I. Introduction

This report presents NOAA's National MPA Center with six recommendations for future action that evolved during facilitated discussions among stakeholders in the Gulf of Maine during the summer and fall 2001. In the following sections, the format and content of these discussions will be presented in detail. In Section II, the formats for the three different modes of discussion are presented. The particular modes of discussion include an online town meeting, public forums, and a workshop. In Sections III and IV, summaries of the discussions at the public forums and at the workshop are presented. Section V concludes the report with the six recommendations for NOAA's National Center for MPAs.

----Page 7----

------------------------------------------------

Page 8

II. Forums for Stakeholder Participation

A series of public forums was held in the Gulf of Maine to address an issue that has received wide attention in recent years—marine protected areas (MPAs). MPAs have been defined in a number of ways; yet, no one definition has been fully supported. There is a general understanding that MPAs are delineated areas in the marine or coastal environment that have some sort of legal or regulatory provisions governing their use. Yet when MPAs are looked at in particular regions, where resources and users are specific to the area, MPAs are not so easily defined. Complications arise because the delineation of areas involves a number of responsible agencies and users. The jurisdictions of these agencies and the areas in which users work or recreate often overlap. Agencies follow different mandates and may have conflicting missions, augmenting the challenge to create appropriate legal or regulatory provisions for specific sites. Developing policies that govern use in a public resource adds to the complexity.

In May 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13158 (E.O.) to strengthen and expand the system of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the United States, defined in the E.O. 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." Since marine protected areas in the United States fall under the authority of many different agencies and levels of government, one of the major goals of the E.O. is to coordinate efforts in a comprehensive system of MPAs that will conserve the natural and cultural heritage of the U.S. The E.O. calls for the following specific actions: (1) Departments of Commerce and Interior will develop and maintain a national list of MPAs in U.S. waters; (2) Departments of Commerce and Interior will develop and maintain a MPA web site; (3) a Marine Protected Areas Advisory Committee will be formed to provide advice on a national system of MPAs; (4) Federal agencies, including NOAA and NMFS, will avoid causing harm to resources in MPAs through their activities; and (5) NOAA will create a National MPA Center in Washington, D.C.

As one of its main responsibilities, the National MPA Center must encourage coordination among state and federal agencies that have authority over establishing and managing MPAs. The National MPA Center has spent much of its first year sponsoring stakeholder meetings in two particular regions of the United States: the Pacific Coast and the

8

-----------------------------------------------------

Page 9

Gulf of Maine. The MPA Center has supported such meetings to ensure that stakeholders have the opportunity to participate fully in discussions to establish, manage, and monitor MPAs in their region. As part of this effort, the National MPA Center asked the New England Aquarium and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sea Grant College Program to organize and host a number of forums in the Gulf of Maine.

Virtual Forum
In July 2001, the New England Aquarium hosted an online town meeting where participants exchanged over fifty comments and perspectives about marine protected areas in the Gulf of Maine. Discussions on the forum touched on issues of the availability of scientific information, characteristics of sites in the Gulf of Maine that should be protected, and the objectives for using MPAs as a management tool. To view all of the comments exchanged in the online discussion, see the New England Aquarium's MPA website at www.neaq.org/community/forums.

Over one hundred flyers advertising all three forums in which the public could participate, including the virtual forum, were mailed to environmental organizations, local user groups, and university programs. To reach additional stakeholders, messages were posted on a number of recreational fishing chat rooms, phone calls were made and follow-up information was faxed to forty local fishing organizations, and emails were sent to area dive clubs.

Public Forums
Public forums were held in Bar Harbor, Maine on September 24 from 4:30 to 7:00pm and in Boston, Massachusetts on September 25 from 4:00 to 7:00pm. The first forum, at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, brought together over seventy-five stakeholders to discuss what they think about MPAs in the Gulf of Maine. At the second forum, held at the New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts, an additional forty-five individuals came together for a knowledgeable discussion about MPAs. These lively, yet civil, discussions were facilitated by the New England Aquarium and the MIT Sea Grant College Program and lasted for the full time allotted in each location. The main topics of discussion included outreach to affected communities, MPAs as part of a holistic management tool, the goals for management of the Gulf of Maine, the selection process for new MPA sites, and recommended next steps for NOAA's

9

==============================================

Page 10
National MPA Center. Overall, forum participants seemed to agree that any process for establishing new MPAs should be slow, a holistic management approach should be followed, and the focus should be on problems in the Gulf of Maine--not on available management tools.

Workshop
To refine ideas that were raised on the virtual forum and at the public forums, the New England Aquarium and the MIT Sea Grant College Program facilitated a two-day workshop at the Holiday Inn-Portland West in Portland, Maine on October 9 and 10. Participation was open to all interested individuals. The thirty-three participants represented numerous interests and viewpoints, including social and natural scientists, federal and state officials, recreational and commercial fishermen, a whale watch operator, an interested citizen, and environmental advocates (Appendix A: Workshop Participants). Before the workshop, each participant was provided with a summary of the public forums, a workshop agenda, and a background document entitled "Draft Background Notes for Consideration of Marine Protected Areas in the Gulf of Maine." This paper provided participants with an up-to-date critical summary of technical information relevant to the design of MPAs in the Gulf of Maine (Appendix B: Background Notes).

The workshop was organized around three main discussion topics. Discussions took place in both large and small groups. For small group discussion, participants were divided into groups of 7-8 people. To allow for a diversity of interests to be present in each small group discussion, workshop organizers developed a seating plan before the event. Each small group discussion was facilitated by one of the workshop organizers. Although discussion topics were provided, participants guided the direction of the discussions. During discussions, participants evaluated current and potential problems in the Gulf of Maine and the extent to which MPAs can be used to address them, developed a list of core elements that may be considered when assessing the effectiveness of existing MPAs, and outlined possible directions for future MPA processes in the Gulf of Maine.

In the week following the workshop, participants were emailed workshop evaluation forms.

On the evaluation form, we asked participants to rank the following seven statements on a 5-point scale

(5-Completely Agree; 4-Generally Agree; 3-Neutral; 2-Generally Disagree; 1-Completely Disagree):

10

==========================================

Page 11

Statement 1. Workshop met my expectations.
Statement 2. Overall workshop was well-organized.
Statement 3. Workshop format provided a well-balanced mix of full group discussions and break-out sessions.
Statement 4. Overall workshop facilitation was good.
Statement 5. Break-out sessions were well-facilitated.
Statement 6. Facilities and food were appropriate.
Statement 7. Workshop length was appropriate.

Six participants responded. Overall, respondents expressed satisfaction with the workshop logistics (e.g. facilities, length of meeting, format of discussions). A couple respondents noted that the workshop provided opportunities to further the discussion of MPAs in the Gulf of Maine, to connect stakeholders, and to help stakeholders clarify their own views on MPAs. Several respondents expressed frustration with the vagueness of the workshop objectives. Respondents offered several recommendations for improving the workshop:

• Include a more diverse pool of stakeholders in discussions.
• Develop proposals prior to initiating stakeholder discussions.
• Encourage NOAA to use its staff, institutional experience, and resources to facilitate a process designed to meet the objectives of Executive Order 13158.

11

==================================

Page 12

III. Summary of Public Forums' Discussion The following is a list of topics that were discussed and associated comments that were mentioned at the MPA public forums at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine on September 24 and the New England Aquarium in Boston, Massachusetts on September 25. Because there was a large overlap in the topics discussed at both sites, the summaries have been combined. Recommendations are not consensus statements of all participants. Outreach:
There was general agreement with the principle that an MPA effort should involve significant outreach to all affected communities. Building trust is crucial to any management process, and trust is built by talking to the interested population. Ultimately, this issue needs to be developed by the community. There was suspicion from some fishermen that MPAs would be a tool to force fishermen out of certain areas.

Recommendations:
1. Take the time to do the job right. Proceed slowly. Keep a dialogue going.

2. More outreach is necessary. Use the following ways to communicate with fishermen:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) radio, newspapers, at fishing organization meetings (e.g. Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership). Add other stakeholders (e.g. charter boat fishery, wastewater dischargers, oil development, sand and gravel, shipping industry, yachters, others who value the Gulf of Maine)

3. A meaningful process will include stakeholders as participants in finding answers.

4. Stakeholders should be at every meeting. It is important to get the entire group at each meeting.

5. Visit stakeholders at the community level, particularly in winter when fishermen are available to meet.

MPAs as Part of Holistic Management of the Gulf of Maine:
There was general agreement that any MPA plan must be part of a holistic plan for managing the Gulf of Maine. The Ocean Conservancy has looked at over 300 existing managed
12 ================================================= Page 13 sites and determined that there is no comprehensive protection of the marine environment in the Gulf of Maine. Massachusetts' managers also suggested that their existing sites are more piecemeal and need to be evaluated as to whether they meet their original goals. There was also general agreement that MPAs are just one tool for managers to use, and it will be important to evaluate their use in the context of all other regulations. There was a difference of opinion as to what agencies should manage MPAs. Some felt it was outside the realm of fisheries management agencies. Others felt that we didn't need another agency to deal with all the existing agencies working in the Gulf of Maine. Some felt we could best meet our goals by simply making existing tools (other than MPAs) work. There was also a concern about local versus regional control. How can small, local fishermen compete with corporate trawlers from out of state? Can MPAs be constructed in such a way to consider issues of equity? Recommendations. 1. In considering MPAs, the appropriate jurisdictions need to be clarified. Who is going to be responsible for integrating management into the local process? 2. Focus should be on using the most appropriate management tools to solve agreed upon problems in the Gulf of Maine, rather than implementing MPAs Gulf of Maine Management Goals: There was general agreement that any discussion about MPAs needed to consider what the overall goals were for the Gulf of Maine and the specific goals associated with each individual decision. A frequent comment from fishermen was that resource protection is an important issue for everyone who uses the Gulf of Maine, that fishermen in the Gulf of Maine appreciate the ecosystem, and that they are not the ones to blame for resource failure. Among the proposed goals were protection of • environment, • community, • sustainable fisheries, • balanced ecosystem, Page13 ========================================== Page 14 • non-commercial species and features (e.g. tree coral, clay pipes), • habitat, • biodiversity, • reference areas (non-impacted sites), and • unknown impacts. MPA Selection Process: There was some discussion of specific MPA ideas that arose during the course of the Public Forums. While some believed it is necessary to understand the entire Gulf of Maine system before designating MPAs that achieve goals, others felt there were some other approaches that might work before the entire system was developed. These possible approaches included: • Consider setting up distinct regions that either allow or prohibit aquaculture. • Set aside long-term sites to monitor and learn from. • Choose sites where no one fishes now, but did so many years ago. (Others felt that historical fishing sites that are no longer used may not be the best sites to put in MPAs—we need to find where the fish are now.) • Consider first areas that we know a lot about (e.g. Stellwagen Bank, Georges Bank). New MPAs should not single out certain gear types Recommendations: 1. MPAs should be under constant periodic review with sunset provisions. 2. MPAs need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. 3. Potential MPA sites need to be defended—why protect this site in this particular way? 4. NOAA should present a specific set of proposals, i.e. lines on a map, to which stakeholders could respond. 5. The effectiveness of existing MPAs in the region should be reviewed. What Should NOAA Do? There were two different approaches suggested for NOAA. One group felt that NOAA should lead a process for comprehensively looking at MPAs as a management tool, that it should Page 14 ============================= explicitly state how it was going to carry out the Executive Order, and be explicit with the public as to its process. Several people expressed concern about where the ability to implement policy lies. They argued that only government agencies have the authority to make policies about ocean resources, and that a federal or state mandate would make the process meaningful. The alternative opinion argued that NOAA should not take the process out of the hands of the stakeholders, but should work with the public to develop a consensus approach. Recommendations: There are specific information needs in order to develop MPAs that will require NOAA funding. These include: • Assessment of the effectiveness of existing Gulf of Maine MPAs, • Summary of MPA experience in other parts of the world, • Habitat mapping, • Socioeconomic impact assessment studies, • Scientific research, and • Mediation assistance ========================== Page 16 IV. Summary of Workshop Discussion The workshop in Portland, Maine on October 9 and 10 consisted of three main discussion sessions. Each of the sessions was introduced by a workshop facilitator and then opened for discussion in either small break-out groups or full group discussions. Summaries of each of the three sessions is presented below. Session #1: Discuss problems that exist in the Gulf of Maine and if MPAs can and should be used to address them. At the public forums in Bar Harbor, ME and Boston, MA, some participants expressed strong feelings that MPAs should be used to address specific problems—they should not simply be established because an agency has the authority to do so. This issue then became the first topic for discussion at the workshop. In other words, the participants were asked if there are problems that MPAs can address in the Gulf of Maine. In a brainstorming session, participants in five break-out groups contributed to the following list of existing and potential problems in the Gulf of Maine that MPAs can be used to address: habitat conservation, biodiversity, habitat restoration and recovery, managing fisheries and other extractive uses, marine mammal protection, transboundary and migratory species, damage to ecosystem from military testing (i.e. acoustics), marine debris, public access, ship strikes (i.e. oil spills, whale strikes), dredge disposal, cultural resources, minerals extraction, oil and gas development, data collection and analysis, public safety, conflicting uses, wilderness areas, artificial reefs, preservation of local communities, beach renourishment, and aquaculture sites. Facilitators refined this list of problems into five goals for establishing and managing MPAs in the Gulf of Maine region: (1) To preserve representative habitats (2) To manage sustainable fisheries (3) To minimize adverse effects on habitat (4) To minimize bycatch (5) To preserve biodiversity After debate among the larger group of participants, it was generally agreed upon that not every MPA will be established in order to fulfill all of the above goals and not every MPA will be able 16 ========================================= Page 17 to achieve every one of these goals once established. Instead, this list of goals illustrates the breadth of reasons for which MPAs may be established in the Gulf of Maine. These broad goals implicitly suggest that MPAs are not limited to being a tool for fisheries management. While identifying some of the issues and problems that MPAs can address, break-out group participants discussed some of the needs that must be considered in order for MPAs to address these issues. The following list is not a consensus statement, but rather a presentation of the variety of needs discussed by workshop participants. There is a need for: (1) MPAs to be part of a holistic approach that is integrated, coordinated and adaptive and based on consideration of ecological function (2) A policy or legal mandate that supports MPAs as a tool for protecting biodiversity (3) Funding to support research studies in both the social and natural sciences (4) Enforcement of regulations and policies (5) A coherent and consistent definition of MPAs for the Gulf of Maine (6) Lasting protection as called for in Executive Order 13158 Session #2: Discuss what roles specific MPAs play in meeting goals. In the Gulf of Maine, several MPAs already exist, yet the efforts to manage these areas are largely disconnected. In an effort to look more comprehensively at MPAs in the region, participants were asked to identify' existing MPAs and discuss how consistent these sites are with meeting overall MPA goals. A matrix of over seventy-five MPA sites was given to participants to provide a sense of the types of existing MPAs and the agencies responsible for managing each of them. Some workshop participants said that many of the sites listed in the matrix did not meet the definition of MPAs as stated in Executive Order 13158: "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." Dumpsites, outfall pipes, and federal and state temporary fishery closures were supplied as examples of sites that may not provide lasting protection. Some workshop participants were reluctant to discuss specific MPAs and whether or not they were achieving goals because these participants did not feel that they have in-depth knowledge of or first-hand experience with all of the sites on the list. Nevertheless, there was general agreement that enough participants had knowledge of selected sites to discuss this topic in a large group setting. 17 ====================================== Page 18 Before evaluating specific MPAs, participants discussed overall goals for a MPA program. Participants developed a list of core elements for IVIPA programs. Potential elements include: monitoring program that includes periodic evaluation and reporting, protection of ecological integrity, clear legal authority, involvement of local community in MPA management, coordination of responsible agencies within the MPA, long-term commitment for the site, coverage of a variety of geographic regions and habitats, and broad management goals. Examples from three different types of MPAs in the Gulf of Maine were identified for the group discussion: Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), Year-round Fishery Closures (Closed Areas I and II and Western Gulf of Maine Closure), Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. First, participants discussed reasons for the establishment of each type of MPA. Then they identified areas that need improvement in order for each type of existing MPA to be consistent with overall goals of an MPA. General agreement among workshop participants for the reasons for establishment and some areas of improvement for each of the three types of MPAs is as follows: Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve Reason for establishment: to support and promote research and education in estuaries Areas for improvement: Enhanced legal authority, improved coordination among agencies, expanded geographic coverage—more subtidal focus Year-round Fishery Closures Reason for establishment: to reduce fishing mortality on groundfish stocks in Closed Areas I and LI and the Western Gulf of Maine closure Areas for improvement: Protection of ecological integrity, improved coordination among agencies, consideration of broader goals Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Reason for establishment: to protect natural and cultural resources and ecological integrity of resources Areas for improvement: More outreach, enhanced legal authority, community participation, improved coordination among agencies Session #3: Discuss possible directions for this process after the workshop and ways to enhance stakeholder participation in the process Page18 =================================== Page 19 As noted earlier, this workshop was part of a series of public meetings designed to give stakeholders an opportunity to shape a process regarding MPA management and establishment in the Gulf of Maine region. Although stakeholder participation has been identified as an essential component of marine resource management, identifying and engaging stakeholders can be a challenging task. In this break-out session, participants were asked to think about what ways the process should proceed and how stakeholders can be better integrated into this process. Participants' interests seemed to peak in this session. Because each break-out group followed a different path during the discussion, a number of interesting and useful suggestions were made for future MPA initiatives in the Gulf of Maine. A summary of each group's discussion is highlighted below. Group 1 (Facilitator: Tracey Morin) Discussion in this break-out group focused on two potential MPA initiatives. For the first initiative, the group suggested that key concepts from this workshop should be used to inform a vision statement developed by NOAA's National MPA Center. The vision should include a list of goals for MPAs, a definition of the term, a description of what MPAs can do, and a timeline. The group agreed that the National MPA Center should disseminate this vision to agencies and other stakeholders. It was noted that NOAA representatives should personally present this vision statement to stakeholders at local community meetings. For a second initiative, the working group suggested that MPAs be implemented and managed through existing management mechanisms, such as the Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Proposals could be presented to a council and follow the council's standard procedures. The benefit of working through existing mechanisms is that they are already in place and they have procedures for establishing and managing MPAs. It was noted that these existing mechanisms are one option for establishing and managing MPAs and should be used in combination with other management options. Group 2 (Facilitator: Carolyn Steve) Discussion in this break-out group centered on specific actions for improving coordination among agencies and involvement of stakeholders. The group agreed that the MPA Center needs to clearly state its objectives to the public. The Center must also clarify the definition of MPAs. Some members of the group recommended that the definition include a 19 =========================================== Page 20. classification scheme for MPAs, such as that set forth by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. To enhance coordination among agencies and stakeholders, the group suggested that the National MPA Center set up a Regional Coordinating Center for the Gulf of Maine. With a full-time staff, this Center would work with federal, state, and local agencies in the Gulf of Maine to accomplish the objectives outlined by the National MPA Center. In collaboration with agencies and stakeholders, the Regional Center would develop a Strategic Plan that includes proposals for candidate MPA sites. To improve participation of stakeholders, the break-out group suggested a number of ways to communicate with specific stakeholder communities. • Inform stakeholders through mailings, email, videos, film, internet, and radio. • Seek input from stakeholders on how the process should be shaped and what they want to protect. • Expand outreach to landside conservation groups and the public at large. • Identify and define fishing communities. • Utilize a number of venues to outreach to fishermen such as the Maine Fishermen's Forum and local fishing docks. Group 3 (Facilitator: Judy Pederson) It is challenging to discuss MPAs in the Gulf of Maine without a clear definition of the term. This group began the break-out discussion by going over currently used definitions of MPAs, such as that drafted at the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment Workshop in 1997: any area of the intertidal or subtidal terrain together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, and historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation to manage and protect part or all of the enclosed environment. Members of this break-out group then created their own working definition for MPAs: an area governed by specific regulation or authority with specific boundaries and definable and measurable goals to be achieved by the MPA (e.g. diversity, fishing). MPAs are one of a series of tools and techniques to address problems using best available, agreed upon science. When this concept of defining MPAs was presented to all workshop participants, some participants recommended using the definition of MPAs already stated in Executive Order 13158. -Page 20 =========================================== Page 21 After drafting a working definition, this group worked out a specific process for NOAA to follow for a future MPA initiative. The process entails getting infonnation out to stakeholders through a variety of means including newsletters, newspapers, emails, phone calls, and exhibits at public places. This information would make a case for MPAs and describe the value of MPAs to stakeholders. Current MPAs would be described and the term MPA would be defined. During the outreach effort, a list of specific users and individuals would be identified and meetings would be held in their local communities. At different times in the process, different stakeholder groups will be brought together in the same forum to engage in dialogue. State and federal agencies would be involved throughout the process and would serve as coordinating mechanisms. For instance, the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment would help to define the vision, develop an action plan, and draft a Marine Habitat Strategy. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Council for Habitat Coordination and related committees in NOAA would also contribute. In addition, NQAA should establish a regional working group that has representatives from all of these state and federal agencies as well as users and other individuals. However, members of the workshop break-out group noted that the formation of this group be delayed as it may be too early to establish such a working group at this time. For now, the group suggested that a coordinating committee meet on a biannual basis. To bring interested individuals and users together, the workshop break-out group suggested that specific recommendations on a particular problem be proposed. The group offered the Florida Keys Dry Tortugas marine reserve establishment process as an example for successful MPA processes. The break-out group defined such a process in four steps: (1) identify a problem, (2) develop a proposal with a specific timeline, (3) form a working group, and (4) develop a number of alternative management options. The break-out group suggested that this process must also include monitoring and enforcement. Group 4 (Facilitator: David Shaw) Discussion in this break-out group centered on recommendations in two areas: stakeholder process and agency collaboration. Although the group was unable to develop a recommendation for a complete stakeholder process in the available time, several important points emerged. 21 ============================ Page 22 • It is necessary to engage stakeholders in the process of policy development rather than to attempt to "sell" a previously developed policy to stakeholders. • The stakeholder process should move from general considerations to specific planning and choices. • Efforts should be made to recruit a core of stakeholders who will commit to continuing participation. • The process used in design of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (where a working group of 25 individuals participated on a continuing basis) may not be a direct model for the Gulf of Maine because of the Gulfs greater size and complexity. However, the general approach might be useful, if working groups were created for various biogeographical sub-units within the Gulf of Maine. The break-out group agreed that agency collaboration is essential to the design and implementation of MPAs or other integrated management approaches. Agency collaboration in the area of research should be emphasized. • Every MPA should be viewed as an experiment and appropriate data collected, analyzed and interpreted to determine the outcome of the experiment. • The quality and duration of research associated with existing MPAs should be improved and the necessary resources should be made available. • Reporting on MPA-related research should be more timely. Group 5 (Facilitator. Mike Connor) Discussion in this break-out group focused on three particular recommendations for future initiatives. First, the group felt that a diverse group of stakeholders should be brought together for a discussion at the Maine Fishermen's Forum. The break-out group was not sure if such a discussion should be arranged for this year. When this idea was presented to all workshop participants, participants seemed to agree that in order to engage stakeholders in a meaningful dialogue, stakeholders need to be equipped with more information about MPAs and MPA initiatives in the Gulf of Maine. For that reason, it was suggested that NOAA, in collaboration with stakeholders, make a 2-3 hour presentation at the Maine Fishermen's Forum in 2002. The full day discussion should be organized for the Maine Fishermen's Forum in 2003. In another 22 ==================================== Page 23 related discussion topic, this break-out group discussed the possibility of meeting with and interviewing stakeholders in their communities. The group noted that because of the need to cover a large area (from Maine to Rhode Island), this task would be resource intensive. The third topic of discussion focused on the need for agencies to coordinate their actions. For instance, it was suggested that state agencies be included in meetings of federal agencies. It was also suggested that the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment form a joint committee with the New England Fishery Management Council. ---23--- ======================== Page 24 ======================== V. Conclusion In public discussions throughout the summer and fall 2001, Gulf of Maine stakeholders expressed an interest in NQAA's efforts to implement Executive Order 13158. Although stakeholders represent a variety of interests and viewpoints, all seem to share a commitment to the future of a sustainable Gulf of Maine. There are several areas on which there seem to be general agreement. Several recommendations for NOAA's National MPA Center were identified during forum discussions. The following recommendations received general support at the forums: • Present a consistent message to all stakeholders about MPAs and the National MPA Center • Coordinate efforts of federal, state, and local agencies • Enhance participation by stakeholders in MPA processes • Ensure that individual MPAs address specific problems and further the goals for the Gulf of Maine • Support coordination of scientific information and local knowledge • Expand on methods of outreach 24 ======================================== Page 25 PARTICIPANTS Appendix A. Workshi Brad Barr NOAA, NOS 166 Water Street Woods Hole, MA 02543 Brad.barr@noaa.gov 508-457-2234 Tony Chatwin Conservation Law Foundation 62 Summer St Boston, MA 02110 achatwin@clf.org 617-350-0990 Mike Connor New England Aquarium Central Wharf Boston, MA 02110 mconnor@neaq.org 617-973-6583 Ben Cowie-Haskell NOAA/SBNMS 175 Edward Foster Rd. Scituate, MA 02066 ben.haskell~noaa.gov 781-545-8026 x207 Lewis Flagg Maine Dept of Marine Resources 21 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 lewis.flagg~state.me.us 207-624-6548 Julie Herndon Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance 200 Main St, Suite A Saco, ME 04072 julie@namanet 207-833-5496 (home) Dan Holland SMAST, UMass Dartmouth 706 South Rodney French Blvd New Bedford, MA 02744 dholland@umassd.edu 508-910-6355 Ted Hoskins P.O. Box 931 Blue Hill, ME 04614 hoskins@ctl .com Jim Houghton 51 Glen Mary Rd Bar Harbor, ME 04609 howdy@ecology.coa.edu 207-288-5677 Ron Huber Task Force Atlantis 418 Main St. Rockland, ME 04841 penbay@justice.com 207-594-5717 David Keeley Maine State Planning 38 State House Augusta, ME 04333 david.keeley@state.me.us 207-287-1491 Kathleen Leyden Maine Coastal Program 38 State House Augusta, ME 04333 kathleen.leyden@state.meus 207-287-3144 U Linda Mercer Maine Dept of Marine Resources P.O. Box 8 West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575 linda.mercer@state.me.us 207-633-9565 Just Moller 7 Hilltop Road Jpswich,MA 01938 jmoller@gis.net 978-356-7660 Tracey Morin New England Aquarium Central Wharf Boston, MA 02110 tmorm@neaq.org 617-742-5446 Daniel Morris NMFS-NERO 1 Blackburn Dr Gloucester, MA 01930 daniel.morris~noaa.gov 978-281-9237 Ben Neal Island Institute P.O. Box 648, 386 Main St Rockland,ME 04841 bneal@islandinstitute.org 207-594-9209 x102 Nakomis Nelson Island Institute P.O. Box 648, 386 Main St Rockland,ME 04841 207-594-9209 Vivian Newman Sierra Club P.O. Box 388 South Thomaston, ME 04858 newviv@erols.com 207-594-7534 Arthur Odlin 210a Pine St South Portland, ME 04106 artieodlin@cs.com 207-799-5981 David Pecci CCA Maine 144 Whiskrig Rd Bath, ME 04530 dave@obsession.com 207-442-8581 Judy Pederson MIT Sea Grant College Program 292 Main St, E38-300 Cambridge, MA 02139 jpederso@mit.edu 617-252-1741 Michael Pentony New England Fishery Management Council 50 Water St, Mill 2 Newburyport, MA 01950 mwp~nefmc.org 978-465-0492 John Phillips The Ocean Conservancy 3 Adams St South Portland, ME 04106 john.phillips63@verizon.net 207-767-0144 Alison Rieser University of Maine Law School 246 Deering Ave Portland, ME 04102 rieser@maine.edu 207-780-4442 David Shaw New England Aquarium Central Wharf Boston, MA 02110 DavidShaw@post.harvard. edu Peter Shelley CLF 120 Tillson Ave. Rockland, ME 04841 pshelley@clf.org 207-594-8107 Susan Snow-Cotter Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management 251 Causeway St Boston, MA 02045 susan.snow-cotter@state.ma.us 617-626-1202 Bonnie Spinazzola Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Assoc 114 Adams Rd Candia, NH 03034 aola-bonnie@mediaone.net 603-483-3030 Bob Steneck University of Maine 390 Wiscasset Rd Whitefield, ME 04353 steneck@maine.edu 207-563-3146 x233 Carolyn Steve New England Aquarium Central Wharf Boston, MA 02110 csteve@neaq.org 617-573-0748 MaryBeth Tooley 415 Turnpike Dr Camden, ME 04843 herring@midcoast.com 207-763-4176 Joseph Uravitch NOAA/NOS/OCRM (Room 11305) 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 joseph.uravitch@noaa.gov 301-713-3155 x195