|
New Whale Safe Gear
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) recognizes two concepts that are key for Maine — expanded exemptions from gear modifications for inshore fishing, and the viability, at some point in the future, of low-profile groundline. However, most of the alternatives require sinking groundline by 2008, in the absence for now of an acceptable low-profile line, which would provide some hover above Maine’s rocky bottom and wouldn’t chafe to bits in a short time. “The bottom line is, we’re looking at Alternative 5,” (see Alternative provisions below) said Department of Marine Resources (DMR) liaison, Terry Stockwell. Alternative 5 doesn’t contain a prohibition on floating groundline. Instead, it includes an expanded seasonal area management (SAM) program, which could create other problems, potentially going to inshore western Maine and around Mount Desert Rock. The NMFS proposals do show some recognition of Maine’s efforts to eliminate risks to whales. “It’s a huge deal for us to get the concept of exemptions recognized,” Stockwell said. The state will encourage fishermen to support the concept of exemptions and to work out zone-specific adjustments in terms of both operational viability and enforcement, he said. The likelihood of Alternative 5 going through, at this point, seems low, he said. If it does go through, he said, there is little doubt the conservation community will mount vigorous opposition to the continued use of floating groundline. The approach for Maine in the coming months, said Stockwell, is to advocate for Alternative 5 but keep going down the low-profile road. “Alternative 5 is the one that’s going to do the least harm and the most good for the state of Maine,” agreed Clare Grindal, executive director for the Downeast Lobstermen’s Association. Fishermen have been diligently testing different types of line, she said. Finding something that will work hasn’t been so easy, said Stanley “Cappy” Sargent of Milbridge. “A lot of the stuff on the market hasn’t worked in this area,” he said. It chafes, snags, and breaks. None of the new line has lasted longer for him than seven months, compared with the years of use he’s had out of floating line. Because it doesn’t slide easily, it tends to catch on the rocks and create huge snarls on the bottom. “Everything we’ve tried is horrendous,” he said. “And we’ve found the stuff has no durability at all. At $1.85 to more than $2 per pound, you’re talking about many tons of rope.” The gear also takes an enormous amount of time to rebuild, Sargent said. “There’s a lot more to this than a lot of people think,” he said. About five tons of rope goes into his 800 traps; the amount depends on the depth of water and how far apart the traps are strung. “If the stuff will work, we’ll go with it,” Sargent said. Fishermen expressed dismay that they were given so little time to consider and comment on the alternatives, which were published Feb. 25 and soon after went to public hearings that began mid-March from Florida to Maine. A lot of the changes, said Stockwell, “could critically, radically change things.” The alternatives seek to reduce the risk of entanglement by measures such as folding in other trap/pot fisheries, including black sea bass, scup, conch/whelk, shrimp, red crab, hagfish, and Jonah crab, reducing the profile of groundlines; and mandating gear modifications to vertical lines, for example, by requiring gear marking and the use of weak links of lower breaking strength. NMFS will consider options to further reduce entanglement risk associated with vertical line through future rulemaking.
ALWTRT Seeks To Fine-Tune Proposal The (ALWTRT) meets late April in Baltimore, Md. The proposal goes to final rule-making by the end of summer, then to public hearing again. The final rule is expected to be published by the end of 2005, with implementation by this time next year. The ALWTRT, formed in 1996, to address entanglements of large whales, and comprising members from Maine to Florida, has had trouble coming to a consensus on how to address the problem, she said. However, the team agreed on two principles: reduce the profile of groundlines and the risk of vertical lines. NMFS planning coordinator Diane Borrgaard said the existing plan has failed to reduce the number of injuries and mortalities of large whales to levels acceptable under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). “The agency does believe that large whales and the fisheries can co-exist,” Borggaard said. “We’ve identified what we believe are the best gear modifications available,” said Mary Colligan, who leads the NMFS effort to protect large whales. “We’d like to expand their use to all of the operations that could seriously injure or kill whales, and refine where and when modified gear is required.” The new proposals don’t grapple specifically with low-profile rope, due to a lack of sufficient information about how and where gear would be modified, and corresponding information about the distribution of the large whales in question, Borggaard said. “We haven’t closed the door on it,” she said. Maine’s thought on groundline, said Stockwell, is that the line’s profile could be reduced enough to prevent a risk to whales but also have some hover so it wouldn’t get caught on Maine’s inshore rocky bottom. NMFS has accepted the concept, he said, but Maine must still work out an acceptable height that will work both for fishermen and for whales. “That’s what we’ll be working on for the agency to consider,” he said. “I think we can get it to hover anywhere. But we don’t know yet how much lift you need and how low it needs to be.” Research is also underway to reduce risk associated with vertical line, such as different buoy line configurations and requiring a minimum number of traps per trawl. Studies include how whales utilize the water column, including their foraging ecology and diving behavior, which will help to determine the appropriate mitigation strategies to reduce entanglement risk of vertical line. Four parts of fixed fishing gear are involved in entanglements: buoy line, groundline, floatline, and surface system lines. Buoy line connects the gear at the bottom to the surface system. Groundline connects traps/pots to each other to form trawls; or connects a gillnet or gillnet bridle to an anchor or buoy line. Floatline is the portion of gillnet gear from which the mesh portion of the net is hung. The surface system includes buoys and high-flyers, as well as the lines that connect these components to the buoy line. Where parts of gear could be identified, 56 percent of whales were entangled in buoy line, 28 percent in groundline, 16 percent in gillnet floatline, and 8 percent in surface system line. Records from 1970-2000 included at least 72 right whale entanglements, including right whales in weirs, entangled in gillnets, and trailing line and buoys. From 1993-2002, 29 right whales were entangled. Four died, five are potentially dead, 12 are alive and gear-free, six are alive and entangled, and two are unknown. From 1997-2001, 30 humpbacks were entangled; 12 died. There were three fatal fin whale entanglements. Entanglements continued to occur after the ALWTRP went into effect in 2002. From March-December 2002, there were recorded one fatal and six live entanglements of right whales and additional humpback, finback and minke cases. The 2003 data indicate that four right whales, 20 humpbacks, and two minkes were entangled; deaths included two humpbacks, one fin, and seven minkes. NMFS concluded more work was needed. “Due to the continuing risk of serious injury and mortality of large whales since the most recent revisions of the ALWTRP have gone into effect, NMFS believes additional modifications to the ALWTRP are needed to meet the goals of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act,” the DEIS says. Alternatives to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team Proposal • Alternative 1 is the status quo. • Alternative 2 would make changes common to all fisheries, including weak links on flotation and/or weighted devices attached to the buoy line; by 2008, all groundline would need to be sinking and/or neutrally buoyant; both seasonal area management (SAM) and dynamic area management (DAM) requirements would be eliminated in 2008. Alternative 2 would remove the current gear-marking system and instead require that fishermen mark surface buoys to identify vessel or permit number; and fishermen would identify buoy lines with one 4-inch mark every 10 fathoms. Regional and fishery-specific color scheme will be considered. • Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2, but would call for seasonal rather than year-round requirements for fisheries in the mid- and south Atlantic. • Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative 2, but would call for seasonal rather than year-round regulation of fisheries in the south Atlantic, rather than the mid- and south Atlantic as specified by Alternative 3. • Alternative 5 would differ significantly from Alternatives 2-4, expanding provisions of the existing SAM program. The expanded area would include the Great South Channel Critical Habitat. In SAM waters, the plan’s rules would require the upper two-thirds of buoy lines to be made of sinking and/or neutrally buoyant line. The provision would modify existing requirements by allowing the bottom third of the buoy line to be made of floating line. Alternative 5 would also incorporate the same gear-marking requirements and exempted areas as Alternative 2; and eliminate the DAM program six months after publication of the final rule. Alternative 5 would not create the broad-based gear modification requirements called for under Alternative 2, such as sinking/neutrally buoyant line in groundline. • Alternative 6 would combine elements of Alternatives 3 and 5. Buoy line weak link requirements and broad-based gear requirements, such as sinking/neutrally buoyant groundline, anchoring, gear marking, etc., would be introduced on the same schedule and with the same seasonal and geographic provisions as described under Alternative 3; however, DAM requirements would be eliminated six months after publication of the rule, rather than in 2008, and the expanded SAM zone and SAM regulations described in Alternative 5 would apply from six months after publication until 2008, when the SAM zones would be eliminated. Alternatives 2-6 would specify a number of areas exempt from the new requirements, including much of the Maine coast landward. Alternatives 3 and 6 are the packages preferred by NMFS. Workshop and Hearings Information An all-day foraging workshop will be hosted by the DMR on Friday, April 15, in Saco, at the Holiday Inn. The meeting is not open to the public, but observers may attend if they register with Laura Ludwig, 633-9513. The workshop will bring together experts in three areas: right whale specialists, zooplankton sampling specialists, and oceanographers, who will go over the existing data regarding feeding grounds and habits of right whales in the nearshore Gulf of Maine and look at the gaps in the information. The goal of the workshop, Ludwig said, is to come up with a research sampling plan, but the workshop will also help to inform fishing-gear issues as they pertain to the presence of right whales. Hearings in Maine will be held Monday, April 4, 6 - 9, p.m., Holiday Inn, 215 High St., Ellsworth; Tuesday, April 5, 6 - 9 P.M., Samoset Resort, Rockport; and Thursday, April 7, 6 - 9 P.M., Holiday Inn By the Bay, 88 Spring St., Portland. Information is available at www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/hotnews/whales/index.html. Or contact Marci Hobbs at 978-281-9300, Marcia.hobbs@noaa.gov, or Diane Borggaard at 978-281-9300, ext. 6503, e-mail: diane.borggaard@noaa.gov. Public comments will be accepted through April 26. |
