Marine Mammal Protection Act Archives

Change Is in the Air: Western Pacific SSC Suggests New Approaches for Suite of Issues

March 19, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Scientific and Statistical Committee of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council concluded a three-day meeting last week in Honolulu with a suite of recommendations to more effectively address issues facing fisheries in the U.S. Pacific Islands. The Council will consider those recommendations this week.

Regarding false killer whales, the SSC recommended inclusion of a population variability analysis to supplement the use of and reduce the variability of potential biological removal estimates.

The Southern Exclusion Zone (SEZ), a 132,000 square mile area in the offshore waters around the main Hawaiian Islands, was closed to the Hawai’i longline fishery on Feb. 22, 2019, after its interactions resulted in a mortality and serious injury determination for two false killer whales. With the SEZ closed, less than 18 percent of US exclusive economic zone around Hawai’i remains open to the fishery.

The SEZ may reopen in 2020 if the average estimated false killer whale M&SI in the deep-set longline fishery within the remaining open areas of the EEZ around Hawai’i for up to the five most recent years is below the potential biological removal for the species, the WPRFMC said in a press release.

The Honolulu-based longliners land about $100 million of sashimi-quality tuna, which stays principally in the state.

The PBR is defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act as the maximum number of animals that can be removed, not including natural mortalities, from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach and maintain its optimum sustainable population, i.e., its maximum productivity keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and health of the ecosystem. The SSC recommended the Council request NMFS develop approaches to incorporate population viability analysis to supplement the use of PBR and to reduce uncertainty in PBR estimates. PVA is a species-specific risk assessment method frequently used in conservation biology.

The SSC also requested the Council ask NMFS to provide the data needed for the SSC to develop the PVA in parallel to the NMFS process. Furthermore, it also asked that NMFS develop serious-injury determination criteria for false killer whales that are probability-based. Currently, NMFS considers the impact of a false killer whale determined to be seriously injured to be equivalent to the impact of a dead false killer whale, even though animals determined to be seriously injured are released alive.

Spatial Management: A subgroup of the SSC worked to define benefits and limitations to spatial management actions relative to regional fishery issues and management objectives. The working group explored time-area closures; adaptive/real-time closures and restrictions; permanent no-take closures; and alternative non-spatial management actions, such as gear restrictions.

Members also discussed objectives of management actions, such as increasing targeted bigeye and albacore tuna abundance and reducing Hawai’i longline interactions with sea turtles and false killer whales. The group also identified criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of spatially managed areas. The SSC reviewed the outcomes of the working group and recommended that effective spatial management should have the following:

Objectives and performance metrics explicitly specified prior to developing a spatial management area in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the spatial management. The performance metrics should concurrently address conservation, economic and social objectives;
Regular monitoring of the performance of the spatial management area; and
Planned and tenable compliance monitoring and enforcement. The SSC said permanent closed areas are likely less effective than modifying fishing gear or methods to minimize protected species bycatch. It recommended regulations that would allow industry to find voluntary means to reduce bycatch and have input in the development of mitigation measures.

Hawai’i Kona Crab: The SSC evaluated the benchmark assessment of the Hawai’i Kona crab fishery and determined it is the best scientific information available for status determination and setting harvest limits.

The scientists said the assessment possibly accounted for a limited portion of the stock due to the small geographic extent of the commercial fishery relative to the larger distribution of the stock in Hawai’i as well as a lack of information on noncommercial fishing activities.

It suggested that female crabs discards be recorded on fishermen trip reports and that a stock assessment model be used that can account for sex-specific dynamics, since State of Hawai’i management measures allow the take of males but requires females to be discarded. The SSC recommended that the sex ratio of Kona crab at Penguin Bank be studied to evaluate the potential effects on the stock from the sex-selective fishery and reiterated its strong recommendation that extension of the closed season, changes in mesh size, retention of females and other alternative management options be evaluated to stimulate fishermen participation in this healthy fishery. Fishery participation had declined significantly after the non-retention of female Kona crabs went into effect.

U.S. Territory Longline Bigeye Tuna Quota: Regarding the federal quotas of longline-caught bigeye tuna for the U.S. Pacific Territories that participate in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, the SSC noted that the projected impacts of allowing each U.S. Territory to transfer 1,000 or up to 2,000 metric tons of their 2,000 mt quotas to permitted U.S. longline fishing vessels would not lead to bigeye overfishing and are consistent with the Commission’s management objectives.

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site, it has been reprinted with permission.

Court: No new offshore drilling work during federal shutdown

January 21, 2019 — A federal judge in South Carolina has turned back the Trump administration’s attempt to continue preparatory work for offshore drilling during the federal government’s partial shutdown, issuing a ruling in a federal lawsuit challenging the overall expansion plans.

In his order, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel halted federal agencies “from taking action to promulgate permits, otherwise approve, or take any other official action” for permits to conduct testing that’s needed before drilling work can begin.

The ruling comes a few days after President Donald Trump’s decision this week to recall workers at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management so they could continue to process testing permits for possible drilling off the Atlantic coastline. The recall drew an objection from the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva (gri-HAWL-vah) of Arizona. He called on Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to reverse course or provide a briefing on the legal justification for the move.

Earlier this month, South Carolina joined a federal lawsuit opposing the administration’s plans to conduct offshore drilling tests using seismic air guns. Gergel is overseeing that case, initially filed by environmental groups and municipalities along the state’s coast.

The suit challenges permits for the testing that precedes the drilling itself. It claims the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act in issuing the permits.

Read the full story at the Associated Press

MAINE: Whale rule changes coming on two tracks

January 9, 2019 — Maine lobstermen and their representatives, along with state fisheries regulators, continue in the trenches of debates about how much the Maine lobster fishery is implicated in the decline of the North Atlantic right whale.

Ongoing efforts to protect the whales from entanglement with fishing gear may result in two different new sets of regulations, Sarah Cotnoir, resource coordinator for the Maine Department of Marine Resources, and Patrice McCarron, executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, told the Zone B Council last week.

The two sets of regulations come from parallel processes under two federal laws, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Read the full story at The Ellsworth American

NOAA issues the most protective authorizations to date on marine mammal impacts from Navy Training and Testing

December 20, 2018 — The following was released by NOAA:

The National Marine Fisheries Service today issued final authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to incidentally, but not intentionally, “take” marine mammals during Naval training and testing in the Pacific. This is the third in a series of five-year incidental take regulations for the Navy’s Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing activities. The final regulations put in place measures that are more protective and include a larger area than those in the proposed regulations or previous regulations.

“The Navy has balanced our conservation requirements for marine mammals with their critical national security requirements for training and military readiness. As the acting NOAA administrator and a retired Navy admiral, I know this is a win-win for marine mammal protection and national defense,” said retired Navy Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet, Ph.D., acting under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere at NOAA.

Under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, NMFS evaluates the predicted effects of human activities on protected marine species and may require other agencies and entities to modify their activities to reduce those effects. In this instance, NOAA is imposing stringent mitigation measures expected to reduce adverse impacts to marine mammal stocks and their habitats as well as listed species, including:

Shutting down sonar when marine mammals are in the area;
Waiting for animals to leave the training range prior to use of in-water explosives, and monitoring of the area post-activity to detect potentially affected protected species;
Following protocols to reduce the likelihood of ships striking marine mammals;
Imposing operational limitations in certain areas and times that are biologically important (for example, reproduction, migration, foraging); and
Implementing a Notification and Reporting Plan (for dead, stranded, or struck animals)

“NOAA has been working with the Navy for more than ten years to understand the effects the Navy’s testing and training has on marine mammals and, over time, we have steadily increased the protections in place,” said Donna Weiting, director of NMFS’s office of protected resources.

NOAA and the Navy worked together to develop a robust monitoring plan, with associated strict reporting measures. Additionally, the final rule includes an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate.

In this authorization, the anticipated “take” of marine mammals over the 5-year period primarily includes disruption of behavioral patterns or temporary hearing impairment, but may also include some significantly lesser number of injuries and a very small number of mortalities. The authorization will be in place through December 2023.

Environmental groups will join 16 South Carolina cities to sue over offshore drilling tests

December 11, 2018 — Nine conservation groups and 16 South Carolina coastal communities are expected to sue the Trump administration Tuesday to stop leases to explore for natural gas and oil offshore.

Tracts off South Carolina are among the waters up for grabs. The groups said they will file two separate lawsuits, both in U.S. District Court in Charleston.

The lawsuits will claim the leases violate the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, which prohibits harassing or killing animals such as whales or dolphins.

The exploration would include seismic blast testing that involves loud airguns considered harmful to marine mammals and other sea life.

“Ignoring the mounting opposition to offshore drilling, the decision to push forward with unnecessary seismic testing violates the law, let alone common sense,” said Charleston-based attorney Catherine Wannamaker, with the Southern Environmental Law Center.

“An overwhelming number of communities, businesses and elected officials have made it clear that seismic blasting — a precursor to drilling that nobody wants — has no place off our coasts,” she said.

The 16 municipalities are Charleston, Mount Pleasant, Isle of Palms, Folly Beach, Edisto Island, Seabrook Island, Kiawah Island, James Island, Beaufort, Hilton Head Island, Bluffton, Port Royal, Awendaw, Pawleys Island, Briarcliffe Acres and North Myrtle Beach. Also part of the litigation is the S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

The South Carolina Environmental Law Project sued on their behalf.

Read the full story at The Post and Courier

NOAA Approves Seismic Blasts off Coast of Md., Va.

December 4, 2018 — The federal government has cleared the way for five companies to do seismic surveys in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Maryland and Virginia, as a first step to possible offshore drilling for gas and oil.

National Marine Fisheries Service, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gave final authorization, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, to “incidentally, but not intentionally, harass marine mammals to companies proposing to conduct geophysical surveys in support of hydrocarbon exploration in the Atlantic Ocean.”

That means NOAA Fisheries will allow seismic blasts even though they may unintentionally disturb marine mammals. The companies will be required to monitor acoustics, and take action to reduce the impact on animals. The required actions include vessels listening and watching for marine life, especially protected species. Companies must increase the seismic activity gradually “to alert animals in the area and reduce potential for exposure to intense noise.” And when certain sensitive species are nearby, they must stop blasting.

The geophysical surveys use airgun arrays to explore for hydrocarbons. A 2017 Presidential Executive Order encourages energy exploration like this. The NOAA Fisheries decision to allow blasting on the Atlantic Coast was met with outrage from conservation groups like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management says there is no evidence that seismic surveys harm marine life, but a study it conducted in 2014 shows that nearly three million dolphins and half a million whales could be harassed, or worse, by survey activity.

Read the full story at the Chesapeake Bay Magazine

Lethal force approved for sea lion at Willamette Falls

November 16, 2018 — The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s plan to remove problem California sea lions from the Willamette River Falls using lethal force has been approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The sea lions are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection act, but the federal agency approved the plan because the pinnipeds have put runs of salmon and steelhead in the river in jeopardy of extinction.

ODFW filed the application because analyses showed that high levels of predation by sea lions (25 percent of the steelhead run in 2017) meant there was an almost 90 percent probability that one of the upper Willamette steelhead runs could go extinct.

Read the full story at The Colombian

Federal court upholds ban on Mexican imports in vaquita case

October 24, 2018 — A federal court has upheld a ruling from July that banned seafood imports from Mexico harvested by a drift gillnet.

The decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade on Monday, 22 October came after Trump administration officials appealed Judge Gary S. Katzman’s temporary injunction against the practice. Conservation groups sued the administration seeking a ban in an attempt to save the vaquita, a small porpoise on the brink of extinction.

The porpoise lives in the Gulf of California and estimates put the species population at around a dozen. However, roughly half the stock dies each year in encounters with gillnets. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the Center for Biological Diversity filed the lawsuit in March and claimed the acceptance of Mexican seafood caught by those nets violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

RAMONA DENIES: Should Oregon Kill Sea Lions to Save the Salmon?

October 18, 2018 — Used to be, they’d show up at Willamette Falls around late November—beefy males here to bulk up and loll on the docks. Call it sea lion winter break; time off from California’s Channel Islands rookeries, beaucoup steelhead to eat, zero problems. (No pups, no ladies, no predators.) When it was time to head back south, a 400-pound sea lion might have doubled in size, having chowed down on, at minimum, three 15-pound Pacific Northwest salmonids a day.

Nowadays, these party boys are arriving earlier and staying later. And they’re not just loitering in Oregon City. They also mob the Columbia River, particularly around January, for chinook on their way to spawning grounds—eating, by one report, as much as 45 percent of some salmon runs, a feast season that now draws out through June.

“They’ve learned that in April and May there’s a pretty good buffet,” says Robert Anderson, a fishery biologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Particularly over the past four to five years, there’s been a good uptick in the California sea lions that go to Willamette Falls.”

The result, warned Oregon’s Department of Fish & Wildlife in a 2017 study, is a 90 percent chance some of the Columbia River’s already struggling salmon populations will soon go extinct. And that’s causing some Northwest legislators to take aim at sea lions.

The irony here? Both species are protected by federal law—salmon (steelhead, chinook) by the 1973 Endangered Species Act and sea lions (California and Steller’s) by the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act. That means state, federal, and tribal agencies’ hands are tied when it comes to lethally removing hungry sea lions from river systems—like the mid-Columbia—where historically they’ve never been. According to Charles Hudson of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, that’s the choice we have to make: do we kill one species to save another?

Read the full opinion piece at Portland Monthly

Two years after regulation, NOAA Fisheries evaluating importers’ mammal bycatch

October 17, 2018 — Two years after U.S. officials established new regulations regarding imported seafood and bycatch, NOAA Fisheries is taking steps to make sure other countries are working on reducing the interaction their fisheries have with marine mammals.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act Import Provisons Rule, announced in August 2016, requires seafood importers to maintain the same bycatch standards as American fisheries. The rule took effect on 1 January 2017 but gave countries a five-year period to evaluate their marine mammal stocks and reduce their bycatch to match U.S. standards.

Among the steps completed this year include the creation of a list of foreign fisheries, which was produced in March. The document, considered the first of its kind, evaluated nearly 3,300 fisheries operating in nearly 140 countries. Those fisheries were rated by the frequency and likelihood of whether marine mammals suffered serious injuries or were killed in the process of harvesting fish or other seafood products.

Read the full story at Seafood Source