These data indicate that whales travel widely  up and down the Atlantic coast and encounter and become entangled in  commercial fishing gear. While there is general  agreement among scientists, conservationists, federal and state regulators,  and industry groups that requiring certain commercial fisheries to use  sinking groundline—one of the key features of NMFS’s proposed  modifications to the ALWTR plan—will reduce risks to whales,  uncertainties remain regarding how many fewer serious injuries and  mortalities will occur. NMFS Based Its Proposed Gear Modifications on Scientific Studies of Whale Entanglement, Scarification, and Sightings

To support the need to propose changes to the ALWTR plan, NMFS used  its annual stock assessment reports of endangered large whale  populations and entanglement reports, which showed that—despite  current regulatory measures—right and humpback whales were being  seriously injured or killed by entanglements in commercial gear at a rate  that limits the species’ ability to recover to their maximum sustainable  population. A  NMFS official acknowledged that weak links are not effective for all types  of entanglements. NMFS told us that it is operationally  feasible to use sinking groundline in all areas, but that fishermen may have  to modify their fishing practices. In contrast,  officials from the Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA) told us that  fishermen who operate in rocky ocean bottom areas will not be able to use  sinking groundline because it will abrade on the rocky bottom—requiring  them to replace their rope too frequently and causing gear loss—and may  create safety hazards for fishermen. However, there  were significant uncertainties associated with the data used to develop  these cost estimates, which were not fully represented in NMFS’s single  cost estimate. NMFS does not expect that all  fishermen’s groundline would have the same lifespan as the estimates  reported in the DEIS and acknowledges that actual costs to replace  groundline could be higher or lower than estimated. NMFS Could Not Fully Assess the Impacts of the Proposed Changes on Fishing Communities Because It Lacked Data on Fishermen’s Ability to Absorb Additional Costs and Remain in Business

In addition to assessing the cost of the proposed gear modifications to the  fishing industry, NMFS analyzed the effects of the costs of complying with  the proposed gear modifications on both fishermen and fishing  communities. Furthermore, because NMFS lacked information about which specific  fishermen, living in which communities, would go out of business, it could  not predict the extent to which specific communities would be affected. In  addition, NMFS has not developed a strategy for determining whether  future entanglements are due to industry noncompliance with the gear  modification requirements or the ineffectiveness of the gear modifications  themselves. Second, NMFS has not proposed marking sinking groundline. Recommendations

Before NMFS finalizes its proposed regulations for the ALWTR plan, we  recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Administrator of  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to direct the Assistant  Administrator for NMFS to take the following three actions:    adequately represent the uncertainty in data that the agency used to  determine the costs of the proposed fishing gear modifications, by  presenting a range of possible costs in the economic analysis section of  the final environmental impact statement; revise the proposed gear-marking requirements to include markings on  sinking groundline and gear marking requirements in exempted areas; and   develop a strategy for assessing the extent of industry compliance with the  gear modification requirements. Specifically we (1) described the scientific basis for the proposed changes  to the ALWTR plan and the extent to which uncertainties exist regarding  how effectively they will protect large whales; (2) described how the  agency plans to address implementation issues, particularly in the rocky  bottom areas of the North Atlantic coast; (3) evaluated the extent to which  NMFS fully assessed costs to the fishing industry and economic impacts  on fishermen; and (4) evaluated the extent to which NMFS has developed  strategies for fully assessing the effectiveness of and industry compliance  with the proposed changes. As a result, we did not revise the report in  response to this comment. 14.
Why GAO Did This Study

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) developed the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction (ALWTR) plan to protect endangered large whales from entanglements in commercial fishing gear, which can cause injury or death. Because whales continued to die after the ALWTR plan went into effect, NMFS proposed revisions in 2005. GAO was asked to review these proposed revisions, including (1) their scientific basis and uncertainties regarding their effectiveness, (2) NMFS's plans to address concerns about the feasibility of implementing them, (3) the extent to which NMFS fully assessed the costs to the fishing industry and impacts on fishing communities, and (4) the extent to which NMFS developed strategies for fully evaluating their effectiveness. GAO reviewed the proposed changes to the ALWTR plan and obtained the views of NMFS officials, industry representatives, scientists, and conservationists.

What GAO Found

NMFS used scientific data on whale entanglements, scarification, and sightings as support for its proposed changes to the ALWTR plan. These data indicate that right and humpback whales are being injured and killed by entanglements in commercial fishing gear at a rate that limits the species' ability to recover. One of the key proposed changes to the ALWTR plan involves replacing floating groundline, which forms arcs in the water that can entangle whales, with sinking groundline that lies on the ocean bottom. While there is a consensus among whale experts that using sinking groundline will reduce risks to whales, uncertainties remain regarding how many fewer serious injuries and mortalities will occur as a result of this requirement. NMFS has not yet resolved implementation issues associated with using sinking groundline in rocky bottom areas, particularly off the coast of Maine. While NMFS believes that it is operationally feasible to use sinking groundline in all areas, it recognizes that fishermen may have to modify their fishing practices to use this type of gear effectively. Maine lobster industry representatives told GAO that fishermen who operate in rocky bottom areas will not be able to use sinking groundline because it will wear away and create safety hazards if the line snaps when it is hauled. NMFS's economic assessment of the costs of the proposed gear modifications did not reflect the significant uncertainties associated with the assessment, and the extent to which these costs to the fishing industry could be higher or lower than reported is unclear. Because NMFS lacked verifiable data for some of the key cost variables, it used estimates and assumptions that introduced a significant amount of uncertainty into the cost calculations, which the agency acknowledged. However, instead of presenting a range of costs to account for these uncertainties, NMFS produced a single estimate of compliance costs--about $14 million annually. Moreover, because it lacked key data on fishermen's ability to absorb these costs without going out of business, NMFS could not fully assess the impacts that the cost of gear modifications would have on fishing communities. For example, without knowing which specific fishermen would go out of business, NMFS could not determine the impact lost jobs would have on the communities in which they lived. NMFS has not developed strategies for fully evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed regulatory changes. Specifically, NMFS's gear-marking requirements may not be adequate for effectively assessing future whale entanglements because they do not include comprehensive markings that researchers could use to assess the type of rope involved in entanglements. Additionally, NMFS does not yet have a strategy to monitor the level of industry compliance and therefore lacks a means to determine whether any future entanglements are due to industry noncompliance with the regulatory requirements or the ineffectiveness of the gear modifications.