Service), Mason Weinrich (independent).
Peer ReviewersONMS would like to give special thanks to the peer reviewers of his document: Stefan Claesson (NearView LLC), Lew Incze (retired), Candace Oviatt (University of Rhode Island), and Geret DePiper (NOAA).
29
SBNMS Condition Report: DPSER Framework
Describes interactions between• Drivers - Driving societal
forces• Pressures - Resulting threats • State - Resource condition• Ecosystem services -
Derived benefits• Response - Management
responses
30
Status Trend ConfidenceConfidence
• System-wide monitoring framework• Status/trends based on interpretation
of data and expert opinion• Revised in 2012
SBNMS Condition Report:Rating System
31
• Population• Per Capita Income• Gross Domestic
Product of International Trading Partners
• Demand for Seafood• Demand for
Recreation• Import/Export of goods• Fuel Prices
FUEL PRICES
POPULATION
STUDY AREA
32
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCEQuestion 1: What are the states of influential human drivers and how are they changing?
2020 Condition Report: Pressures
• Noise• Marine Debris• Whale Watching• Recreational Diving• Recreational Fishing
and Boating• Commercial Fishing• Commercial Shipping• LNG Deepwater Port• MWRA outfall• MA Bay Disposal Site• Submarine Cables• Climate Change 33
2020 Condition Report:Status Outline
• Water Quality (Questions 6-9, 2)• Living Resources (Questions
12-15, 4)• Habitat (Questions 10, 11, 3)• Maritime Heritage Resources
(Questions 16, 5) • Overall Human Impacts
(Question 1)34
WATER QUALITYQuestions 2, 6, 7, 8, 9
WATER QUALITY Confidence STATUS TREND
Confidence
2. What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence water quality and how are they
changing?6. What is the eutrophic condition of sanctuary
waters and how is it changing?7. Do sanctuary waters pose risks to human health
and how are they changing?8. Have recent changes in climate altered water
conditions and how are they changing?9. Are other stressors, individually or in
combination, affecting water quality, and how are they changing?
35
LIVING RESOURCESQuestions 12, 13, 14, 15, 4
36
Question 12: What is the status of keystone and foundation species and how is it changing?
• Copepod: Foundation for the entire food web• Data limited• Vital food source for cod, haddock, herring, sand lance
& right whales• Vulnerable to impacts of climate change
• Sand Lance: Vital forage species for many fish & whales• 3 years of data but insufficient to assess state• Highly variable interannual abundances; confined to
sand habitat on top of Bank• Appear to be vulnerable to impacts of climate change
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
37
Question 12: What is the status of keystone and foundation species and how is it changing?
• Herring: Important forage species for a variety of predators• Not overfished; however, recruitment is declining since
2013• Abundance variable in SBNMS
• Sponges/Anemones: Provides shelter for many species• Data limited• Important role as structure-forming biogenic shelter for
fish, crustaceans, echinoderms• Delicate and highly vulnerable to disturbance from
storms and fishing impacts
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
38
Question 13: What is the status of other focal species and how is it changing?
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
FOCAL SPP. STATUS TREND TREND CONFIDENCE
North Atlantic right whale POOR WORSENING VERY HIGH
humpback whale POOR IMPROVING HIGH
harbor porpoise FAIR UNDETERMINED HIGH
Atlantic white-sided dolphin GOOD UNDETERMINED LOW
great shearwater GOOD/ FAIR UNDETERMINED HIGH
Atlantic cod FAIR/POOR WORSENING MEDIUM
lobster GOOD IMPROVING VERY HIGH
bluefin tuna UNDETERMINED IMPROVING LOW
• Good- Selected key species appear to reflect near-pristine conditions.• Good/Fair - Reduced abundances in selected key species are suspected but have not yet been measured.• Fair - Selected key species are at reduced levels, but recovery is possible.• Fair/Poor - Selected key species are at substantially reduced levels, and prospects for recovery are
uncertain.• Poor - Selected key species are at severely reduced levels, and recovery is unlikely.
39
Question 14: What is the status of non-indigenous species and how is it changing?
• Various species observed in sanctuary for many decades
• Abundance and distribution are poorly documented
• Introduction primarily through vessel traffic and climate change
• Didemnum vexillum • Paul Palmer/SS PORTLAND• small localized areas of hard
bottom habitat
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
40
Question 15: What is the status of biodiversity and how is it changing?
• Status is largely driven by:• increase in fish species richness• Discovery of 3 rare invertebrate
species• Information to assess status is
limited, e.g. invertebrates• Time series data for fish,
marine birds & invertebrates useful to infer trends• NEFSC Trawl surveys• S4 Seabird monitoring• WGOM habitat study
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
Fig. S.LR.15.1 Fish species richness in SBNMS, 1970-201541
Question 4: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence living resources & how are they changing?
• Commercial Fishing Impacts• Reduced effort from mobile gear & gillnet fisheries• Increase in lobster fishery• Entanglements of seabirds & small cetaceans
• Shipping• SMA’s/TSS movement reducing potential for ship strikes
• Acoustic• Vessel noise in Mass Bay masks animal communication• TSS helps concentrate noise disturbance
• Recreational Fishing• Discards
• Whale Watching• Overall trends improving due to reduced fishing effort and
programs like Whale Sense
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
42
Question 4: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence living resources & how are they changing?
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Poun
ds
COD HERRING,ATLANTIC MACKEREL,ATLANTIC DOGFISH SPINY POLLOCK
Figure S.P.4.1. Commercial landings in pounds by species in SBNMS, 2007–2016.
Sect
ors
impl
emen
ted
Landings
43
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SBN
MS
Trip
s
Less than 50 Feet 50-70 Feet Greater than 70 Feet
Question 4: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence living resources & how are they changing?
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
Figure S.P.4.3. Commercial fishing trips in SBNMS by vessel size, 2007–2016. (Note: some, but not all, vessels represented in these data were affected by sectors.)
55.3% decline
Sect
ors
impl
emen
ted
# of trips
44
Question 4: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence living resources & how are they changing?
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
Figure S.P.4.4. Fishing effort based on VMS data, expressed as hours fished. (Note: fewer vessels are required to use VMS)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Hou
rsVMS data within SBNMS
VMS Linear (VMS)
19.2% decline
# of VMS hours
45
Question 4: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence living resources & how are they changing?
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
Figure S.P.4.5. Trends in effort (number of trips) for two types of fixed gear: gillnets and lobster traps, 2006–2017
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Trip
s
GILL NET, SINK TRAP, LOBSTER
87% decline in gillnets
56% increase in lobster traps
# of trips for fixed gear
46
HABITATQuestions 10, 11, 3
47
Question 10: What is the integrity of major habitat types and how is it changing?
• Data suggests some habitat attributes show degradation, while others showimprovement.
• Alters/removes structural characteristics/biological components of seabed• Lower level impacts in WGOM Closure
area with recovery in some areas• Scallop fishery impacts on Northwest
corner
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
Photos: P. Auster/University of Connecticut and Seafloor Habitat Recovery and Monitoring Project Science Team
48
Question 11: What are contaminant concentrations in sanctuary habitats and how are they changing?
• Low level presence of legacy contaminants in sediments• No indications of biological effects related to
exposure despite some demonstrated bioaccumulation
• Emerging contaminants - no substantial understanding regarding their presence, risk, or trends in SBNMS
• Major data gap - microplastics• Marine sediments are a major sink for microplastic
pieces
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
49
3. What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence habitats and how are they changing?
• Benthic Habitat Primary Focus• Bottom Tending Mobile Gear = Primary Impacts• Fixed Gear: Some Impacts but Smaller Footprint
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
*
Figure S.P.3.2 reveals the cumulative effort for 2009-2018 for all VMS gear, and indicates effort across gear types.50
3. What are the levels of human activities that may adversely influence habitats and how are they changing?
Spatial distribution for all VMS-reported commercial dredge and bottom trawl fishing effort by year for the period 2009–2018
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
51
MARITIME HERITAGE RESOURCESQuestions 16, 5
52
Question 16: What is the condition of known maritime heritage resources and how is it changing?
• Non-renewable resource• Shipwreck sites experience
damage from fishing gear• Mobile• Fixed
• Degradation also caused by • Storm action• Bacteriological consumption
• Most historic wrecks are beyond storm wave impacts (>50m)
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
53
Question 5: What are the levels of human activities that may adversely affect maritime heritage resources and how are they changing?
• Commercial Fishing Impacts• Non-renewable resource
CONFIDENCE STATUS TREND CONFIDENCE
2018 VMS-reported positions for bottom-tending mobile gear3D model of steamship Portland showing trawl net on port side (based on digital imagery)
54
Information Gaps• Emerging contaminants and microplastics:
Fate and Effects• Deepwater ocean acidification monitoring• Ocean warming effects on food web,
particularly copepods• Habitat productivity/recovery• Trends in uses (shipping, whale watching, etc.)• Economic contributions of SBNMS and closed area• More outreach/social media needed to increase recognition
Condition Report
55
Ratings Comparison 2007 & 2018
Stable or Improved compared
to 2007
Worsened compared
to 2007
New RatingOld
56
• Ecosystem Services - Benefits people obtain from nature through use, consumption, enjoyment, and/or simply knowing these resources exist
Confidence Rating Trend Confidence
Ecosystem Services
57
● Measured for first time● Recreational activities such as whale
watching are popular and appear to be increasing
● Concerns about declines in stocks led to fair ratings for commercial & recreational fishing
● Internationally recognized research program● Strong education programs● Cultural heritage resources (i.e. shipwrecks)
are valued assets
Ecosystem ServicesThe Benefits
58
Millionaverage annual output from
commercial landings
The Numbers:Economic contributions of commercial and recreational fisheries
$3.9 Million
annual average output by charter boat fishing
$19 Million
value of commercial landings
700jobs supported by commercial fishing
$7.8 Million
annual average output by party boat fishing
90jobs supported by recreational fishing
$66
59
Prepare Final Management Plan, Environmental
Review, and Updates to Regulations
Sanctuary Condition
Report released
Feb 7, 2020
Public Scoping Period and Scoping MeetingsFeb. 13-Apr 10, 2020
Evaluate Issues and Set Priorities
(Identify working groups as necessary)
Develop Draft Management Plan and Environmental Review
Documents
Release Draft Management Plan,
Environmental Review, and Updates to
Regulations
Public Review and Comment on Draft
Documents
Publish Final
Documents
Management Plan Review Process
60
• Climate Change Impacts• Water Quality Monitoring• Education, Outreach, and Citizen Science• Sanctuary Soundscapes• Maritime Heritage Management• Other Items Identified Through Public
Scoping• Updates to Regulatory Language
Topics For Management Plan Review
61
Prepare Final Management Plan, Environmental
Review, and Updates to Regulations
Sanctuary Condition
Report released
Feb 7, 2020
Public Scoping Period and Scoping MeetingsFeb. 13-Apr 10, 2020
Evaluate Issues and Set Priorities
(Identify working groups as necessary)
Develop Draft Management Plan and Environmental Review
Documents
Release Draft Management Plan,
Environmental Review, and Updates to
Regulations
Public Review and Comment on Draft
Documents
Publish Final
Documents
Management Plan Review Process
62
• Continue research to better understand ecosystem dynamics.
• Need to better integrate sanctuary goals into regional ecosystem-based fisheries management
• Increase adaptive management strategies to better address climate change
• Make it a “true sanctuary” by limiting human activity, including fishing and whale watching
• Make no changes to access for fishing
Comments Received During Public Scoping Period
63
Prepare Final Management Plan, Environmental
Review, and Updates to Regulations
Sanctuary Condition
Report released
Feb 7, 2020
Public Scoping Period and Scoping MeetingsFeb. 13-Apr 10, 2020
Evaluate Issues and Set Priorities
(Identify working groups as necessary)
Develop Draft Management Plan and Environmental Review
Documents
Release Draft Management Plan,
Environmental Review, and Updates to
Regulations
Public Review and Comment on Draft
Documents
Publish Final
Documents
Management Plan Review Process
Next Steps
64
65
Questions on Condition Report &Management Plan Review Process?