Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office August 2019 Scoping Meetings Developing Modifications to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Maine, August 2019 Michael Asaro, PhD., Michael.Asaro@noaa.gov Team Lead, GAR Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Team Colleen Coogan, Colleen.Coogan@noaa.gov, GAR Take Reduction Team Coordinator Marisa Trego, PhD, Marisa.Trego@noaa.gov Environmental Specialist Chao Zou, PhD, Chao.Zou@noaa.gov Economist 2019 SCOPING MEETINGS, LARGE WHALE TAKE REDUCTION PLAN MODIFICATIONS Agenda: • Purpose of scoping meetings • North Atlantic right whale status • Marine Mammal Protection Act • Take Reduction Team Process • April 2019 Take Reduction Team recommendations • Next Steps • Ground rules for Public Comment Images collected under MMPA Research permit number 17355. Photo Credit: NOAA/NEFSC/Christin Khan 2019 SCOPING MEETINGS, PURPOSE, TOPICS PURPOSE: Get public input on scope of analysis needed to evaluate the environmental impacts of modifications to the Atlantic Large Whale Take reduction Plan to reduce risk of serious injury and mortality to North Atlantic right whales to less than 1/year • • • Scoping is different from public comments on a proposed rule – it is an opportunity to provide input on what we analyze and propose We are seeking input on how to reach target risk reduction, considering Take Reduction Team recommendations which include Reducing the number of buoy lines Requiring weak line or weaknesses along the buoy line Modifying buoy line marking requirements In partnership with states, we are prioritizing compatible federal water measures 2019 SCOPING TOPICS • • Geographic scope: Take Reduction Team recommendations are focused on New England waters, north of approximately 40o30’N, and primarily trap/pot fisheries, with an understanding that Mid Atlantic and gillnets will be considered during future Team meetings Scope of environmental impacts: • Human environment: cost of measures in materials, time, impacts on fishing , interaction with other actions such as lobster management measures, energy development • Right whales and other large whales • Other valuable ecosystem components (other fish species, protected species) NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALES ARE DECLINING 411 481 POPULATION IN DECLINE SINCE 2010 in 2010 481 in 2017 411 in 1990 268 WHALES ESTIMATED August 2019, Likely fewer than 400 95 POTENTIAL MOTHERS ESTIMATED ADULT FEMALES 28 85% HAVE BEEN ENTANGLED AT LEAST ONCE Images collected under MMPA Research permit number 17355 Photo Credit: NOAA/NEFSC/Christin Khan KNOWN DEAD JAN 2017 – AUG 2019 12 CALVES BORN OVER LAST 3 SEASONS RIGHT WHALE USE OF NORTHERN RANGE HAS INCREASED Increased energetic costs of extended migration Continued human impacts throughout range Increased exposure to Canadian fisheries and vessel traffic • Evidence of snow crab entanglement from 2013 fishing year. • Substantial increase in right whale presence in Gulf of St. Lawrence since 2015 (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat; Science Advisory Report 2019/028) • High mortalities in Gulf of St. Lawrence: 2015 (3), 2017 (12), 2019 (8), including ship strikes and entanglements Per capita serious inju ry/ mortality 000 1999 2000 2001 - 2002 2003 - 2004 - Cl Ship strike 2005 - Right Whales 2006 Entanglement 2007 - Year 2008 El 2009 2010 - 2011 2012 2013 2014 - 2015 2016 - 2017 2018 808080 a1eulg1sa uonemdod ewum 341313 500 150 - 100 50 INCREASING UNCERTAINTY ABOUT ORIGINAL SITE OF ENTANGLEMENTS For example, in 2018, three right whale mortalities were documented, all showing signs of entanglement, all first seen in U.S. waters • Gear retrieved from January mortality in Virginia – Canadian snow crab • No retrieved gear but clear indicators of pre-mortem entanglement in • August (Martha’s Vineyard) or • October (> 100 miles east of Cape Cod) U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 8 UP TO 100 RIGHT WHALES/YEAR ENCOUNTER GEAR, THROUGH 2017, WE ONLY KNOW ORIGINAL SITE OF 13 INCIDENTS Right whale entanglements from 1997 through 2017 for which the set location and type of gear are known, and gear was recovered from a whale. (Source: Hayes et al. 2018) Throughout waters offshore of Northeast U.S. Atlantic, Bay of Fundy, and Gulf of St. Lawrence UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CURRENT AND FUTURE NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE DISTRIBUTION N. Record et al 2016: Changes (increase in red, decrease in blue) in distribution of prey between 2004-2008 to 2012-2016. Before and after recent decline North Atlantic Right Whale Sightings, 2012 – 2016 Predicting right whale distribution will become more challenging with increasing environmental variability RIGHT WHALES ARE DIFFICULT TO SPOT WHEN NOT AGGREGATED; ACOUSTIC MONITORING Above: Moored buoy, Mount Desert Rock, Fall 2015 From Baumgartner, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Robots4Whales Right: Glider track, Gulf of Maine, December 2018 – April 22, 2019. MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT The MMPA prohibits take of marine mammals - but provides conditional exception for incidental take in commercial fisheries TAKE REDUCTION TEAM PROCESS: • Required if incidental mortality and serious injury exceeds Potential Biological Removal (less than one right whale) • Take Reduction Planning: develop and recommend take reduction measures, consensusbased • NMFS has the ultimate responsibility to take action ATLANTIC LARGE WHALE TAKE REDUCTION TEAM Group Number of Members Trap/Pot Fishery 18 Gillnet Fishery 5 Conservation/ Environmental 6 Academic/ Scientific 9 State Managers 14 Federal Managers 5 Fishery Management Organizations 4 Total 61 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 13 Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 14 Current Plan Weak Links LEGEND Weak Link Regulations 0 600 0 51,500 0 51,500 or 2,000 if red crab GSC LMA 2/3 NOAA FISHERIES Current Plan – Gear Marking And other measures; see webpage for complete Plan details U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 16 Current Plan – Closures Area closures: • Trap pot closures: two areas, over 6,300 mi2 . seasonally closed to trap/pot fishing for three months each • Gillnet closures: over 28,000 mi2 seasonally closed to gillnetting for 3 to 6 month periods U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 17 Current Plan Sinking Groundlines LEGEND Sinking Groundline Regulations Exempt I Required NOAA FISHERIES Current Plan Trawling Up LEGEND REGULATED TRAWL CONFIGURATIONS . Exempt areas 2 trap minimum 3 trap minimum 5 trap minimum . 10 trap minumum 15 traps Mar-Oct 20 traps Nov-Feb . 15trap minimum . 20 trap minimum Management Area Distance to shore 1-H 7"?311' ?3 - V1.19 30%? $?vinr .. .4 . A '9 9 c?o?o?o? kgog' NOAA FISHERIES RIGHT WHALE MORTALITIES IN US COMMERCIAL FISHERIES STILL EXCEED PBR 10 Serious Injury and Mortality from Documented Entanglements of Right Whales first seen in US Waters and NOT known to be Canadian gear has Exceeded PBR Every Year since 2000 Except for Two 9 Documented mortalities are based on opportunistic sightings and are a minimum estimate. A preliminary analysis based on mark -recapture-recovery data estimates that realized entanglement-related serious injury and mortality is at least twice what 7 is observed 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017 Known US First Seen in US PBR NOT ALL RIGHT WHALE DEATHS ARE DETECTED From 2018 Right Whale Stock Assessment Report, Figure 4. Observed annual total serious injuries and mortalities (SI/M) versus estimated mortalities extending the methods from Pace et al. (2017) APRIL 2019 ALWTRT MEETING Meeting goal: Identify and recommend modifications to the ALWTRP to further reduce impacts of U.S. fixed gear fisheries on large whales and reduce mortality and serious injury to below PBR (0.9/year) for right whales Objective: Risk Reduction Focus: Develop consensus recommendations on a suite of measures that will achieve a 60 to 80% reduction in mortalities and serious injuries of right whales in U.S. fisheries to support NMFS rulemaking that will be initiated in May 2019 Relative Risk Reduction Decision Support Tool: RISK = Whale Density * Gear Density * Relative risk of gear configuration U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA Fisheries Page 22 State/Jurisdiction Vertical Line Reduction NEAR- CONSENSUS Maine permitted AGREEMENT vessels through LMA1 NH LMA1 Massachusetts LMA1 and Outer Cape Gear Modification 50% vertical line reduction through LMA1 (50% risk reduction) LMA 1 - Weak rope outside of 3 miles on ¾ length of buoy line (toppers) (11.6% risk reduction) 61.6% 30% vertical line reduction (30% risk reduction) 1700lb breaking strength or sleeves (28.5 % risk reduction) 58.5% Mass Bay Restricted Area Closure (24% risk reduction) Sleeves or 1700lb breaking strength or equivalent (11% risk reduction) 60% 30% vertical line reduction, not including MBRA fishermen (5%) (25% risk reduction) LMA 2 Massachusetts and Rhode Island Lobster management areas (LMAs) created for fishery management purposes 18% (2018 - 2020) vertical line reduction (18% risk reduction) 1700 lb or equivalent (42% risk reduction) LMA 2 / 3 Overlap Trawling up to 30 traps (from 20) – Massachusetts, (30% risk reduction for that area) Rhode Island LMA 3 Est. % Risk Reduction Accelerate planned line reduction Rapid research on alternatives to 18% by 2020 introduce weak rope or weak link elements in to offshore line 60% 18% + TBD Commitment to 60% APRIL 2019 ALWTRT RECOMMENDATION: Considerations • “Dwight Carver safety exemption” for skiffs and students. • Revisit need for weak links in trap/pot gear • Decision Support Tool Improvements • Take Reduction Plan monitoring, to include: • Whale surveys - numbers and distribution • Lines – numbers and trends • Evolution of implementation including • Accommodate gear innovations • Assess effects on socioeconomics post implementation NEED INPUT ON ELEMENTS OF APRIL 2019 ALWTRT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. Line Reduction Measures Weak Rope Gear Marking Closed Areas 1. Line reduction measures: Optionsfor LMA1 and Outer Cape (LMAs no under an effort reduction plan) Endline reduction Potential considerations Trawling up 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Endline allocation Trap reduction 1. 1. Equipment cost Labor cost Catch impacts Gear loss Additional crew Vessel modification Safety Similar to above list Catch impact Potential benefits 1. 2. Savings on endlines and buoys Savings on fuel 1. Fishermen choose reduction method 1. 2. 3. Savings on endlines and buoys Savings on traps Savings on other lines Risk Reduction Estimate Example: 18% endline reduction = 18% risk reduction 1. Line reduction measures: Options andConsiderations Example: Estimated risk Reduction of 24 traps/trawl outside of 12 nm: ~ 12 % reduction for ME permitted vessels 2. Weak rope and weaknesses in buoy line: Why? A review of 132 rope segments recovered from 70 whale entanglements showed few whales, and no right whales carrying gear with breaking strength of less than 1700 lbs. The authors believe that right whales are capable of breaking free of rope with breaking strengths of 1700 lbs and less. (Knowlton et al., 2015) This is consistent with an estimate of the maximum thrust and force of that right whales are capable of based on their anatomy. (Arthur et al., 2015) Weak Rope examples South Shore Sleeve, other weak inserts include spliced in 5/16th rope and other devices that break at 1700 lbs. Examples of “weak” rope obtained for testing by the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association: Ketchum rope and Shippagan rope Measurements of force of hauled gear 353 hauls using load cells to measure force used: • Smaller trawls in < 50 fathoms required < 1700 lbs • Approaching 1700 lbs for trawls of 15-20 pots/trawl in 50-100 fathoms, • Over 1700 for: > 25 pots/trawl in 50-100 fath > 20 pots/trawl in > 100 fath > 50 fath - weak toppers Preliminary data from Maine Dept. of Marine Resources assessment of vertical line in Gulf of Maine region under NOAA Fisheries Grant NA18 NMF4720084 Weak rope measures: Options and Considerations Weak Rope Potential considerations Weak Rope 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Intermittent weak rope: Sleeves, spliced in weak rope, etc, every 6 - 10 fathoms Timed Tension Line Cutter Gear replacement costs Gear modification (time) costs Gear loss costs More frequent replacement Increasing operating risks Safety Potential benefits 1. Avoids area closure 2. Savings when replacing new ropes Similar to above 1. Avoid area closure 2. Costs less than full 1. Device costs (TTLC not yet commercially 1. Avoid area closure 2. Fish with original gear replacement 3. Menu for flexibility available) 2. Gear loss due to device failure or gear conflict sets 3. Can result in extensive lengths of line on whales Preliminary Risk Reduction Estimate: 1700lb every 10 fathoms everywhere < 50 fath ~ 21.5% 1700lb toppers everywhere >50 fath ~ 9.6% 3. Gear marking measures: Options and Concerns Options: ● TRT recommendation: everywhere year round, no exemptions (not just New England) ● Supported: 3 foot solid mark within two fathoms of buoy; addition to current 1 foot requirements for mark in top, middle and bottom sections ● Modify to delineate country, support for state colors, consider adding additional area marks ● Allow sleeves/weak inserts as gear mark Potential costs 1. 2. Equipment Labor Potential benefits Increase the probability of identification of recovered lines from whales to reduce uncertainty of location of entanglement 4. Area closure measures: Not in Team Recommendation Potential considerations Gear in (move to other areas) Gear out (move to dock) Ropeless as alternative to closure 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. Fuel costs Less catch No catch Extra trips to move gears Storage costs Cash flow/payments costs Device costs Gear loss costs due to device failure or gear conflicts Costs to mobile fisheries and enforcement for detection Safety Potential benefits 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. Exploring new fishing ground Maintain income stream to support year round costs Reduce operating costs: Bait, fuel, etc. Labor savings Better catch in the future (more and higher quality) Alternative to area closure Fish with original gear sets Example area closure measures: Risk Reduction Estimates generated upon request at TRT meeting: ● Nantucket for Feb - May 15 (gear removed) ~ 1% risk reduction ● Half year LMA1 closure Jan - May: ~ 29.2% risk reduction, ~ 16.1% reduction of lines Example proposed for October 2018 TRT meeting *LESSON: To be effective, need to be large and for long periods of time Examples suites of measures that reach the target 1. TRT Framework: Universal line reductions varying by management areas/jurisdictions + extensive weak rope 2. Universal weak rope + line reduction under existing fishery management effort reduction plans (LMA ⅔ 18% anticipated) + large area closures 2-3 months 3. Universal weak rope + entire fishery closure Feb-May 14 The TRT alternative appears more reasonable NEXT STEPS • Consider information from scoping meetings and share with states • Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to analyze risk reduction alternatives • Request comments on DEIS late in 2019 • Parallel state rulemaking • Draft proposed rule for Federal waters and to mirror state rules • Proposed Rule will be published for comments 2019 SCOPING MEETING PROTOCOLS • Using the order on the sign in list, I will call you up to the microphone. If you did not sign in but want to speak, we will try to give you that opportunity after running through our initial list Written comments are welcome: Under subject line (or write on outside of envelope): “Comments on Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Scoping.” By Email: nmfs.gar.ALWTRT2019@noaa.gov By Mail: Address to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276. 2019 SCOPING MEETING PROTOCOLS We are collecting your comments to guide DEIS development and help us define the alternatives and elements we will analyze ● Active and focused participation requested ● Respectful interaction; please keep an open mind and listen to others ● Make good use of everyone’s time: Please limit comments to 3 minutes so other can participate and Please restrict comments to the meeting goal (scope of alternatives and elements to be analyzed) There is no need to repeat other comments verbatim, just indicate support ● Comments should be directed to NOAA Fisheries and Maine Department of Marine Resources staff Send input to: nmfs.gar.ALWTRT2019@noaa.gov USEFUL INPUT ABOUT YOUR FISHING OPERATIONS Vessel Characteristics Fishing Practice Gear marking or replacement Vessel length Do you fish your total trap allocation? How do you mark your gear? Fishing area Total traps Gear configuration How many/what percentage of traps in water at a time? Do you pull gear? Where do you keep your gear when season is over? What's the storage cost? On land or at sea? What about line replacement or weak sleeves installation? How and where do you dispose of old fishing lines? Send input to: nmfs.gar.ALWTRT2019@noaa.gov