North Atlantic Right Whale
Photograph attribution: NOAA Atlantic Right Whale directory page <North Atlantic Right Whale | NOAA Fisheries>
Introduction
The decline in large Atlantic whale populations is of critical concern made evident by the most recently documented low population values. Addressing this concern is challenging for reasons including, but not limited to, the time lag associated with using data that is not up to date and may not accurately represent current populations, the availability of only a minimal percentage of concrete evidence directly identifying the causes of absence/mortality, and the need to maintain a balance between whale and industry utilization of the same water bodies. In short, there are known and unknown variables affecting whale populations and the proposed modifications to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan regulations can be reasonably expected to positively impact the potential biological removal level.
Comment Letter
March 1, 2021
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
14th & Constitution Ave NW Ste 6,
Washington, DC 20230
Re: In the Matter of a Proposed Rulemaking to Amend “Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations”
To Whom It May Concern,
Environmental Review, Inc. has reviewed the document. Please see the comments below in response to the proposed modification/associated documentation.
1. Changes to Restricted Areas: Concerning the New LMA1 Restricted Areas, across Maine Lobster Zones C/D/E, we advise against the alternative 1-A because there is not sufficient evidence that excluding this closure will still produce a 60% reduction. Alternative 1-B operates with adaptable restrictions based on the current movement of whales through the area and lowest economic impact to fishermen. Additionally, recent research has observed economic benefits from the reduction of trap numbers in the US American Lobster Fishery(1). This as well as other recent fishery research (2) indicates that short closures could be beneficial to lobster harvests as well as whale take reductions. Therefore, we propose implementing this option. However, we advise for increased observers within the relevant trap/pot fishery to ensure that sightings numbers are accurate.
2. Seasonal closures and how they contribute to the 60% reduction
Page 5-141 of the DEIS Volume I states that “the likelihood of encountering a North Atlantic right whale increases with distance from shore” off the coast of Maine in LMA1, and therefore, the greatest risk reduction will be reached by more greatly reducing buoy line numbers far from shore. No information was found to show that this pattern is accurate for other potential restricted areas, such as LMA2. Such data may be helpful in determining whether the Massachusetts South Island seasonal closure is necessary. Since much of this area is close to the shore, the closure may be more necessary in the parts furthest from shore (i.e. south of the LMA 2/3 overlap) rather than the part just south of the island. Consider implementing the seasonal closure only to persistent buoy line fishing a certain distance or less from shore.
3. Changes to Restricted Areas: the Massachusetts Restricted Area (50 CFR 229.32(c)(3)) and Great South Channel Restricted Trap/Pot Area (50 CFR 229.32(c)(4)) component states that fishermen wanting to fish with ropeless technologies need to apply for an exemption to the state rule regarding top gear marking.To facilitate future evaluation of this component, we suggest putting a plan in place to collect data on the number of fishermen using this technology. To address gear conflicts which might arise with increased use of this technology in the same geographic areas, we also recommend the development of a publicly shared resource such as a universal database for deployment locations.
4. DEIS, 3.1.1.2 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Consideration of Take Reduction Team Target: One challenge in determining the effectiveness of buoy line reduction was inconsistency in data collection across relevant states. Decision Support Models utilized by the DEIS used data from 2017, which may not reflect current buoy numbers. Additionally, federal lobster permits do not require trip reporting, according to the DEIS Volume II, appendix 5. A requirement that all trap/pot fisheries in the affected states include buoy line data in their trip reports should be added to the proposed rule.
Please direct all responses to these comments to the following email address:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Johnson, M.S.
Sr. Reviewer (Associate in Illinois)
Veronica Guerra, B.S.
Reviewer (Associate in California)
Lourdes Barrelli, M.S.
Sr. Reviewer (Associate in Utah)
Environmental Review Workshop
(Environmental Review, Inc., a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Public Benefit Organization)
1. Myers, Hannah J., Moore, Michael J., "Reducing effort in the U.S. American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery to prevent North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) entanglements may support higher profits and long-term sustainability", 2019-11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104017, https://hdl.handle.net/1912/24899
2. Michael Roach, Mike Cohen, Rodney Forster, Andrew S Revill, Magnus Johnson, The effects of temporary exclusion of activity due to wind farm construction on a lobster (Homarus gammarus) fishery suggests a potential management approach, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 75, Issue 4, July-August 2018, Pages 1416–1426.