Tori Lines and Tuna Fish: On October 16, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed a rule requiring almost all Hawaiʻi-based longline vessels targeting tuna in the Pacific Ocean north of 23 degrees N latitude to use tori streamers to scare off albatrosses and other seabirds when the vessels are setting out their lines. At present, the seabird mitigation measures involve the use of thawed, blue-dyed bait and also the discharge of fish parts or spent bait while setting lines.
Tori lines, also called bird-scaring streamers, are mounted on a pole at the stern of a fishing vessel. When the vessel is setting fishing lines, the streamers interfere with the birds’ ability to snatch bait from the hooked longlines and thereby become hooked themselves.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has been advocating for just such a rule change for the past three years, with fishing crews. As the proposed rule states, “use of blue-dyed bait is burdensome due to the amount of time required to thaw and dye the bait, thawed bait loss from hooks, vessel maintenance costs related to using vats of blue dye, and the administrative burden to monitor and enforce consistent application of blue dye.”
Apart from the inconvenience of using blue-dyed bait, its effectiveness in reducing bird interactions has fallen in recent years. Use of the blue-dyed bait began in 2002. Initially, reductions of 70 to 90 percent in bird interactions were reported. According to the Federal Register notice, “seabird interactions … gradually increased in the subsequent years, with significant increases in black-footed albatross interactions in the deep-set fishery since 2015.”
While the proposed rule applies only to deep-set longline vessels that set lines from the stern, it may eventually apply to shallow-set vessels as well. In September, NMFS authorized the experimental use of tori streamers on four vessels deploying shallow-set lines (i.e., targeting swordfish). That experimental use permit expires next August.
Fire Order: On October 4, Environmental Court judge Jeffrey Crabtree issued an order granting in part the Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi’s motion to modify the revocable permits held by Alexander & Baldwin and East Maui Irrigation Company. The permits, granted by the state Board of Land and Natural Resources, allow the companies to divert tens of millions of gallons of East Maui stream water a day to Upcountry and Central Maui.
The Sierra Club’s August motion sought to require the companies to submit a fire protection plan to the Land Board and to line one of their reservoirs to ensure that at least some of the diverted water banked for fire fighting is not lost to seepage.
Rather than grant the group’s request, Crabtree ordered the Sierra Club, the companies, and the Land Board (including a representative of the Department of Land and Natural Resources’ Division of Forestry and Wildlife) to discuss firefighting needs with the Maui Fire Department.
From those discussions, the parties must submit to the court a priority-ranked list of the Fire Department’s or DOFAW’s potential needs of East Maui water for firefighting, fire suppression, or fire prevention.
The parties must be prepared to answer questions the Fire Department might have about how they can help it or DOFAW meet their fire-related needs. “This preparation will include but is not limited to information about the number, location, and capacity of reservoirs which can receive water from the subject streams, and the timing and logistics of diverting water from the streams at issue in order to make it available to the Fire Department or DOFAW in various places when needed,” Crabtree wrote.
Crabtree stated that he recognized that the Fire Department and DOFAW may not readily know what their needs are, “such as where, why, how, and when fires may start in Kula or other areas related to the streams and four permits at issue.”
“If the Fire Department or DOFAW does not have sufficient information to provide the above-described information, submit to the court a list of information that is necessary before such needs can be described in better detail, together with information about where such information might be found,” he wrote.
He stated that his order would be voided by the Land Board’s issuance of new permits resulting from an anticipated contested case hearing, or by another court order, whichever occurs sooner.
Leave a Reply