The most basic flaw with the DMP is that it lacks a true mandate to address the most destructive threat to any resource found in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The document makes a compelling case against commercial fishing and it's impacts to the fragile marine ecosystem, marine life such as whales, and maritime heritage resources; yet, the document does not call for radical change. With respect to Maritime Heritage Resources (MHR), the document identifies fishing as the greatest threat, cites several examples of how fishing has impacted fragile shipwreck sites, but the management objectives put forth in the DMP do not adequately address these issues. Instead the DMP outlines ways to limit the lowest-impact form of access, which is visitation by scuba diving. In light of the fact that little be done about the impacts of fishing on shipwrecks in the current regulatory environment, the sanctuary seeks to manage a group they can institute rules upon - divers - a group with essentially no lobby or support from other constituencies that have failed to see the value that divers can bring to the sanctuary as partners, stewards and important advocates. Note, we are not suggesting fishing should be banned or further regulated, only that the objectives outlined by the sanctuary to protect MHR don't make sense given the data they present.  The MHR Action Plan is quite simply "off the mark" in that it misses what should be identified as the primary goals (that being research, exploration, discovery, assessment and characterization of the resources) and instead proposes a system, no doubt largely based on the realities of falling dead-last in the programmatic priority spectrum (in other words, MHR objectives are lower priority and will be implemented last) and a limited budget. That reality only further emphasizes the point that divers can be utilized as important participants in sanctuary management by way of helping to document wreck sites, reporting on the condition of MHR, and self-policing the community to ensure compliance with sanctuary regulations.

More specifically the MHR Action Plan outlined in the DMP calls for the creation of a categorization system that is principally 2-parts:

Historic Sites (HS) and Heritage Preserves (HP)

The DMP states that to be considered a HS the resource needs to be the following: "may be eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places."  The main issue with this statement is the term "may be eligible."  Generally, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) requires that a candidate structure be at least 50 years old to be eligible.  Of course, there are exceptions that can be made, but using this definition as-is with the term "may be eligible" allows the sanctuary to include everything as an HS - even contemporary fishing vessels.  This begs the question, "Is such a broad criteria that would allow the sanctuary to include clearly unimportant shipwrecks such as contemporary fishing vessels a good use of resources, budget and time?"  This definition needs revision to include MHR that "is" eligible - meaning it meets the basic criteria for submission of an application, not it may meet the criteria.

With regard to HS as it relates to access, the DMP indicates that "public access with be facilitated to the extent practicable...."  It is unclear in using the term "practicable" what this means.  If practicable means that the site has a mooring buoy, but the site does not have one because the sanctuary has not prioritized this aspect of the DMP objectives high enough (see text in Section 3.5 - mooring buoys are only a "medium" priority for resource and fund allocation).  The text in this section should be revised to read "public access with be facilitated in a manner consistent with sanctuary regulations" - and nothing more. 

In conclusion, not all sites in the sanctuary should be considered Historic Sites and those that are should have public access facilitated.  The DMP needs to be revised to make this point clear.

With regard to Heritage Preserves (HP), this is the most problematic categorization of MHR because it fails to define what type of site might have a high potential for being negatively impacted by human visitation.  Again, keep in mind that there is no mandate here to ban fishing on these sites; with regard to MHR the DMP states that only "voluntary avoidance guidelines for site avoidance will be issued for traditional and experimental fishing operations."  So, to put it in more basic terms - fisherman only need to stay away if they want to, but divers may be restricted from access altogether.  This simply does not make sense in light of the fact that fishing has already been established as the most destructive threat to MHR!

Back to the lack of specific criteria for defining a site that has a high potential for being negatively impacted - first one must understand that this is a site that has met the NRHP criteria and is registered.  Second, the HP criteria further states that there will be additional protection for a site with "a high degree of fragility and archaeological integrity" - and this concludes that such areas will have not only a "no-fly zone" (an area around the site that one cannot enter into), but human activities (diving) will be restricted or altogether prohibited.  Again, this pales in the face of the most simple fact which is this DMP does not call for designation document changes, which means the sanctuary cannot prohibit fishing on these sites - whether they are historic sites, heritage preserves or "extraordinary" historical resources!  Why then does this plan craft itself to prohibit the lowest form of impact of human visitation (diving)?  Why not construct a plan that makes divers important participants and stewards of the sanctuary's resources?

Before answering that question, one must further explore the lack of definition around an MHR with "a high degree of fragility and archaeological integrity."  Would a site that is very well preserved such as the Frank Palmer/Louise Crary wreck sites be considered highly fragile or would a poorly preserved site such as the Paul Palmer be considered highly fragile? Which site is likely to suffer further degradation by visitation such that the site's integrity is compromised?  The DMP does not address this point and as a result, it leaves much concern over which sites would be considered "extraordinary" historical resources, since in this example cited here, both the Palmer/Crary and Paul Palmer wreck sites would meet the criteria for Heritage Preserve status.

Basically, the only thing a diver might be able to visit with this construct in the DMP is the most unimportant contemporary fishing vessel that has not yet been established as a historical resource.  Meanwhile, fishing will go on unrestricted at all these sites.  Does this make sense?  No, it doesn't.  If the true aim is to protect MHR from destruction, then efforts would be better utilized in addressing the impact of fishing operations, not diving impacts.

This begs the question - why restrict diving so harshly when other activities reign unchecked?  Let's talk about the elephant in the room.  The sanctuary is ultimately concerned that divers will remove artifacts from these sites.  With a limited budget, the easiest way to prevent this from happening is to restrict access to the shipwrecks altogether.  Or so it seems.  But those that are likely to break one rule are likely to break others - and there's no guarantee without effective monitoring and enforcement in place that those who would compromise sanctuary resources by removing artifacts wouldn't also dive the site without permission anyway!  This leads to the obvious conclusion that if effective monitoring and enforcement could be put into place, then there would be no need to restrict responsible diver access since the appropriate monitoring would be in place to police the site (in collaboration with the dive community) already.  It is worth noting that the implementation of a interpretive enforcement program (section 3.4) ranks "high" in the DMP objectives. 

The sanctuary cites only one paper (which we have not reviewed) that speaks to the impact of divers removing artifacts from a wreck site and how that may impact the integrity of the site.  But what about success in other areas where divers are utilizing the sanctuary in an appropriate manner (see Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary - the first sanctuary to focus solely on the collection of underwater cultural resources)?  We believe the sanctuary has underestimated the ability of the dive community to self-police, educate and support an environment where artifact removal is prohibited.

Finally, if access for divers is to be prohibited or highly restricted, then it would follow that a permitting program would be in place for facilitating appropriate access to those sites.  In Section 3.6, the DMP outlines objectives to create permitting guidelines for archaeological research for survey and inventory, but what about the public (divers) who may not fall into the category of archaeological research?  It does not appear that the DMP contemplates public access via permit in cases where a site has been established as too fragile for regular human visitation - meanwhile, there are still no restrictions imposed on commercial fishing operations.

In conclusion, the DMP Action Plan for MHR misses several important points in its objectives.  The impact of fishing clearly is the most significant form of damage being done by human use - yet the objectives do not address this point.  Without changes to the designation document to prohibit fishing on MHR (there are no changes to the designation document being proposed at this time per the DMP), then there is no true protection for MHR being achieved.  Instead the sanctuary is seeking to control, and restrict (if not prohibit) access by the public - who are the least damaging in their simple form of visitation - without true justification or a permitting program that would allow for responsible access.

• We reject the proposed classification system for maritime heritage resources (e.g. shipwreck sites) in its entirety, including the stipulations attached to each designation, (as outlined in the Action Plan and any management plan derived from it). The classification system proposed in the MHR Action Plan is too restrictive on access; it is highly subjective, with many shipwreck sites likely to become restricted from public access. For example, even "public access" shipwreck sites call for an inappropriate level of monitoring.

• Newly discovered shipwreck sites should be studied; however, without a time limit on the assessment period of newly discovered shipwreck sites, a site can be withheld from the public indefinitely. This is unfair and unnecessary. Newly discovered shipwreck sites must be inventoried in a timely manner and subsequently shared with the public, which means facilitating access.

• If anchoring and use of ground tackle on shipwreck sites is to be prohibited, then the sanctuary must make a commitment to establish and maintain mooring buoys on wrecks likely to host regular visitation. With no mooring buoy present, divers must be permitted to secure a line to the wreck. Buoys can be maintained in collaboration with local commercial charter operators.

• The use of remote sensing gear and ROVs must be permitted. Exploration and discovery must not be compromised, as many of the known shipwreck sites in SBNMS were discovered through privately funded and organized research using remote sensing equipment.

• Bidding for concessionaire permits will be cost prohibitive to commercial operations wishing to visit certain Sanctuary wrecks. Commercial and/or private operations should not be required to bid for permits.

• The Federal Abandoned Shipwrecks Act of 1987 mandates that States provide reasonable access by the public to "guarantee recreational exploration of shipwreck sites". Even though that Act does not apply to federal sanctuaries, the concept and principles are such that these shipwreck sites are public resources and the public should have access to them.  There is no reason why Sanctuaries should not be held to this standard. Full access must be facilitated in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. We believe the management plan requires serious revision in order to address this point appropriately.

• According to the National Sanctuary program webpage, "The mission of NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is to serve as the trustee for the nation's system of marine protected areas, to conserve, protect, and enhance their biodiversity, ecological integrity and cultural legacy." The term "trustee" can be defined as "an organization which holds or manages assets for the benefit of another." By denying or regulating access to all shipwrecks in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, the fundamental mission of the Sanctuary Program is called into question. We believe the actions proposed for the management of SBNMS are not consistent with stated mission of the National Sanctuary Program.