COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 32 Number 6
April 2005
Draft whale proposals focus on gear
GLOUCESTER, MA - The federal government has unveiled the next phase of its ongoing effort to further reduce the risk of whale entanglements, and the proposals under consideration will affect just about every fisherman in the Northeast who works with fixed gear – particularly lobstermen in Maine and those who work offshore.
On Feb. 28, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) made available a massive document titled the “Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Amending the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP): Broad-Based Gear Modifications.”
Basically, the measures under consideration include: phasing out the use of floating groundline; mandating gear modifications on vertical lines; requiring weak links on all flotation or weighted devices attached to buoy lines; phasing out dynamic area management (DAM) actions; and either phasing out or expanding seasonal area management (SAM) depending on the alternative.
Other fisheries, exemptions
The DEIS also includes proposals to bring many more kinds of fixed gear fisheries under the plan’s regulatory authority.
The fisheries include black sea bass, scup, conch/whelk, shrimp, red crab, hagfish, and Jonah crab, all of which would be subjected to requirements similar to the current and proposed requirements for the lobster trap/pot fishery.
NMFS is further proposing to establish exempted areas in which the new requirements would not apply. In many places, the exempted areas run along the mouths of specific harbors, rivers, or bays inland.
But the proposed exempted area for Maine jogs along the entire coastline, butting up against many outer islands, encompassing much more bottom.
The DEIS contains all of these measures in the form of six alternatives plus the exemptions, along with in-depth analyses of the biological, social, and economic impacts associated with each one. The document also includes extensive information on whale and marine mammal stocks, habitat, and applicable federal laws – there are 11 of them.
Float rope out by 2008
The proposal that’s sure to get a lot of attention from many fishermen has to do with floating line. It’s important to understand that NMFS is proposing to require all groundline associated with trap/pot or gillnet gear to be made of “sinking and/or neutrally buoyant” line by 2008.
The change, which many Massachusetts inshore fishermen have already made, would not go into effect for another three years.
In the meantime, NMFS is funding research projects with several state fisheries agencies and in cooperation with line manufacturing companies to come up with new kinds of rope that will work for fishermen who now rely on float line to avoid hang-ups.
These projects include efforts to come up with high-abrasion resistant lines and research into the feasibility of “low-profile” groundline.
Buoy lines
The DEIS proposes little change at this time in vertical line configuration other than some having to do with installing weak links.
The only significant vertical line change is in Alternative 5, which relies on modification or expansion of the existing SAM program. It would require the upper two-thirds of buoy lines in SAM waters to be made of sinking and/or neutrally buoyant line. The bottom third of the line could be made of float rope. This requirement is similar to that already in place in the Cape Cod Bay critical habitat area.
A positive trade-off in Alternative 5 is that NMFS is proposing to modify SAM gear requirements to allow two buoy lines on trawls in SAM waters.
However, in the DEIS, NMFS states that it will be proposing additional measures to further reduce entanglement risk associated with vertical line through a separate, future rule-making action.
So it is likely that vertical line modifications, including the two-thirds sink/one-third float rope requirement, at some point will be considered for implementation on a much larger scale than what is proposed in this DEIS.
Economic impacts
According to the DEIS analysis, four out of the six alternatives are going to cause some real economic pain.
For Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6, NMFS anticipates the number of affected vessels and the annual cost to comply with the proposed changes to be as follows:
• Lobster trap/pot – approximately 3,686 vessels with an average annual compliance cost of $3,484;
• Other trap/pot – 413 to 418 vessels with an average annual compliance cost ranging between $947 and $1,060; and
• Gillnet – 1,024 to 1,044 vessels with an average annual compliance cost ranging between $917 and $925.
The average annual costs associated with Alternative 5 are substantially lower: $210 for lobster boats; $184 for other trap/pot boats; and $163 for gillnetters.
NMFS anticipates that most fishermen will choose to comply with the additional requirements, absorb the costs, and stay in their fisheries.
However, a portion of the fleet may not be able to handle the increased costs under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6. About two percent – about 100 – of all potentially affected vessels can be expected to go out of business as a result of the new rules, NMFS said.
Another 2,600 vessels, most of them Class II lobster boats in Maine, are classified as “at risk” in the NMFS analysis, meaning that the costs associated with the ALWTRP amendments could be as much as five to 15 percent of their annual revenues.
“It is difficult to gauge how these vessel operators may respond to the ALWTRP modifications under consideration,” the agency states in the DEIS. “However, to the extent that these vessels are driven out of business, social and economic impacts could be significant.”
Action inevitable
Even though there are six proposed alternatives in the DEIS, only five of them really matter. The first one is a standard “no action” alternative that is required by federal law.
But NMFS almost surely will take some kind of action at the end of the public review process. That’s because the ALWTRP is not preventing entanglements to the level required by federal law.
For the western North Atlantic right whale, the potential biological removal (PBR) level – the maximum number of animals that can be removed from the population annually as the result of human activity – has been set at zero.
Two other whale species covered by the plan are considered endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): humpbacks, with a PBR of 1.3; and fin whales, with a PBR of 4.7.
Minkes, though not designated as endangered under the ESA, are considered large whales and are covered under the plan with a PBR of 35.
From 1997 through 2002, a total of 36 Atlantic whales were known to have died as the result of entanglements: 17 minkes; 12 humpbacks; three right whales; and three fin whales.
As Commercial Fisheries News was going to press, NMFS had already held a half-dozen public hearings on the DEIS alternatives in states from New Jersey to Florida.
Additional hearings were scheduled for late March in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The last four were scheduled in Maine: April 4 in Ellsworth; April 5 in Rockport; April 6 in East Machias; and April 7 in Portland.
NMFS also stated that it would accept written comment until May 16. Publication of the DEIS is a very important step in the ALWTRP amendment process but it’s not the only one. NMFS is also expected to publish a proposed rule that specifically will discuss how modifications to the ALWTRP will be implemented. The public will have an opportunity to comment on that document as well when the time comes.
Lorelei Stevens
|
|
Tell us what you think.
