May 16, 2005
Mary Colligan
Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region
1 Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
(sent by fax 978-281-9394 and email)
COMMENTS ON THE ALANTIC LARGE WHALE TAKE REDUCTION PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMNMETAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
Dear Ms. Colligan:
Please accept these comments on behalf of the Garden State Seafood Association
(GSSA); GSSA is comprised of commercial fishermen, shore-based processors,
commercial dock facilities, seafood markets, restaurants, and various industry
support businesses from New Jersey. Members of GSSA have participated in
both ALWTRP as well as BNDTRP from their beginning and have participated
in cooperative research to address these complex issues. Our comments will
specifically address the commercial fixed gear fisheries that are prosecuted
in the Mid – Atlantic region.
Support for NMFS actions as specified in the DEIS
We support the decision of the NMFS to exempt all waters landward of the 72
COLREGS demarcation line. The Agency’s consideration of the low probability
that whales would be present in these waters is a crucial point that we
feel should also apply to address the relative risk of whale entanglement
in the Mid – Atlantic region.
We appreciate that the Agency is considering solutions that can be implemented
regionally and seasonally. It is our firm opinion that the current scientific
knowledge of the seasonality of whale movements throughout their range must
be reflected in the flexibility of the gear requirements. Furthermore, it
is important that the Agency considers that there is no research being conducted
in the Mid – Atlantic region to assess the feeding behavior of large whales
due to the fact that there is no evidence that Right Whales forage in this
region -- a position made quite clear by Agency officials at the recent
ALWTRT meeting in Baltimore (Dr. Richard Merrick, public communication,
4/26/2005).
The Agency’s acknowledgement that requiring one buoy line may increase the risk
of gear loss due to difficulties in retrieving gear without end buoys and
specifically providing the allowance of two buoy lines per trawl in some
areas is crucial to the efficient operation of all of our fixed gear fisheries.
We strongly support the Agency’s decision to address more vertical line issues
associated with fixed gear in a future amendment. NMFS believes that further
research and discussions with the ALWTRT are needed to address risks associated
with vertical lines and we agree. However, it is important to note
here regarding the vertical line issue that the best available scientific
information provided to the TRT by NMFS (see Johnson et al., 2004, “Fishing
Gear Involved in Entanglements of Right and Humpback Whales”, in press for
Marine Mammal Science) provides no scientific basis that vertical lines
present a more dangerous threat to whales than do groundlines. In fact,
the research indicates that more generically, line in the water may present
a problem for whales and that several actions designed to reduce these risks
may be helpful. These actions include exactly what the Agency is proposing
in the DEIS, namely reducing the occurrence of line in the water column
(i.e. lowering groundline profile) and requiring weak links in vertical
lines and groundlines and in gillnet panels (see Johnson et at. pp. 12-13).
It is important to remember that current proposed alternatives are addressing
some elements of vertical line issues through such measures as mandating
weak links on buoy lines and net panels as well as the proposed gear requirements.
It is our opinion that the implementation of fishing gear mitigation requirements
through this process will provide a significant reduction in the risk and
potential mortality of large whales and will provide further information
on the origin and circumstances of future entanglement events.
Regulatory burden associated with the relative risk of entanglement
While the MMPA provides significant protection for whales, it also provides
consideration for the human element that is impacted. Section 118 of the
MMPA allows consideration for the economics of the fishery and availability
of existing technology as well as current regulations implemented through
State and Regional FMP’s. We respectfully request that the Agency clearly
justify the regulatory burden of any and all new gear requirements in the
Mid-Atlantic and provide a rationale as to why the impacts of any new requirements
are necessary to achieve the specific goals of the TRP.
This analysis must be completed by the Agency when considering the best available
information regarding the Mid-Atlantic region, which includes; that the
Mid-Atlantic contains no critical habitat for large whales. That the National
Right Whale Survey does not extend below Long Island and that only 6% of
the Large Whale Survey is conducted between Long Island and South Carolina.
Sightings of large whales in the Mid-Atlantic account for only 1.7% of the
total of the East Coast whale sightings on a yearly basis. There were 18
entanglements in the Mid-Atlantic from 1997 – 2002, which accounts for only
5% of the large whale entanglements for the East Coast, and given that pot/trap
density in the Mid-Atlantic region is significantly less than compared to
the rest of the coast.
Support for the following regulatory alternatives for Mid-Atlantic gillnet
fisheries
Due to the many components in the alternatives that are found in the DEIS we
cannot identify and support any one alternative but have decided to identify
specific components of the regulatory alternatives that we can support and
request that they be included in the final rule for Mid-Atlantic gillnet
fisheries. The following gear modification will achieve the goals of the
ALWTRP and will significantly reduce the risk of entanglements or mortality
associated with Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries while not having a significant
impact on the fisheries or its participants;
1) Sinking and/or neutrally buoyant groundline by 2008. This would apply
to all groundlines found in anchored gillnets that are part of the anchoring
components found at the end of each net string.
2) Appropriate weak link requirements on flotation devices as specified
for each fishery.
3) The marking surface buoys with vessel or permit number.
4) Net requirements that would anchor each end of net string with an anchor
having the holding power of a 22-lb Danforth-style anchor.
5) The industry can also support gear specific marking requirements that
are consistent with current State/Federal FMP requirements and for the
other TRT’s including the final rule to the BDTRP that will be implemented
in the near term. During the last ALWTRT meeting there was significant
concern that the current gear marking requirements in the DEIS would
achieve very little in the way of new information but would be a burden
to the industry. It was agreed that any additional gear marking requirements
would be remanded to a gear group comprised of members from the TRT.
This could possibly be included in the same amendment to address vertical
lines.
Opposition to the following regulatory alternatives specifically for
weak link requirements in gillnets contained in the DEIS
The following weak link requirements found in the regulatory alternatives contained
in the DEIS are unnecessary due to the low risk associated with these fisheries
and are not supported by the best available science. They will create a
significant burden on the fishermen in this region due to the extensive
and repetitive modifications that would have to be made to existing gill
nets. We oppose the following specific components of the regulatory alternatives
for Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries;
1) We oppose the weak link requirements for anchored nets that do not return
to port and would be required to have the addition of five, 1,100 lb.
weak links per net
panel. Although, we are prepared to offer and support a complimentary alternative
that would compromise the structural integrity of the gillnet. This
modification can be found in the next section of our comments, Modifications
to gillnet alternatives contained in the DEIS.
2) We oppose the weak link requirements that would add one 1,100 lb. weak
link per net panel for drift nets deployed at night. This modification
remains untested and its fishery application is unknown. Our NJ driftnet
fishery uses a net that is 50-60 feet deep, from the corkline to the
leadline, and often catches bluefish and small albacore in great quantities
that will likely break the 1,100 pound weak link while it is being hauled
aboard. Any modification to a gillnet that could cause the loss of mesh,
resulting in the needless waste of fish and possibly being lost thereby
increasing the possibility of a derelict net, is unacceptable. Furthermore,
this fishery exists in the months of May, June and July, which are outside
of the months when large whales are known to concentrate in the Mid-Atlantic.
This fishery has had extensive observer coverage over the last 4 years,
36 trips to be exact (a direct result of the cooperative nature of the
fishermen in our area). During those trips there were no entanglements
observed. It has been practice to convince our members that observer
coverage can be advantageous and can provide useful information where
no data often exits and it often proves our claims. This is clearly
one of those situations and we hope these data are considered when making
a final decision.
3) We oppose the weak link requirements of one; 1,100 lb. weak link per
net panel for anchored gillnets that return with the vessel to port.
This fishery is referred to as a “strike net” and is often used to catch
croaker in close proximity to our beaches, chiefly inside NJ State waters.
It is a unique fishery that occurs from August through November and
has extensive observer coverage over the last 4 years. In fact, the
best available science indicates there were 72 observed trips for this
fishery and there were no reports of any entanglement events.
It is important that the Agency considers local fishing practices and regional
fishery conditions when implementing the final rule for the ALWTRP. The
fisheries described above occur off the coast of New Jersey and often the
vessel is in close proximity of a string of net and in some cases the net
is actively tended and many vessels are from the same port and total no
more than 30 vessels. These factors allow for significant communication
among vessels to alert any of the fleet if whales are present. The best
information indicates that due to the regional aspects associated in these
fixed gear fisheries, the migratory patterns of large whales, the entanglement
data allows for flexible management and gear modifications that reduce the
risk of entanglement but lessens the socioeconomic impact on affected fishermen.
Modifications to gillnet alternatives contained in the DEIS
The following recommendations for weak link requirements will achieve the same
dynamics as observed in the simulated testing referred to in the DEIS. (5-23/27)
Due to the anchoring requirements the float line weak link will break with
very little net attached and will separate from the sinking line due to
the light breastlines and the fact that gill net is the only thing holding
to groundline. This alternative weak link configuration is considered to
be a low cost alternative that can be applied to gill net fisheries with
results that lessen the impact to the industry while still achieving the
goals of the ALWTRP and reducing the risk of entanglement is supportable
and consistent with the Agency’s position on many of the issues contained
in the DEIS.
1) Anchored gillnets that do not return to port with the vessel, will be
required to use a 1,100 pound weak link that would be added to the floatline
between any two gillnet panels and an additional 1,100 pound weak link
must be added to the float line and will be required to be in the center
of each gill net panel, resulting in a gillnet that is structurally
vulnerable. The net will also be required to have one weak link along
the floatline at either end of the net, before the anchor and buoy system.
2) Any line of appropriate breaking strength shall be considered to serve
as a weak link. For gillnet net panels with up and down line (breastlines)
that have a breaking strength that is less than 1,100 pounds no weak
link is needed. Any line running from the float line to the leadline
at the end or along any portion of the net must have a breaking strength
of less than 1,100 pounds.
This weak link configuration was presented to, discussed and supported by the
regional subgroup from the Mid-Atlantic, during the ALWTRP Meeting that
took place on April 25th –27th, 2005, in Baltimore, Maryland. Our subgroup
was comprised of TRT members all of whom were representing the cetacean
science, academic, fishing and animal rights interests.
3) It is our opinion that all states waters
should be exempt from all weak link
requirements. Just as
COLREG exemption areas have been expanded due to low
risk of whale entanglements,
our inshore gillnet (strike net) fishery should be given
the same consideration.
Support for the following regulatory alternatives for Mid-Atlantic Pot/Trap
Requirements Mid-Atlantic
1) Buoy line weak link strength of 1,500 lbs for fisheries in Offshore
waters; 600-lb weak links for fisheries in other areas.
2) The marking surface buoys with vessel or permit number
3) The industry can also support gear specific marking requirements that
are consistent with current State/Federal FMP requirements and for other
TRT’s including the final rule to the BDTRP that will be implemented
in the near term. During the last TRT meeting there was significant
concern that the current gear marking requirements would achieve very
little but would be a burden to the industry. It was decided that any
additional gear marking requirements would be decided by selected group
comprised of members from the TRT.
Modifications to pot/trap alternatives contained in the DEIS specifically
the seasonality of regulatory measures
1) Any modifications to groundlines should be imposed seasonally instead of
on a year round basis and specifically for the Mid-Atlantic region that
the regulatory season begins on September 1st and remain in effect until
March 31st, not the current Alternative that imposes regulations through
May, 1st. Requiring these modifications for only part of the year would
reduce the risks associated with sinking groundlines such as an increase
in lost gear and difficulty in the retrieval of lost gear.
Alternatives to reducing groundline profiles Pot/Traps and appropriate
phase in periods
As stated in the DEIS the Agency believes that addressing the risk associated
with floating groundline by requiring the use of sinking and/or neutrally
buoyant groundline will reduce serious injury and mortality of large whales
due to incidental entanglement in commercial fishing gear (4-47). We look
for Agency guidance and support from the NERO to develop an administrative
procedure that would allow for the exploration and implementation of this
low cost alternative in the final rule prior to the phase in period.
1) Any mandatory requirements to switch to a sinking and/or neutrally buoyant
groundline by 2008 needs to be extended until 2009 to lessen the burden
on affected fishermen. GSSA had originally requested the extension until
2010. Currently there are two ongoing line testing experiments being
conducted through cooperative research between industry and NMFS the
results of which will determine the usable life of alternative sinking
groundlines as well as the practical commercial application of these
new materials.
2) The industry supports the goal of reducing groundline profile for pot
and traps and believes that a technologically simple and cost effective
modification to existing floating rope by the addition of sections of
standard leadline at precise interval along the entire length of the
groundline is a appropriate alternative to sinking groundlines. This
modification has shown to reduce bottom profile to within 2-3 feet off
the bottom and is supported by fieldwork conducted by NMFS staff to
reduce the bottom profile of groundlines using this simple modification.
Applying this premise to gear mitigation alternatives will allow for
the development of cost effective options that achieves the Agency’s
goals of reducing groundline profile.
This alternative was discussed and supported by the regional subgroup from the
Mid-Atlantic, during the ALWTRP Meeting that took place on April 25th
–27th, 2005, in Baltimore, Maryland. Our subgroup was comprised of TRT
members all of whom were representing the cetacean science, academic,
fishing and animal rights interests.
Considering this research is ongoing, involves both industry and NMFS staff,
and may provide for a cost effective solution that achieves the goals
of the ALWTRP we believe that it should have been explored as an alternative
and addressed appropriately in the DEIS in order to be part of the final
rule.
In sum, GSSA requests the addition of a low cost alternative to reduce groundline
profile based on the scientific research conducted by NMFS NERO Gear
Research Team. If this is determined not possible to provide in the
final EIS -- it is imperative that the preamble to the final EIS clearly
indicate the Agency’s firm commitment to develop and implement low cost
gear alternative(s) prior to the beginning of the gear mitigation phase
in period.
Alternatives Considered but Rejected
The DIES Exhibit 3-12 (p.3-41) includes a list of “ALWTRP Regulatory Language
Changes” alternatives considered by rejected. These alternatives involve
lowering groundline profile. As specified in the above section, a low cost
alternative for reducing groundline profile is extremely important for NJ
fishermen and is wholly consistent with the MMPA, which requires the agency
to consider options that are both technologically and economically feasible.
The DIES Exhibit 3-12 (p.3-38) contains a list of “ALWTRP Exempted Areas” alternatives
considered but rejected. These areas, including the 17 – fathom rocks and
fishing areas that utilize areas such a wrecks or artificial habitat, should
be exempt from low- profile groundline requirements. Due to the high bottom
relief and the artificial structure found in theses areas it would not be
practical to use sinking groundlines. The groundlines between each pot/trap
would become tangled in the structure and could cause many pots/trap top
be lost.
NERO staff is conducting groundline experiments to lower line profile by adding
sections of lead line at specified intervals along groundlines. This work
has already proven to be effective in reducing line loops to a depth of
2-3 feet off the bottom. Clearly, this approach reduces the amount of line
in the water column and is therefore consistent with the Agency’s philosophy
that less line in the water protects whales. GSSA fully supports the addition
of a low cost alternative to significantly reduce ground line profile and
believes the data to support/implement this alternative are already available.
GSSA also supports a conceptual definition of “low profile” as “some acceptable
level above the ocean bottom” keeping with the concept that less line in
the water column equates to reduced potential for interactions. The GSSA
is very concerned that the Agency will, lacking the necessary data, either
attempt to gerrymander some specific determination of what is an acceptable
level above the ocean bottom, or not allow for implementation of this alternative.
We respectfully request the Agency examine available whale behavior data
for the Mid-Atlantic region and implement a low profile alternative that
is reasonable, cost effective, and defensible based on the fact that it
will substantially reduce the amount of line in the water column.
Alternatives to address additional sources of entanglement events
There are two known large whale entanglement events that involve “vessel anchoring
systems”. It is widely known that the origin of this anchoring system has
been identified as used extensively by recreational anglers and that this
gear was removed from two large whales. This anchoring system is composed
of a large stainless steel ring attached to an inflatable poly-ball, which
is attached to the anchor line to help in the retrieval of the anchor by
using the forward motion of the boat. It is also a standard practice in
popular areas like the Canyons and Stellwagon Bank that these are left in
place for unknown periods of time to mark a recreational fishing spot for
use at a later date. Based on the best available scientific information,
issues of fairness and equitability, and considering the fact that these
devices are also “vertical lines”, we recommend the Agency include the following
information in the final rule and endeavor to include the recreational sector’s
impacts on large whales in the TRT vertical line mitigation process:
1) Regulations must be considered to prohibit recreational boats from using
these anchoring systems.
2) Some method of enforcement needs to be considered that would prohibit
recreational boats from leaving these anchoring systems as a method
of occupying a fishing spot without actually fishing there.
3) Some enforcement needs to be pursued to prohibit recreational vessels
from tying up to our high flyers, which mark the location and serve
as the only way to retrieve our fixed gear. It is standard practice
for recreational boats to tie up to our gear, often the line is simply
cut and thrown overboard, it is also doubtful that a 1,500 weak link
will hold a pleasure boat and will increase lost gear and associated
risk to large whales. Making this practice a violation of the law would
be helpful.
NEPA Requirements
While not in total agreement with all the proposed management measures contained
in the DEIS, the GSSA is of the opinion that the DEIS sufficiently addresses
the requirements of NEPA. The Act requires decision makers to take into
account environmental factors and consideration of a suite of management
alternatives using a through public process. Various chapters of the DEIS
are pertinent to the NEPA requirements, these include discussion for purpose
and need (see Chapter 2), the suite of alternative considered (see Chapter
3), the environmental impacts of both the proposed actions and all alternatives
(see Chapter 5), and the list of authors and contributors (see Chapter 13).
Clearly, this document, along with associated public meetings and the ALWTRT
process collectively provide information that is sufficient to meet NEPA
requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIS. We look forward to working
with NMFS throughout the ALWTRT process to find solutions that are reasonable
and effective.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory DiDomenico
Executive Director
Garden State Seafood Association