80 FR 39542 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 131 (July 9, 2015)

NMFS' Office of Protected Resources has received a request from NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted in a specified geographical region, over the course of five years from the date of issuance. As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take, specific to each geographical region and requests comments on the proposed regulations.

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39542-39605]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16574]



[[Page 39541]]

Vol. 80

Thursday,

No. 131

July 9, 2015

Part III





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 219





Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental 
to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 39542]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 219

[Docket No. 150413360-5500-01]
RIN 0648-BF02


Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 
Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS' Office of Protected Resources has received a request 
from NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) for authorization 
to take marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted in a 
specified geographical region, over the course of five years from the 
date of issuance. As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take, specific to 
each geographical region and requests comments on the proposed 
regulations.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than August 
10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2015-0078, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 
www.regulations.gov, enter 0648-BF02 in the ``Search'' box, click the 
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or 
attach your comments.
     Mail: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, 
Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any 
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the 
end of the comment period. Attachments to electronic comments will be 
accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file formats only. To 
help NMFS process and review comments more efficiently, please use only 
one method to submit comments. All comments received are a part of the 
public record. NMFS will generally post the comments on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. 
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields 
if you wish to remain anonymous).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannine Cody, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability

    The public may obtain a copy of the NEFSC's 2014 application, the 
2015 addendum to the application, and any supporting documents as well 
as a list of the references cited in this document by visiting the 
Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. In 
case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact 
listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Executive Summary

    These proposed regulations, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), establish frameworks for authorizing the take 
of marine mammals incidental to the NEFSC's fisheries research 
activities in a specified geographical region (the Atlantic coast 
region which includes the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine 
Ecosystem (Northeast LME) and a portion of the Southeast Continental 
Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (Southeast LME)).
    The NEFSC collects a wide array of information necessary to 
evaluate the status of exploited fishery resources and the marine 
environment. Depending on the research, the NEFSC's conducts the 
following types of research: (1) Fishery-independent research directed 
by NEFSC scientists and conducted onboard NOAA-owned and operated 
vessels or NOAA-chartered vessels; (2) fishery-independent research 
directed by cooperating scientists (other agencies, academic 
institutions, and independent researchers) conducted onboard non-NOAA 
vessels; and (3) fishery-dependent research conducted onboard 
commercial fishing vessels, with or without NOAA scientists onboard.

Purpose and Need for This Regulatory Action

    We received an application from the NEFSC requesting five-year 
regulations and authorization to take multiple species of marine 
mammals. Take would occur by Level B harassment incidental to the use 
of active acoustic devices in the Atlantic coast region, and by Level A 
harassment, serious injury, or mortality incidental to the use of 
fisheries research gear. The proposed regulations would be valid from 
2015 to 2020. Please see ``Background'' below for definitions of 
harassment.
    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce 
to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if, after notice and public comment, the agency 
makes certain findings and issues regulations. These proposed 
regulations would contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
requirements.

Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action

    Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations 
at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing the 
five-year regulations and any subsequent Letters of Authorization.

Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Regulations

    The following provides a summary of some of the major provisions 
within the proposed rulemakings for the NEFSC fisheries research 
activities in the Atlantic coast region. We have preliminarily 
determined that the NEFSC's adherence to the proposed mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting measures listed below would achieve the least 
practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. They 
include:
     Required monitoring of the sampling areas to detect the 
presence of marine mammals before deployment of pelagic trawl nets, 
pelagic or demersal longline gear, dredge gear, fyke nets, and beach 
seines.
     Required implementation of standard tow durations of not 
more than 30 minutes to reduce the likelihood of incidental take of 
marine mammals.
     Required implementation of the mitigation strategy known 
as the ``move-on rule,'' which incorporates best professional judgment, 
when necessary during pelagic trawl and pelagic longline operations.
     Required compliance with applicable vessel speed 
restrictions.
     Required compliance with applicable and relevant take 
reduction plans for marine mammals.

[[Page 39543]]

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

    On December 17, 2014, we received an adequate and complete request 
from the NEFSC for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to 
fisheries research activities. We received an initial draft of the 
request on February 12, 2014, followed by revised drafts on September 
19 and October 1, 2014. On December 29, 2014 (79 FR 78065), we 
published a notice of receipt of the NEFSC's application in the Federal 
Register, requesting comments and information related to the NEFSC 
request for thirty days. We received comments from the Humane Society 
of the United States and Whale and Dolphin Conservation, which we 
considered in development of this proposed rule and which are available 
on the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm.
    The NEFSC proposes to conduct fisheries research using the 
following types of gear: pelagic trawl gear used at various levels in 
the water column, pelagic and demersal longlines with multiple hooks, 
bottom-contact trawls, gillnets, fyke nets, dredges, and other gear. If 
a marine mammal interacts with gear deployed by the NEFSC, the outcome 
could potentially be Level A harassment, serious injury (any injury 
that will likely result in mortality), or mortality. However, 
information upon which to base a prediction of what the outcome may be 
for any particular interaction is limited. Therefore, the NEFSC has 
pooled the number of incidents of take expected to result from 
different gear interactions, and we have assessed the potential impacts 
accordingly. The NEFSC also uses various active acoustic devices in the 
conduct of fisheries research, and use of these devices has the 
potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals. Level B 
harassment of pinnipeds hauled out on the shoreline may also occur, in 
some locations within the Atlantic coast region, as a result of visual 
disturbance from vessels conducting NEFSC research. The proposed 
regulations would be valid for five years from the date of issuance.
    The NEFSC conducts fisheries research surveys in the Atlantic coast 
region which spans from the U.S.-Canada border to Florida. This 
specified geographic region includes the following subareas: The Gulf 
of Maine, Georges Bank, Southern New England waters, the Mid-Atlantic 
Bight, and the coastal waters of northeast Florida. Within the 
specified geographic region of the Atlantic coast, the NEFSC requests 
authorization to take individuals of 12 species by Level A harassment, 
serious injury, or mortality (hereafter referred to as M/SI + Level A) 
and of 33 species by Level B harassment.

Contents

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    The NEFSC collects a wide array of information necessary to 
evaluate the status of exploited fishery resources and the marine 
environment. NEFSC scientists conduct fishery-independent research 
onboard NOAA-owned and operated vessels or on chartered vessels. For 
other types of surveys, cooperating scientists may conduct fishery-
independent research onboard non-NOAA vessels. Finally, the NEFSC 
sponsors some fishery-dependent research conducted onboard commercial 
fishing vessels, with or without NOAA scientists onboard.
    The NEFSC proposes to administer and conduct approximately 48 
survey programs over the five-year period. The gear types used fall 
into several categories: Pelagic trawl gear used at various levels in 
the water column, pelagic and demersal longlines, bottom-contact 
trawls, gillnets, fyke nets, and other gear. The use of pelagic and 
bottom trawl nets, gillnets, fyke nets, and pelagic longline gears are 
likely to result in interaction with marine mammals. The majority of 
these surveys also use active acoustic devices.
    The federal government has a responsibility to conserve and protect 
living marine resources in U.S. waters and has also entered into a 
number of international agreements and treaties related to the 
management of living marine resources in international waters outside 
the United States. NOAA has the primary responsibility for managing 
marine fin and shellfish species and their habitats, with that 
responsibility delegated within NOAA to NMFS.
    In order to direct and coordinate the collection of scientific 
information needed to make informed fishery management decisions, 
Congress created six Regional Fisheries Science Centers, each a 
distinct organizational entity and the scientific focal point within 
NMFS for region-based federal fisheries-related research. This research 
is aimed at monitoring fish stock recruitment, abundance, survival and 
biological rates, geographic distribution of species and stocks, 
ecosystem process changes, and marine ecological research. The NEFSC is 
the research arm of NMFS in the greater Atlantic region of the U.S. The 
NEFSC conducts research and provides scientific advice to manage 
fisheries and conserve protected species in Northeast and Southeast LME 
and provides scientific information to support the New England Fishery 
Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the 
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and numerous other 
domestic and international fisheries management organizations.

Dates and Duration

    The specified activity may occur at any time during the five-year 
period of validity of the proposed regulations. Dates and duration of 
individual surveys are inherently uncertain, based on congressional 
funding levels for the NEFSC, weather conditions, or ship 
contingencies. In addition, the cooperative research program is

[[Page 39544]]

designed to provide flexibility on a yearly basis in order to address 
issues as they arise. Some cooperative research projects last multiple 
years or may continue with modifications. Other projects only last one 
year and are not continued. Most cooperative research projects go 
through an annual competitive selection process to determine which 
projects should be funded based on proposals developed by many 
independent researchers and fishing industry participants. NEFSC survey 
activity does occur during most months of the year; however, most trawl 
surveys occur during the spring, summer, and fall. Longline surveys 
occur either biannually in the spring or annually in the summer and a 
small number of gillnet surveys occur annually in the summer.

Specified Geographical Region

    Please see Figure 1 for a map of the research areas described in 
this section. The NEFSC would conduct fisheries research activities off 
the Atlantic coast of the U.S. primarily within 200 miles of the 
shoreline from the U.S.-Canada border to Florida. In addition to 
general knowledge and other citations contained herein, this section 
relies upon the descriptions found in Sherman and Hempel (2009) and 
Wilkinson et al. (2009). As referred to here, productivity refers to 
fixated carbon (i.e., g C/m\2\/yr) which relates to the carrying 
capacity of an ecosystem.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 39545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JY15.000

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    Atlantic Coast Region--The Atlantic coast region extends from the 
Gulf of Maine (to the U.S. and Canada border) past Cape Hatteras to 
Florida. The region is characterized by its temperate climate and 
proximity to the Gulf Stream, and is generally considered to be of 
moderately high productivity, although the portion of the region from 
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras is one of the most productive areas in the 
world due to upwellings along the shelf break created by the western 
edge of the Gulf Stream. Sea surface temperatures (SST) exhibit a broad 
range across this region, with winter temperatures ranging from 2-20 
[deg]C in the north and 15-22 [deg]C in the south, while summer 
temperatures, consistent in the south at approximately 28 [deg]C, range 
from 15-27 [deg]C in the northern portion.
    The northern portion of this region (i.e., north of Cape Hatteras) 
is more

[[Page 39546]]

complex, with four major sub-areas: The Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, 
southern New England, and the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Cold, low-salinity 
water transports in the Labrador Current from the Arctic Ocean into the 
Gulf of Maine and exits through the Great South Channel; upwellings 
occur around Georges Bank. South of Cape Cod, there is strong 
stratification along the coast where large estuaries occur (e.g., 
Chesapeake Bay, Pamlico Sound).
    The Gulf Stream is highly influential on both the northern and 
southern portions of the region, but in different ways. Meanders of the 
current directly affect the southern portion of the Gulf Stream, where 
it is closer to shore, while warm-core rings indirectly affect the 
northern portion (Belkin et al., 2009). In addition, subarctic 
influences can reach as far south as the Mid-Atlantic Bight, but the 
convergence of the Gulf Stream with the coast near Cape Hatteras does 
not allow for significant northern influence into waters of the South 
Atlantic Bight.
    Gulf of Maine--The Gulf of Maine (GOM) is an enclosed coastal sea 
characterized by relatively cold waters and deep basins. Several 
geographic features bound the GOM including Brown's Bank on the east, 
Maine and Nova Scotia to the north, Maine, New Hampshire, and 
Massachusetts on the west, and Cape Cod and Georges Bank to the south. 
Retreating glaciers (18,000-14,000 years ago) formed a complex system 
of deep basins, moraines, and rocky protrusions, leaving behind a 
variety of sediment types including silt, sand, clay, gravel, and 
boulders. There exists patchy distribution of sediments on the seafloor 
throughout the GOM, with occurrence largely related to the bottom 
topography.
    Oceanic circulation in the GOM exhibits a general counterclockwise 
current, influenced primarily by cold water masses moving in from the 
Scotian Shelf and offshore. Although large-scale water patterns are 
generally counterclockwise around the GOM, many small gyres and minor 
currents do occur. Freshwater runoff from the many rivers along the 
coast into the GOM influences coastal circulation as well. These water 
movements feed into and affect the circulation patterns on Georges Bank 
and in Southern New England.
    Georges Bank--Georges Bank (GB) is a shallow, elongate extension of 
the northeastern U.S. continental shelf, characterized by a steep slope 
on its northern edge and a broad, flat, and gently sloping southern 
flank. The Gulf of Maine lies to the north of GB, the Northeast Channel 
(between GB and Browns Bank) is to the east; the continental slope lies 
to the south, and the Great South Channel separates GB and Southern New 
England to the west. Although the top of GB is predominantly 
characterized by sandy sediment, glacial retreat during the late 
Pleistocene era resulted in deposits of gravel along the northern edge 
of GB, and some patches of silt and clay can be found on the sea floor. 
The most dominant oceanographic features of GB include a weak but 
persistent clockwise gyre that circulates over the whole bank, strong 
tidal flows (mainly northwest and southeast) and strong but 
intermittent storm-induced currents. The strong tidal currents result 
in vertically well-mixed waters over the bank. The southwestern flow of 
shelf and slope water that forms a countervailing current to the Gulf 
Stream drives the clockwise GB gyre.
    Mid-Atlantic Bight--The Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) includes the 
continental shelf and slope waters from GB to Cape Hatteras, NC. The 
retreat of the last ice sheet shaped the morphology and sediments of 
the MAB. The continental shelf south of New England is broad and flat, 
dominated by fine grained sediments (sand and silt). Patches of gravel 
exist in places on the sea floor, such as on the western flank of the 
Great South Channel.
    The shelf slopes gently away from the shore out to approximately 
100 to 200 kilometers (km) (62 to 124 miles (mi)) offshore, where it 
transforms into the continental slope at the shelf break (at water 
depths of 100 to 200 m (328 to 656 ft). Along the shelf break, numerous 
deep-water canyons incise the slope and shelf. The sediments and 
topography of the canyons are much more heterogeneous than the 
predominantly sandy top of the shelf, with steep walls and outcroppings 
of bedrock and deposits of clay.
    The southwestern flow of cold shelf water feeding out of the GOM 
and off GB dominates the circulatory patterns in this area. The 
countervailing Gulf Stream provides a source of warmer water along the 
coast as warm-core rings and meanders break off from the Gulf Stream 
and move shoreward, mixing with the colder shelf and slope water. As 
the shelf plain narrows to the south (the extent of the continental 
shelf is narrowest at Cape Hatteras), the warmer Gulf Stream waters run 
closer to shore.
    Southern New England--The Southern New England (SNE) subarea 
extends from the Great South Channel in the east to the MAB in the 
west. The southwestern flow of cold shelf water feeding out of the GOM 
and off GB dominates the circulatory patterns in this area. The SNE 
continental shelf is a gently sloping region with smooth topography. 
The shelf is approximately 100 km (62 mi) wide, and the shelf break 
occurs at depths of between 100 to 200 m (328 to 656 ft). The 
continental slope extends from the shelf break to a depth of 2 km 
(6,562 ft). This zone has a relatively steep gradient, and the relief 
is moderately smooth. The continental rise (2 to 6 km; 500 to 19,700 
ft) is similar to the slope in having only gradual changes in 
bathymetry. However, the overall gradient of the continental rise is 
less than that of the continental slope (Theroux and Wigley, 1998). 
Sediments of the SNE subarea consist of fine-grained sand and silt. 
Patches of gravel exist in places on the sea floor, such as on the 
western flank of the Great South Channel. Currents and historic 
disposal of dredged material may influence water and sediment quality 
within the SNE.
    Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem: This area 
covers the Atlantic Ocean extending approximately 930 miles from Cape 
Hatteras, NC south to the Straits of Florida (Yoder, 1991). The 
continental shelf in the region reaches up to approximately 120 miles 
offshore. The Gulf Stream Current influences the region with minor 
upwelling occurring along the Gulf Stream front. The area is 
approximately 115,000 square miles, includes several protected areas 
and coral reefs (Aquarone, 2008); numerous estuaries and bays, such as 
the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, nearshore and barrier islands; and 
extensive coastal marshes that provide valuable ecosystem services and 
habitats for numerous marine and estuarine species. A six- to 12-mile 
wide coastal zone is characterized by high levels of primary production 
throughout the year, while offshore, on the middle and outer shelf, 
upwelling along the Gulf Stream front and intrusions from the Gulf 
Stream cause seasonal phytoplankton blooms. Because of its high 
productivity, this sub-region supports active commercial and 
recreational fisheries (Shertzer et al. 2009).

Detailed Description of Activities

    The federal government has a trust responsibility to protect living 
marine resources in waters of the United States. These waters extend to 
200 nautical miles (nmi) (370 km; 230 mi) from the shoreline and 
include the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The U.S. government has 
also entered into a number of international agreements and treaties 
related to the management of living marine resources in international

[[Page 39547]]

waters outside of the U.S. EEZ (i.e., the high seas). To carry out its 
responsibilities over U.S. and international waters, Congress has 
enacted several statutes authorizing certain federal agencies to 
administer programs to manage and protect living marine resources. 
Among these federal agencies, NOAA has the primary responsibility for 
protecting marine finfish and shellfish species and their habitats. 
Within NOAA, NMFS has been delegated primary responsibility for the 
science-based management, conservation, and protection of living marine 
resources under statutes including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries 
Cooperative Management Act (ACA), and the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act.
    Within NMFS, six Regional Fisheries Science Centers direct and 
coordinate the collection of scientific information needed to inform 
fisheries management decisions. Each Fisheries Science Center is a 
distinct entity and is the scientific focal point for a particular 
region. The NEFSC conducts research and provides scientific advice to 
manage fisheries and conserve protected species in the Atlantic coast 
region from Maine to northeast Florida. The NEFSC provides scientific 
information to support the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and 
other domestic fisheries management organizations.
    The NEFSC collects a wide array of information necessary to 
evaluate the status of exploited fishery resources and the marine 
environment. NEFSC scientists conduct fishery-independent research 
onboard NOAA-owned and operated vessels or on chartered vessels. For 
other types of surveys, cooperating scientists may conduct fishery-
independent research onboard non-NOAA vessels. Finally, the NEFSC 
sponsors some fishery-dependent research conducted onboard commercial 
fishing vessels, with or without NOAA scientists onboard. The NEFSC 
proposes to administer and conduct approximately 48 survey programs 
over the five-year period.
    The gear types used fall into several categories: Pelagic trawl 
gear used at various levels in the water column, pelagic and demersal 
longlines, bottom-contact trawls, anchored sinking gillnets, and other 
gear. The use of pelagic and bottom trawl nets, gillnets, fyke nets, 
and longline gears are likely to result in interaction with marine 
mammals. The NEFSC also uses various active acoustic devices in the 
conduct of fisheries research, and use of these devices has the 
potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals. 
Additionally, a small set of research activities along the Penobscot 
River estuary in Maine have the potential to behaviorally disturb 
marine mammals due to the physical presence of researchers near haulout 
areas.
    Most of the vessel-based surveys use active acoustic devices. The 
NEFSC may conduct surveys aboard research vessels (R/V), including the 
NOAA Ship R/V Henry B. Bigelow, R/V Gordon Gunter, R/V Pisces, R/V 
Nauvoo, R/V Harvey,  R/V Chemist, R/V Resolute, R/V Hassler, R/V C.E. 
Stillwell, and R/V Gloria Michelle; aboard R/V and fishing vessels (F/
V) owned and operated by cooperating agencies and institutions 
including the F/V Robert Michael, F/V Darana R, R/V Hugh R. Sharp, and 
F/V Eagle Eye II; or aboard charter vessels.
    In the following discussion, we summarily describe various gear 
types used by the NEFSC and then describe specific fisheries and 
ecosystem research activities conducted by the NEFSC within the 
Atlantic coast region. This is not an exhaustive list of gear and/or 
devices that the NEFSC may use, but it is representative of gear 
categories and is complete with regard to all gears with potential for 
interaction with marine mammals. Additionally, we describe the relevant 
active acoustic devices that the NEFSC commonly uses in its survey 
activities in a subsequent section. Please see Appendix A of the 
NEFSC's LOA application and draft programmatic EA for more detailed 
descriptions and schematic diagrams of the research gear types.
    Trawl nets--A trawl is a funnel-shaped net towed behind a boat to 
capture fish. The codend (or bag) is the fine-meshed portion of the net 
most distant from the towing vessel where fish and other organisms 
larger than the mesh size are retained. In contrast to commercial 
fishery operations, which generally use larger mesh to capture 
marketable fish, research trawls often use smaller mesh to enable 
estimates of the size and age distributions of fish in a particular 
area. The body of a trawl net is generally constructed of relatively 
coarse mesh that functions to gather schooling fish so that they can be 
collected in the codend. The opening of the net, called the mouth, is 
extended horizontally by large panels of wide mesh called wings. The 
mouth of the net is held open by hydrodynamic force exerted on the 
trawl doors attached to the wings of the net. As the net is towed 
through the water, the force of the water spreads the trawl doors 
horizontally apart. The top of a net is called the headrope, and the 
bottom is called the footrope.
    The trawl net is usually deployed over the stern of the vessel and 
attached with two cables (or warps) to winches on the deck of the 
vessel. The cables are played out until the net reaches the fishing 
depth. Commercial trawl vessels travel at speeds of 2 to 5 knots (kt) 
(2.3 to 5.7 miles per hour (mph)) while towing the net for time periods 
up to several hours, whereas most NEFSC trawl surveys involve slower 
tow speeds from 1.4 to 4 kt (1.6 to 4.6 mph) with shorter tow durations 
from 15 to 60 minutes (min). The duration of the tow depends on the 
purpose of the trawl, the catch rate, and the target species. At the 
end of the tow, personnel retrieve the net and empty the contents of 
the cod end onto the deck. For research purposes, the speed and 
duration of the tow and the characteristics of the net must be 
standardized to allow meaningful comparisons of data collected at 
different times and locations. Active acoustic devices (described 
later) incorporated into the research vessel and the trawl gear monitor 
the position and status of the net, speed of the tow, and other 
variables important to the research design. Most NEFSC research 
trawling activities use both pelagic (surface or mid-water) trawls, 
which are designed to operate at various depths within the water 
column, as well as bottom trawls, which are designed to capture target 
species at or near the seafloor.
    1. 4-Seam, 3-Bridle Bottom Trawl: Several NEFSC research programs 
use a 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl, manufactured using 12-centimeter 
(cm) (5-inch (in) and 6-cm (2 in) mesh. The effective mouth opening of 
the 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl is approximately 70 square meters 
(753 square ft) (14 meter spread by 5 meters high; 46 ft by 16 ft), 
spread by a pair of trawl doors. The footrope of the trawl is 27 m (89 
ft) in length, ballasted with heavy rubber discs or roller gear. The 
head rope is approximately 24 m (79 ft) in length supported by 60 
Nokalon #508 eight-inch center-holed, orange trawl floats. For certain 
research activities, the cod end may have a sewn-in liner to minimize 
the loss of small fish.
    2. High-Speed Mid-water Rope Trawl: Several NEFSC research programs 
use the Gourock High Speed Midwater Rope Trawl (HSMRT) for fisheries 
acoustics surveys. The HSMRT employs a four-seam box design with a 5-m 
(174-ft) headrope, footrope, and breastlines. The mouth opening of the 
HSMRT is approximately 13.3 meters vertical and 27.5 meters horizontal. 
Once personnel deploy the net, they can change in the

[[Page 39548]]

position of the net in the water column by increasing or decreasing the 
speed of the vessel, or by bringing in or letting out trawl wire. NEFSC 
also uses active acoustics to monitor the ship and net positions and 
status. Pelagic trawl nets do not have any contact with the seafloor 
because they do not have bobbins or roller gear, which are often used 
to protect the foot rope of a bottom trawl net when it contacts the 
seafloor.
    Gillnets--Gillnets consist of vertical netting held in place by 
floats and weights to selectively target fish of uniform size depending 
on the netting size. Typical gillnets consist of monofilament, multi-
monofilament, or multifilament nylon constructed of single, double, or 
triple netting/paneling of varying mesh sizes, depending on their use 
and target species. A specific mesh size will catch a target species of 
a limited size range, allowing this gear type to be very selective.
    1. Anchored sinking gillnets: A few NEFSC research program use 
anchored sinking gillnets which are fixed to the ocean floor or at a 
set distance above the bottom (typically in the lower one-third of the 
water column), held in place by anchors or ballasts with enough weight 
to counteract the buoyancy of the floats used to hold up the net. NEFSC 
survey activities use gillnets that range from 15 to 99 m (50 to 325 
ft) in length, 2 to 3 m (8 to 10 ft) in height, with mesh sizes from 16 
to 30 cm (6.5 to 12 in). In some cases, the gillnet configuration may 
consist of 10-panel strings up to 914 m (3,000 ft) in length. Gillnets 
used in NEFSC research programs use weak links of particular strength 
and locations on the gear, as specified by the Atlantic Large Whale 
Take Reduction Plan in order to minimize the risk of large whale 
entanglement in the gear. Soak times for long-term surveys are 
typically 3 hours, but short-term cooperative research projects have 
used soak times up to 96 hours.
    Pound nets--A pound net is a stationary fishing device. It consists 
of poles or stakes secured into the bottom with attached netting. The 
structure includes a pound with a netting floor, a heart-shaped 
enclosure, and a straight wall or leader. Pound nets are generally set 
close to shore, and the leader is set perpendicular to the shore to 
guide migrating fish into the pound. The leader is a wall of mesh 
webbing that extends from the sea floor to approximately the sea 
surface and may be up to several hundred meters in length. Fish 
swimming laterally along the shoreline encounter the leader and 
generally turn towards deeper water to circumvent the obstruction. The 
heart and pound portions of the net located at the deep end of the 
leader, non-selectively direct and trap the fish to prevent escape. The 
pound is usually a rectangular enclosure constructed of small mesh and 
is approximately 6 to 13 m (20 to 43 ft) long.
    Longlines--Longline vessels fish with baited hooks attached to a 
mainline (or groundline). The length of the longline and the number of 
hooks depend on the species targeted, the size of the vessel, and the 
purpose of the fishing activity. Personnel attach hooks to the mainline 
by another thinner line called a gangion. The length of the gangion and 
the distance between gangions depends on the purpose of the fishing 
activity. Depending on the fishery, longline gear can be deployed on 
the seafloor (bottom longline), in which case weights are attached to 
the mainline, or near the surface of the water (pelagic longline), in 
which case buoys are attached to the mainline to provide flotation and 
keep the baited hooks suspended in the water. Fishers often use radar 
reflectors, radio transmitters, and light sources to determine the 
location of the longline gear prior to retrieval.
    A commercial pelagic longline can extend over 100 km (62 mi) long 
and have thousands of hooks attached, although longlines used for 
research surveys are shorter. The pelagic longline gear used for NEFSC 
research surveys typically use 100 to 400 hooks attached to steel or 
monofilament mainline that is approximately 3 to 16 km (2 to 10 mi) 
long. One exception is a small-scale survey that typically uses 25 to 
50 hooks attached to a 305-m (1,000-ft) mainline.
    For NEFSC research activities, the length of the gangion and the 
distance between each gangion depends on the purpose of the fishing 
activity. There are no internationally recognized standard measurements 
for hook size, and a given size may be inconsistent between 
manufacturers. Fishers reference larger hooks, such as those used in 
longlining, by increasing whole numbers followed by a slash and a zero 
as size increases (e.g., 1/0 up to 20/0). The numbers represent 
relative sizes, normally associated with the gap (the distance from the 
point tip to the shank). Because pelagic longline gear does not anchor 
to the seafloor, it floats freely in the water and may drift 
considerable distances between the time of deployment and the time of 
retrieval. The time period between deployment and retrieval of the 
longline gear is the soak time, which is an important parameter for 
calculating fishing effort. For commercial fisheries the goal is to 
optimize the soak time in order to maximize catch of the target species 
while minimizing the bycatch rate and minimizing damage to target 
species that may result from predation by sharks or other predators.
    1. Yankee swordfish-style pelagic longline gear: This gear 
configuration consists of 5/16-inch tarred nylon mainline with 7- to 
10-m (24- to 33-ft) gangions composed of 4 m (13 ft) of 3/16-inch 
nylon, 2 m (7 ft) of 3/32 inche stainless steel leader, and a #40 
Japanese tuna hook. For research purposes, researchers bait the hooks 
with whole Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) attached at 52-m (170-
ft) intervals. Researchers attach floats at five hook intervals on 12-m 
(40-ft) float lines. Flag buoys (i.e., high flyers) are located at each 
end of the gear.
    2. Florida commercial-style bottom longline gear: This gear 
configuration consists of consists of 940-pound test monofilament 
mainline with 4-m (12-ft) gangions made of 730-pound test monofilament 
with a longline clip at one end and a 3/0 shark hook at the other. 
Researchers bait the hooks with chunks of spiny dogfish (Squalus 
acanthias) and attach them to the mainline at roughly 18-m (60-ft) 
intervals. Researchers attach 5-pound weights at 15-hook intervals and 
15-pound weights and small buoys at 50-hook intervals. To ensure that 
the gear fishes on the bottom, researchers place 20-pound weights at 
the beginning and end of the mainline after deploying a length of line 
two to three times the surveyed water depth. Researchers attach a 20-ft 
flag buoy (i.e., high flyers) equipped with radar reflectors and 
flashing lights to each end of the mainline. The flag buoys used for 
bottom longline gear use long buoy lines to allow the weighted 
groundline to rest on the seafloor while the attached buoys float on 
the surface to enable gear retrieval.
    3. Anchored bottom longline gear: A few NEFSC research programs use 
two types of anchored bottom longline gear: One for targeting small 
juvenile sharks and the other for targeting large juveniles and adult 
sharks. Researchers use previously frozen Atlantic mackerel or herring 
(Clupea harengus) as bait for both juvenile and large juvenile/adult 
shark longline gear.
    The juvenile gear consists of 305-m (1,000 ft) of quarter-inch 
braided nylon mainline with at least 61 m (200 ft) of additional line 
on each side for scope, and 50 gangions attached at 6-m (20-ft) 
intervals, comprised of 12/0 Mustad circle hooks with barbs depressed, 
20 inches of 1/16 stainless cable, and 40 inches of quarter-inch 
braided nylon line with 4/0 longline snaps.
    The large juvenile/adult survey uses the same type and length of 
mainline as the juvenile gear with 25 gangions

[[Page 39549]]

attached at 12-m (40-ft) intervals, comprised of 16/0 Mustad circle 
hooks with barbs depressed, 20 inches of \3/32\ stainless cable, and 80 
inches of 3 mm clear monofilament with 4/0 longline snaps.
    Fyke nets--Fyke nets are bag-shaped nets held open by frames or 
hoops. The fyke nets used in NEFSC survey activities consist of 
successively smaller plastic coated square metal tube frames that are 
covered with mesh net (0.6 centimeters for small, 1.9 centimeters for 
large). Two 9.1-m wings extend from the opening of each fyke at an 
angle of approximately 30 degrees. The wings have a weighted footrope 
and floats on the head-rope and are the same height (either 0.91 m or 
1.83 m high; 2.9 or 6 ft high) and comprised of the same net mesh as 
the fyke net itself. Each net has two throats tapering to a semi-rigid 
opening of 12.7 centimeters for the small net and 45.7 centimeters for 
the larger net. The fish pass through these throats before entrapment 
in the live box. For the large fyke, the final compartment of the net 
consists of a rigid framed live box (2 x 2 x 3 m; 6.5 x 6.5 x 9.8 ft) 
at the surface for removal of catch directly from above without having 
to retrieve the entire net. The NEFSC attaches a marine mammal excluder 
device to the outer-most throat of the larger fyke to stop marine 
mammals from entering the net which could lead to incidental 
entrapment. The exclusion device consists of a grate constructed of 
aluminum bars. The size of the opening is approximately 14 centimeters, 
which effectively prohibits marine mammals from entering the net.
    Dredges--This is a fishing method where fishers drag a dredge 
across the sea floor, either scraping or penetrating the bottom. A 
typical dredge consists of a mouth frame with an attached collection 
bag. Scraping dredges collect target species (e.g., oysters, scallops, 
clams, and mussels) in the top layer of seafloor sediment with rakes or 
teeth that scoop up the substrate. Penetrating dredges use pressurized 
water jets to chase animals out from beneath muddy or rocky bottom 
substrate and into the collection bag.
    1. New Bedford-type dredge: The NEFSC uses this type of dredge 
primarily to harvest sea scallops in the Georges Bank and Mid-Atlantic 
scallop fisheries. The forward edge of the New Bedford-type dredge uses 
a cutting bar to create turbulence that drives scallops from the 
sediment into the bag of the dredge. The bag consists of metal rings 
which drag on the seafloor. Towing times for commercial scallop dredges 
are highly variable, depending on the size of the bag and the density 
of sea scallops at the fishing location. This gear also includes 
seasonal modifications (i.e., the addition of a chain mat between the 
sweep and the cutting bar) to reduce the potential interactions with 
marine turtles.
    2. Hydraulic dredge: This type of dredge uses pressurized water 
jets to wash Atlantic surfclams (Spisula solidissima) and Ocean quahogs 
(Arctica islandica) out of the seafloor. The water jets penetrate the 
sediment in front of the dredge and help to propel the dredge forward. 
A blade on the front of the dredge then lifts the clams separated from 
the sediment and guides them into the body (i.e., cage) of the dredge. 
The hydraulic dredges used for the NEFSC surfclam/ocean quahog survey 
use a 3.8-m (12.5-ft) blade towed at approximately 1.5 kt (1.7 mph). 
During survey tows, researchers deploy the dredge at depth for 
approximately 5 min.
    3. Naturalist dredge: NEFSC surveys use this gear to obtain samples 
of megafaunal species (e.g., oysters, crabs, mussels, whelks). The 
Naturalist dredge is typically small (1 m (3 ft) wide) and towed along 
the seafloor over a relatively short distance (9 to 61m; 30 to 200 ft) 
in order avoid overfilling the dredge and losing part of the sample. 
NEFSC researchers manually pull out all megafauna from the dredge 
samples and process them on deck after retrieving the dredge. Due to 
the small size of the Naturalist dredge and the limited deployment 
periods, interactions with protected species would be minimal. However, 
dredges do disturb bottom habitats.
    Traps/Pots--Traps and pots are submerged, three-dimensional wire or 
wood devices that permit organisms to enter the enclosure but make 
escape extremely difficult or impossible. Researchers use secured bait 
in the trap to lure organisms inside, where they wait to retrieve the 
catch and re-bait the traps.
    1. Fish/lobster pots: Several NEFSC and cooperative research 
surveys use fish or lobster pots to selectively capture species for 
research, tagging studies, and sample collection. Fish pots select for 
particular species by configuring the entrances, mesh, and escape 
tunnels (vents) to allow retention of the target species, while 
excluding larger animals, and allowing smaller animals to escape from 
the pot before retrieval. In many instances, animals remain alive in 
the pot until retrieval, making pots a preferred method for collecting 
some species for tagging or mark/recapture studies. The NEFSC research 
set aside program targeting black sea bass (Centropristis striata) in 
southern New England and Mid-Atlantic waters uses unvented pots 43.5 
inches long, 23 inches wide, and 16 inches high made with 1.5 inch by 
1.5 inch coated wire mesh, a single mesh entry head, and a single mesh 
inverted parlor nozzle. Other NEFSC research activities targeting 
various finfish and shellfish species use different pot configurations 
depending on the species of interest.
    2. Rotary screw trap (RST): This type of gear enables live capture 
of smolts emigrating from several coastal rivers, including the 
Narraguagus, Penobscot, Pleasant, and Sheepscot Rivers. The NEFSC uses 
RSTs to estimate smolt populations, enumerate and sample smolts (and 
other co-occurring species), and to better understand factors that 
limit smolt production and migration success.
    This gear type is also a platform for telemetry studies that 
provides valuable data on smolt behavior and migratory success. 
Researchers position the trap within water channels to maximize fish 
capture. Fish enter the trap through the large end of a revolving and 
half-submerged screen cone suspended between two pontoons. The NEFSC 
uses RSTs with different size openings (1.2, 1.5, and 2.4 m; 4, 5, and 
8 ft models). As the river current turns the cone, the fish travel 
downstream into a live car and remain confined in river water until 
sample retrieval. Researchers tend to the traps on a daily basis and 
monitor river conditions frequently. RSTs require adequate water depth 
and current to rotate the cone for most effective fishing. RSTs can 
operate in high flow conditions, although they sometimes become jammed 
with debris. RSTs have a hubodometer, a device that records the number 
of revolutions of the cone to estimate catch per unit of effort.
    Other towed nets--NEFSC surveys utilize various small, fine-mesh, 
towed nets designed to sample small fish and pelagic invertebrates. The 
NEFSC broadly categorizes these nets as small trawls (distinct from 
large trawl nets due to the discountable potential for interaction with 
marine mammals; see ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on 
Marine Mammals and Their Habitat'') and plankton nets.
    1. The Isaacs-Kidd midwater trawl (IKMT): The NEFSC uses this gear 
to collect deepwater biological specimens larger than those taken by 
standard plankton nets. The mouth of the net is approximately 1.5 by 2 
m (5 by 7 ft), and is attached to a wide, V-shaped, rigid diving vane 
that keeps the mouth of the net open and maintains the net at depth for 
extended periods. The IKMT is a long, round net approximately 6.5 m (21 
ft) long, with a series of hoops

[[Page 39550]]

decreasing in size from the mouth of the net to the codend, which 
maintain the shape of the net during towing (Yasook et al., 2007). 
Because of the high level of drag exerted by the net in the water, 
fishers must tow trawls at speeds of 1 to 2 kt (1.1 to 2.3 mph). 
Conversely, researchers can tow an IKMT at speeds as high as 5 kt (8 
mph).
    2. The Multiple Opening/Closing Net and Environmental Sensing 
System (MOCNESS): The NEFSC uses this gear for specialized zooplankton 
surveys. The system uses a stepping motor to sequentially control the 
opening and closing of the net. The MOCNESS uses underwater and 
shipboard electronics to control the device which continuously monitor 
the functioning of the nets, frame angle, horizontal velocity, vertical 
velocity, volume filtered, and selected environmental parameters, such 
as salinity and temperature.
    3. Tucker trawl: The NEFSC uses this type of mid-water zooplankton 
trawl to study pelagic fish and zooplankton. The Tucker trawl, similar 
to the MOCNESS, consists of a stepping motor that opens and closes a 
series of nets sequentially without retrieving the net from the fishing 
depth. The Tucker trawl used for NEFSC research surveys uses 333 micron 
plankton nets with 1 by 1.4 m (3.2 by 4.6 ft) openings. The nets 
operate at a 45-degree angle during fishing, which results in an 
effective fishing area of 1 square m (10.8 square ft). Researchers use 
this gear for deep oblique tows where they can sequentially operate up 
to three replicate nets by a double release mechanism. The NEFSC 
typically equips the trawl with a full suite of instruments, including 
inside and outside flow meters, conductivity, temperature, and depth 
(CTD) instruments, and pitch sensor.
    4. Beam trawl: A beam trawl is a type of bottom trawl that uses a 
wood or metal beam to hold the net open as researchers tow it along the 
sea floor. The beam holds open the mouth of the net eliminating the 
need for trawl doors. Beam trawls are generally smaller than other 
types of bottom trawls. Commercial beam trawls have beam lengths of up 
to 12 m (39.4 ft); while beam trawls for research purposes typically 
use beams 2 to 4 m (6.6 to 13.1 ft) in length.
    Sediment grab sampler--The NEFSC uses sediment grab samplers to 
collect sediments and assess populations of benthic fauna from the 
seafloor.
    1. Van Veen sediment grab sampler: The Van Veen grab sampler 
consists of a hinged pair of scoops deployed over the side of the 
vessel and lowered to the seafloor on a cable. The scoops are 
approximately 31 centimeters wide to allow sampling of a 0.1 square 
meter area of the seafloor. Sharp cutting edges on the bottoms of the 
scoops enable them to penetrate up to about 40 centimeters into the 
sediment. The grab sampler may be galvanized, stainless steel, or 
Teflon-coated. Prior to deployment, personnel lock the sampler with the 
safety key in place, deploy it over the side of the vessel, and remove 
the safety key while slowly lowering it to the bottom. After making 
bottom contact (indicated by slack in the cable), personnel slowly 
increase the tension on the cable which causes the scoops to close. 
Once the sampler is back on board, personnel open the top doors to 
inspect the sediment sample.
    Plankton nets--The remainder of nets described here are plankton 
nets, which usually consist of fine mesh attached to a weighted frame 
which spreads the mouth of the net to cover a known surface area in 
order to sample plankton and fish eggs from various parts of the water 
column.
    1. Bongo nets: The NEFSC uses Bongo nets to collect zooplankton for 
research purposes only. Bongo nets, which consist of a bucket attached 
to the codend of the net, move through the water at an oblique angle to 
collect plankton samples over a range of depths. The Bongo nets used by 
the NEFSC have openings 61 cm in diameter and employ either a 333-or 
505-micrometer ([mu]m) mesh. The nets are 3 m (9.8 ft) in length with a 
1.5 m (4.9 ft) cylindrical section, coupled to a 1.5 m (4.9 ft) conical 
portion that tapers to a detachable codend constructed of 333-[mu]m or 
505-[mu]m nylon mesh. During each plankton tow, personnel deploy the 
bongo nets to a depth of approximately 210 m (689 ft) and then retrieve 
the net at a controlled rate so that the volume of water sampled is 
uniform across the range of depths. In shallow areas, NEFSC researchers 
may adjust the sampling protocol to prevent contact between the bongo 
nets and the seafloor.
    Instruments--Research vessel surveys are generally conducted 24-
hours a day when the vessels are at sea. NEFSC research surveys provide 
opportunities to collect environmental information (e.g., temperature, 
salinity, pollution levels, etc.) and to allow other researchers to 
piggyback on surveys to collect a host of environmental data not 
directly related to the stock assessment. All research vessel surveys 
conducted by the NEFSC collect and archive an extensive array of 
environmental measurements and usually have a shopping list of samples 
to obtain for researchers at academic institutions, other government 
agencies, and the private sector.
    1. Conductivity, temperature, and depth profilers (CTD): A CTD 
profiler is the primary research tool for determining chemical and 
physical properties of seawater. A shipboard CTD consists of a set of 
small probes attached to a large (1 to 2 m in diameter) metal rosette 
wheel. Personnel lower the rosette through the water column on a cable, 
and researchers observe the CTD data in real time via a conducting 
cable connecting the CTD to a computer on the ship. The rosette also 
holds a series of sampling bottles that personnel can trigger to close 
at different depths in order to collect a suite of water samples used 
to determine additional properties of the water over the depth of the 
CTD cast. A standard CTD cast, depending on water depth, requires two 
to five hours to complete.
    A computer plots data from a suite of samples collected at 
different depths (i.e., a depth profile) with the value of the variable 
of interest on the x-axis and the water depth on the y-axis. 
Researchers compare depth profiles for different variables in order to 
glean information about physical, chemical, and biological processes 
occurring in the water column. Conductivity measurements serve as a 
proxy for salinity expressed in practical salinity units representing 
the sum of the concentrations of several different ions. A high-
sensitivity thermistor housed inside a thin-walled stainless steel tube 
measures the temperature. The thermistor measures resistance as 
personnel lowers the CTD profiler through the water column. This gives 
a continuous profile of the water temperature at all water depths. An 
electronic pressure sensor continuously monitors the depth of the CTD 
sensor array. Salinity, temperature, and depth data measured by the CTD 
instrument are essential for characterization of seawater properties.
    2. Expendable bathythermographs (XBT): The NEFSC uses XBTs to 
provide ocean temperature versus depth profiles. A standard XBT system 
consists of an expendable probe, a data processing/recording system, 
and a launcher. An electrical connection between the probe and the 
processor/recorder is made when the canister containing the probe is 
placed within the launcher and the launcher breech door is closed. 
Following launch, wire de-reels from the probe as it descends 
vertically through the water. Simultaneously, wire de-reels from a 
spool within the probe canister, compensating for any movement of the 
ship and allowing the probe to freefall

[[Page 39551]]

from the sea surface unaffected by ship motion or sea state.
    The XBT probes consist of a metal weight surrounding a temperature 
probe, attached to a copper wire that conducts the signal to the 
vessel. The copper wire is protected within a plastic housing. Probes 
are generally launched from the leeward side of the vessel and as far 
aft as possible. Launching from these locations helps obtain high 
reliability and minimizes the chances that the fine copper probe wire 
will come in contact with the ship's hull which may cause spikes in the 
data or a catastrophic wire break. A portable shipboard data 
acquisition system records, processes, and interprets the data the 
probes collect.
    XBT drops occur at predetermined times along with surface 
chlorophyll sampling. Opportunistic drops may also occur. Typically, 
three XBT drops are made per survey day. XBT drops may be repeated if 
the displayed profile does not show a well-defined mixed layer and 
thermocline. Deep Blue probes are preferred, as they survey to a depth 
of 760 m and take approximately two minutes per drop. Probes are 
launched using a hand-held launcher. As the XBT probes are expendable, 
they are not retrieved and are left on the seafloor after data 
collection.
    3. Remotely operated vehicles (ROV): The NEFSC maintains and 
deploys several ROVs. They use ROVs to count fish and shellfish, 
photograph fish for identification, and provide views of the bottom for 
habitat-type classification studies via still and video camera images. 
Precise georeferenced data from ROV platforms also enables SCUBA divers 
to use bottom time more effectively for collection of brood stock and 
other specimens.
    The NEFC operates a Seabed Observation and Sampling System 
(SEABOSS) designed for rapid, inexpensive, and effective collection of 
seabed images and sediment samples in coastal/inner-continental shelf 
regions. Researchers use the observations from video and still cameras, 
along with sediments collected in the sampler, in conjunction with 
geophysical mapping surveys to provide more comprehensive 
interpretations of seabed character. The SEABOSS incorporates two video 
cameras; a still camera, a depth sensor, light sources, and a modified 
Van Veen sediment sampler. These components attach to a stainless steel 
frame that personnel deploy deployed through an A-frame, using a power 
winch, as the SEABOSS weighs 300 pounds. The SEABOSS frame has both a 
stabilizing fin capable of orienting the system while it drifts, and 
base plates that prevent over-penetration when the system rests on the 
sea floor. A modified Van Veen sampler takes undisturbed samples in the 
vicinity of the system. The system begins imaging the sea floor with a 
35-millimeter camera before touching bottom, at 30 inches height above 
bottom. The system annotates scale, time, and exposure number on each 
image. A downward-looking video camera overlaps the field of view of 
the still camera. The second video camera, mounted in a forward-looking 
orientation, provides an oblique sea floor view and enables a shipboard 
operator to monitor for proper tow-depth and for obstacles to the 
SEABOSS while operations are underway.

Summary of Planned Research

    Next we describe the long-term surveys and research activities 
planned by the NEFSC and its research partners in the Atlantic coast 
region. The NEFSC anticipates that these long-term surveys would likely 
continue during the next five-year period, although not necessarily 
every year. Please see Table 1.1 of the NEFSC's application for a 
detailed summary of these surveys.
    1. Benthic Habitat Survey: The benthic habitat survey occurs 
annually during the summer (Jul) or fall (Oct) in an area that extends 
from the Hudson Canyon to the Georges Bank. It assesses seafloor 
disturbance by commercial fishing and changes as the benthic ecosystem 
recovers from chronic fishing impacts and collects data on seasonal 
migration, bottom data for mapping and indication of climate change 
through species shifts. Survey operations are on a 24-hour schedule.
    The protocol for the July Hudson Canyon survey includes deploying a 
4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl at approximately 2.5 kt (2.9 mph) for 30-
minute tows at a target depth. The survey averages 54 tows per year and 
requires about 20 days at sea (DAS) using the R/V H.B. Bigelow, R/V G. 
Gunter, or R/V Pisces. The survey also uses a CTD profiler and rosette 
water sampler, Brooke Ocean moving vessel CTD, plankton light trap, Van 
Veen sediment grab, beam trawl, naturalists dredge, and SeaBoss benthic 
camera vehicle. Additional protocols include the use of use of multi-
frequency active acoustics (output frequencies: 18, 38, 120, 200, 400, 
and 450 kilohertz (KHz).
    2. Changes in the Community Structure of Benthic Fishes: This 
survey occurs annually during the summer (Jul) in the Hudson River 
Estuary, NY. It quantifies the abundance and distribution of benthic 
associated fishes of the Hudson River Estuary ecosystem. Survey 
operations are on a 24-hour schedule.
    The protocol for the survey includes deploying a 16-ft bottom trawl 
net towed at approximately 2.5 kt for 5 minutes. The survey averages 
176 trawls annually and requires approximately 20 DAS using the R/V 
Nauvoo. Protocols also include the deployment of a Yellow Spring YSI 
6000 water quality meter and Kemmerer water sampling bottles. 
Additional protocols include the use of use of multi-frequency active 
acoustics: (Output frequencies: 38 and 120 kHz).
    3. Fish Collection for Laboratory Experiments: This survey occurs 
annually, as needed throughout the year in the New York Bight and in 
Sandy Hook Bay, NJ. Survey operations are on a 24-hour schedule. It 
catches high-quality fish for laboratory experiments.
    Protocols include deployment of a 16-ft or 30-ft bottom trawl nets 
towed at approximately 2.5 kt for 10 min, or hook and line fishing. The 
number of tows varies depending on scientific need, typically enough 
trawls to capture 10 to 60 specimens. The survey requires approximately 
10 DAS on the R/V Nauvoo, R/V Harvey, or R/V Chemist. Additional 
protocols include the deployment of a Sea Cam video sled, CTD, Tucker 
plankton net, an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP, output 
frequencies of 38 and 120 kHz), Ponar grab, and Kemmerer water sampling 
bottles.
    4. Habitat Characterization: This survey occurs annually throughout 
the year in Sandy Hook Bay, Barnegat Bay, and offshore New York and New 
Jersey. Survey operations are on a 24-hour schedule. It characterizes 
and maps coastal marine habitats and living marine resources in waters 
and wetlands around New York and New Jersey.
    The NEFSC conducts the survey under the terms of a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the New Jersey Sea Grant Consortium. Protocols 
include deploying a 16-ft or 30-ft bottom trawl net (simple Memphis net 
and twine ``shrimp trawl) towed at approximately 2.5 kt for 10 min. The 
survey requires about 60 tows per year and approximately 30 DAS on the 
R/V Nauvoo or R/V Resolute. Researchers may also deploy of a Sea Cam 
5000 12v video cam, CTDs, YSI 6000 water quality meter, Tucker plankton 
net, Kemmerer bottle, and Ponar grab. Additional protocols include the 
use of multi-frequency active acoustics (38 and 120 kHz) and an ADCP 
(600 kHz).
    5. Habitat Mapping Survey: This survey occurs annually during the 
summer in the ocean shelf off the Maryland coast. It maps shallow reef

[[Page 39552]]

habitats of fisheries resource species, including warm season habitats 
of black sea bass, and to locate sensitive habitats (e.g., shallow 
temperate coral habitats) for habitat conservation. Survey operations 
are on a 24-hour schedule.
    Survey protocols include deploying a 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawls 
towed at 3.0 kts for 30 minutes at target depth. The survey requires 
about 54 tows per year and approximately 11 DAS using the R/V Hassler. 
Additional protocols include deployment of a CTD Profiler, Brooke Ocean 
Moving Vessel CTD profiler, split beam sonar, plankton light trap, beam 
trawl (tow speed 2.0 kt for 20 min), a naturalists dredge (tow speed 2 
to 3 kt for 1 minute at depth), SeaBoss benthic camera vehicle, and 
continuous use of four multi-frequency acoustic devices with output 
frequencies of 18, 38, 120, 200, 400, and 450 kHz.
    6. Living Marine Resources Center Survey: The survey is conducted 
annually in January from Cape Hatteras to New Jersey. It determines 
distribution, abundance, and recruitment patterns for multiple species. 
The survey operates on 24-hour schedule.
    Protocols include deployment of a 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl 
towed at 3 kt for 30 min. The survey averages 25 tows per year and 
requires about 11 DAS using the R/V H. B. Bigelow or a similar vessel 
type. Protocols also include the use of a 2-m wide beam trawl at 2 kt 
for 20 min at depth, Van Veen sediment grab, and CTD profiler. 
Additional protocols include the continuous use of multi-frequency 
active acoustics (output frequencies: 18, 38, and 120 kHz).
    7. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) Bottom Trawl 
Surveys: The MADMF spring (May) and fall (Sep) annual bottom trawl 
surveys have been conducted since 1978 during daylight hours within 5 
nm of the Massachusetts coast, thus includes some federal waters, from 
the Rhode Island to New Hampshire borders. It tracks abundance of 
mature and juvenile fishes.
    The protocol includes deploying an otter trawl at approximately 2.5 
kt for 20 min. The surveys average 206 tows per year and require about 
30 to 36 DAS using the R/V G. Michelle.
    The trawl has a 39 ft headrope and 51 ft footrope, rigged with a 
3.5 inch rubber disc sweep and has a half inch stretched nylon liner at 
the cod end to retain small fish. The net spread is 72 in by 40 in 325 
pound wooden trawl doors connected to the net via 63 ft \3/8\ in chain 
bottom legs and 60 ft \3/8\ in wire top legs.
    8. Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) Near 
Shore Trawl Program: The survey occurs annually from April-June and 
October-December in two segments during daylight hours. The northern 
segment extends from the U.S.-Canada border to New Hampshire-
Massachusetts from shore to the 300 ft depth, whereas the southern 
segment extends from Montauk, New York to Cape Hatteras from 20 to 90 
ft depth. This program collects data in support of single and 
multispecies stock assessments in the mid-Atlantic.
    The protocol in the northern segment includes deploying a modified 
Gulf of Maine shrimp trawl, typically used by commercial vessels in 
Maine and New Hampshire, at approximately 2.2 kt for 20 min. The survey 
averages 200 tows per year and requires approximately 30 to 50 DAS 
using the F/V R. Michael. In the southern segment a 4-seam, 3-bridle 
bottom trawl is deployed at approximately 3.0 kt for 20 min. The survey 
averages 300 tows per years and requires approximately 30-50 DAS using 
the F/V Darana R. The net has a 58-ft headrope, 70-ft footrope, 24-ft 
siderope, with 1 inch poly stretch mesh, and #7.5 Bison doors.
    9. Northeast Observer Program (NEFOP) Observer Bottom and Mid-water 
Trawl Training Trips: This is a certification training program for new 
NEFOP Observers. It occurs from Maine to North Carolina annually, using 
one-day trips throughout the year as needed, totaling about 18 DAS on 
contracted commercial fishing vessels. The protocol includes deployment 
of a commercial fishing net (net size, tow speed, and other details 
vary depending on the vessel and gear used). The trips do not use 
active acoustic gear as part of the training and approximately 108 tows 
may occur annually.
    10. Northern Shrimp Survey: The NEFSC conducts these surveys 
annually in July in the Gulf of Maine during daylight hours. It 
determines the distribution and abundance of northern shrimp and 
collects related data. The protocol includes deployment of a 4-seam 
modified commercial shrimp bottom trawl (25 m length by 17 m width by 3 
m high) at approximately 2-3 kts for 15 min. The surveys average 82 
tows per year and require 22 DAS using the R/V G. Michelle.
    11. NEFSC Standard Bottom Trawl Surveys (BTS): This survey has been 
conducted annually in spring (Mar-May, occasionally to June) and fall 
(Sep-Nov) from Cape Hatteras to the western Scotian Shelf. The survey 
operates on a 24-hour schedule. It tracks mature fish species and 
juvenile abundance over their range of distribution.
    Protocols include deployment of a 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl at 
3 kts for 20 min. The combined surveys average 800 tows and require 120 
DAS using the R/V H.B. Bigelow, or a similar size vessel. The net size 
is 31 m long, 19 m wide and 5 m high. Additional protocols include the 
use of CTD profiler, bongo net equipped with CTD, ADCP (output 
frequencies: 150 or 300 kHz), and the use of split beam and multibeam 
active acoustics (output frequencies: 18, 38, 70, 120, and 200 kHz).
    12. Atlantic Herring Survey: This survey is conducted in September 
and October, as funding allows, on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of 
Maine. Survey operations occur on a 24-hr schedule. The survey collects 
fisheries independent herring spawning biomass data and also includes 
survey equipment calibration and performance tests.
    Protocols included deployment of the Gourock high speed midwater 
rope trawl at 4 kt for 5 to 30 min. Approximately, 70 tows occur, which 
require about 34 DAS using the R/V H.B. Bigelow or similar size vessel. 
The net size is 15 m high and 30 m wide. Trawling protocols also 
include 20 deployments of the 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl at 3 kts 
for 10-20 minutes using the R/V H.B. Bigelow, R/V Pisces, or similar 
size vessel. The net size is 31 m long, 19 m wide and 5 m high. 
Additional protocols include the continuous use of split beam and 
multibeam active acoustics (output frequencies: 18, 38, 70, 120, and 
200 kHz).
    13. Atlantic Salmon Trawl Survey: This survey is conducted annually 
in May, as funding allows, in inshore waters of Gulf of Maine and 
Penobscot Bay during daylight hours. It evaluates the marine ecology of 
Atlantic salmon.
    Protocols include deployment of a modified mid-water trawl that 
fishes at the surface via pair trawling at 2-6 kt for 30 to 60 min. 
Approximately 130 tows occur which require approximately 21 DAS using 
contracted commercial vessels.
    14. Deepwater Biodiversity Survey: This survey is conducted 
annually in summer, as funding allows, in deep-water from Cape Hatteras 
to the mid-Atlantic Ridge (international waters). Survey operations are 
on a 24-hour schedule. It is intended to collect fish, cephalopod and 
crustacean specimens from 1,000 to 2,000 m for tissue samples, specimen 
photos, and documentation of systematic characterization.
    Protocols include deployment of the 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl 
with

[[Page 39553]]

roller gear and the International Young Gadoid pelagic trawl. Tow 
speeds are typically 1.5-2.5 kts with duration of 180 minutes (in deep 
water each operation setting, fishing, and haulback requires 60 min). 
The surveys average approximately 18 tows per year and require about 16 
DAS (R/V H.B. Bigelow, R/V Pisces or equivalent). Additional protocols 
include the use of multi-frequency active acoustics (output 
frequencies: 18, 38, 70, 120, and 200 kHz).
    15. Penobscot Estuarine Fish Community and Ecosystem Survey: This 
survey is conducted annually year round during daylight hours in 
Penobscot Estuary and Bay using a contracted commercial vessel. It is 
intended to survey and collect fish and invertebrates samples for 
biometric and population analysis of estuarine and coastal species.
    The protocol for the survey is to deploy a Mamou shrimp trawl 
modified to sample at the surface which is towed at 2 to 4 kt. The 
trawl has a mouth opening 12 x 6 m as is towed for 20 min. 
Approximately 200 trawl tows are conducted per year and require about 
12 DAS.
    16. Northeast Integrated Pelagic Survey: This survey is conducted 
annually each quarter (e.g., Feb, May, Jun, Aug, and Nov) in an area 
that expends from Cape Hatteras to the western Scotian Shelf. It 
assesses the pelagic components of the ecosystem including: Water 
currents, water properties, phytoplankton, micro-zooplankton, meso-
zooplankton, pelagic fish and invertebrates, sea turtles, marine 
mammals, and sea birds. Survey operations are on a 24-hour schedule.
    NEFSC protocols include deploying a variety of fishing trawls:
     Hydroacoustic midwater rope trawl. The net is 15 m high, 
30 m wide and towed at 4 kt for 5 to 30 min at depth; approximately 80 
tows are conducted per year.
     Isaacs-Kidd midwater trawl. The net is 3 m and 4.5 m wide, 
and towed at 2.5 kt for a maximum of 30 min; approximately 160 tows are 
conducted per year.
     Mid-water trawl. The trawl is for use in shallow water 
(greater than 15 m depth). The net has an 8 m x 8 m opening and is 
towed at 2.5 kt for a maximum of 30 min; approximately 80 tows are 
conducted per year.
    The surveys require about 80 DAS and are conducted on one of 
several vessels including: R/V H.B. Bigelow, R/V Pisces, and R/V G. 
Gunter. Additional protocols also include the use of CTD, rosette water 
sampler, bongo net equipped with CTD, the continuous use of split beam 
and multibeam active acoustics (output frequencies: 18, 38, 70, 120, 
200 kHz) and ADCP (300 or 150 kHz).
    17. Apex Predators Bottom Longline Coastal Shark: This survey is 
conducted bi-annually (Apr-May), contingent upon funding, in an area 
extending from Florida to Delaware. It assesses shark populations shark 
populations that are in sharp decline, including monitoring of 
distribution, abundance, and species composition, and tagging sharks. 
Survey operations are on a 24-hour schedule.
    Protocols for the survey includes deploying a Florida style bottom 
longline. `Florida' commercial-style bottom longline gear consists of 
940 lb test monofilament mainline with 3.6 m gangions made of 730 lb 
test monofilament with a longline clip at one end and a 3/0 shark hook 
at the other. Hooks are baited with chunks of spiny dogfish and are 
attached to the mainline at roughly 20 m intervals. Five lb weights are 
attached at 15 hook intervals, and 15 lb weights and small buoys are 
attached at 50 hook intervals. To ensure that the gear fishes on the 
bottom, 20 lb weights are placed at the beginning and end of the 
mainline after a length of line 2-3 times the water depth is deployed. 
A 6 m flag buoy (high flyer) equipped with radar reflectors and 
flashing lights is attached to each end of the mainline. The gear is 
set at night without lightsticks, soak time is 3 hours, and the gear is 
hauled during daylight. There are about 56 sets per survey, which 
require 47 DAS using charter vessels.
    18. Apex Predators Pelagic Nursery Grounds Shark: This research is 
conducted aboard commercial swordfish vessels in October on Georges 
Bank and the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. This collaborative work 
offers NEFSC researchers the opportunity to sample and tag bycaught 
sharks. Further, it offers a unique opportunity to sample and tag blue 
sharks and shortfin makos in a potential nursery area on the Grand 
Banks. Sharks are released after tagging.
    Protocols for this research are based on commercial fishing 
operations. The commercial swordfish longline gear is set at night, 
with lightsticks, and hauled in the morning--vessel operations are on a 
24-hour schedule. Commercial trips require 21 to 55 DAS using the F/V 
Eagle Eye II.
    19. Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery Survey 
(COASTSPAN): This survey is conducted annually from Jun-Aug in coastal 
Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island waters. It assesses shark 
nursery grounds and the species composition and habitat preferences of 
sharks that occur on these grounds. Survey operations are conducted 
during daylight hours.
    Protocols include using small juvenile/large juvenile-adult shark 
longline gear, depending on the survey target. The gear characteristics 
for each target size are: Mainline length: 1000 ft/1000 ft; gangion 
length: 5 ft/8 ft; gangion spacing: 20 ft/40 ft; hook size and type: 
12/0/16/0 mustad circle hooks; hooks per set: 50/75; bait: Mackerel or 
herring; soak time: 30 minutes/2 hours. The NEFSC-conducted surveys 
require 25 DAS, whereas the cooperating institutions surveys require 
about 40 DAS using the R/V C.E. Stillwell and partner vessels.
    20. NEFOP Observer Bottom Longline Training Trips: As with the 
NEFOP Observer bottom and mid-water trawl training trips discussed 
earlier, these trips are certification training for NEFOP observers. 
However, the NEFSC has not implemented this training to date but expect 
it to occur when funding becomes available. The trips will occur from 
Maine to North Carolina annually for 5 DAS on contracted commercial 
fishing vessels using commercial bottom longline gear. The mainline 
length is approximately 3,000 ft with 600 hooks per set 2-3 sets per 
trip. Survey protocols do not include the use of lighsticks in training 
trip fishing operations.
    21. Annual Assessments of Sea Scallop Abundance and Distribution in 
Selected Closed/Rotational Areas: The Atlantic Sea Scallop Research Set 
Aside rotational surveys occur at various times within the April--
September period, depending on the area studied (see Table 1-1 in the 
NEFSC's LOA application for specific sampling dates and ships used). 
The survey region includes: Large areas in Georges Bank, Closed Areas I 
& II, Hudson Canyon, DelMarVa, Nantucket, Gulf of Maine Mid-Atlantic 
areas, and other scallop fishing grounds. It monitors scallop biomass 
to derive estimates of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for annual scallop 
catch specifications. Additionally, the surveys monitor recruitment, 
growth, and other biological parameters such as meat weight, shell 
height, and gonadal somatic indices.
    Survey protocols include commercial and standardized NMFS scallop 
dredges, towed simultaneously. Survey operations are on a 24-hour 
schedule. The NMFS survey dredge is 8 ft wide, has 2-in rings, 4-in 
diamond twine top, and 1.5 in diamond mesh liner. The tow speed is 
approximately 3.8-4.0 kt for 15 min. The NEFSC completes about 100

[[Page 39554]]

dredge tows per year in each rotational area when sampled using that 
method. The average number of dredge tows per year is approximately 200 
in all areas.
    Additional protocols include the use of a towed photographic and 
sonar hydroacoustic imaging system (HABCAM) and a drop camera, and 
underwater video system. The HABCAM photographic system has 1 m field 
of view in each photograph, 5-10 frames per second with greater than 50 
percent overlap at 5 kt towing speed. Photo system coupled with two 
Imagenix side scan sonars or Teledyne Benthos C3D side scan sonars. 
Between 350 and 690 nm of transects using digital photography by HABCAM 
each year. The drop camera typically samples over 400 stations on a 
1.57 km sampling grid.
    22. NEFOP Observer Scallop Dredge Training Trips: As described 
earlier, these trips are certification training for NEFOP observers and 
occur from Maine to North Carolina annually, with one-day trips 
(daylight tows) throughout the year as needed. The trips require 
approximately 6 DAS on contracted commercial fishing vessels using 
commercial scallop gear such as a turtle deflector dredge (4 to 5 m 
wide). The tow duration lasts approximately 1 hour with 2 to 3 tows per 
trip.
    23. Sea Scallop Survey: The sea scallop survey occurs annually 
during May-July in an area that extends from Cape Hatteras, North 
Carolina to the Scotian Shelf, Canada. It assesses distribution and 
abundance of sea scallops and collects related data. Survey operations 
are on a 24-hour schedule.
    The protocol, since 2008, is to use the chartered vessel R/V H.R. 
Sharp from the University of Delaware to conduct the standardized 
survey. The vessel deploys a NEFSC 8-ft scallop dredge equipped with a 
2-in ring chain bag and lined with 1.5 in mesh webbing liner to retain 
small scallops. The dredge is towed at 3.8 kts for 15-minute tow 
intervals with a 3.5:1 tow wire to depth ratio (scope). Approximately 
450 stations are sampled each year and require about 36 DAS. Additional 
protocols may include deploying a stereo-optic towed camera array to 
count and measure sea scallops and associated fauna utilizing automated 
digital imagery. The camera system was towed during the 2012 standard 
survey for half of the sea days. The non-invasive vehicle is towed by a 
2-inch fiber optic cable that keeps the vehicle about 1.5 m off the sea 
floor.
    24. Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Dredge Survey: The NEFSC standard 
surf clam and quahog survey occurs every three years during Jun-Aug in 
an area that extends from southern Virginia to Georges Bank. It 
assesses distribution and abundance of surf clams and quahogs and 
collects related data. Survey operations are on a 24-hour schedule. 
Until 2012 the surveys were conducted using the F/RV Delaware II.
    The protocol is to use commercial vessels to conduct the survey. 
The contract vessel will deploy a standard commercially sized 
hydraulic-jet clam dredge (13 ft blade width). The dredge will be towed 
at 1.5 kts for 5 min with a 2:1 tow wire to depth ratio (scope). The 
survey averages 150 tows per survey and requires 15 DAS.
    25. Beach Seine Survey, Maine: The Maine beach seine survey occurs 
annually during Apr-Nov in the Penobscot River estuary. It monitors the 
salmon community within the estuary. Survey operations are during 
daylight hours.
    The protocol is to set the seine biweekly. Seines are deployed with 
one end held on shore by a crew member and the other end attached to a 
boat traveling in an arc, and then retrieved by pulling both ends onto 
shore. The seine is 45 m in length with 5 mm nylon mesh. Typical seine 
heals are less than 15 min with the resultant catch sampled and 
released. The survey averages 5 sets per day and 100 sets per year and 
requires approximately 20 DAS.
    26. Beach Seine Survey, New Jersey: The New Jersey beach seine 
survey occurs in summer (Jun-Aug) in Sandy Hook Bay and in the Navesink 
River, NJ. It monitors the fish community at fixed locations, and 
survey operations are conducted from shore during daylight hours.
    The protocol is to set seines in close proximity to shore by small 
boat crews. Seines are deployed with one end held on shore by a crew 
member and the net slowly deployed by boat in an arc and then retrieved 
by pulling both ends onto shore. The seine is 45 m in length with 5 mm 
nylon mesh. Typical seine heals are less than 15 min with the 
resultant, catch sampled and released. The survey averages 90 sets per 
year.
    27. Coastal Maine Telemetry Network: This research is conducted 
year round in the Gulf of Maine and April-November in the Penobscot 
River, estuary, and bay. The survey operates on a 24-hour schedule. 
This project monitors tagged fish (e.g., Atlantic salmon, Atlantic 
sturgeon, and short-nose sturgeon) entering the Penobscot Bay System 
and exiting the system into the Gulf of Maine. A contracted commercial 
vessel is used to service the array and requires 10 DAS.
    The protocol relies on fixed position acoustic telemetry array 
receivers on 30 to 120 moorings attached to 10 to 100 m vertical lines 
(600 lb test with weak links) spaced 250-400 m apart to scan the 69 kHz 
frequency. Data acquisition is obtained by hauling each buoy and 
downloading the data.
    28. Deep-sea Coral Survey: The deep-sea coral survey occurs 
annually between April-August in deep water (greater than 500 meters) 
from Cape Hatteras to the eastern Scotain Shelf. It assesses the 
species diversity, community composition, distribution, and extent of 
deep sea coral and sponge habitats along the continental shelf margin, 
slope, and submarine canyons. Survey operations are on a 24-hour 
schedule. The survey averages 16 DAS, using the R/V H.B. Bigelow.
    Protocols include deploying a 2-m beam trawl (optional) which is 2 
m wide and towed at 2 kt for 20 min at depth with a maximum of 30 tows; 
towing a tethered ROV (10 dives) at 3 kt; a towed camera system at 0.25 
kt for 8 hours (18 dives); and CTD profiler with Niskin 12-bottle 
rosette water sampler. Additional protocols include the use of ADCP 
(300 or 150 kHz) and split beam and multi-beam acoustics (output 
frequencies: 18, 38, 70, 120, and 200 kHz).
    29. DelMarVa Habitat Characterization: This survey occurred one 
time in August, 2013 in coastal waters off Delaware, Maryland, and 
Virginia (DelMarVa). The purpose was to characterize and determine fish 
use of bottom habitats in coastal waters off the DelMarVa Peninsula, as 
an adjunct to the DelMarVa Reef Survey. Survey operations were during 
daylight hours aboard the R/V Resolute and required 5 DAS.
    The protocol was to perform water column acoustic surveys using a 
single beam, dual frequency (38 and 120 kHz) sonar system. Acoustic 
transects were performed for periods of 4-6 hours at speeds of 2-4 kt, 
interrupted periodically to obtain vertical CTD casts recording 
profiles for temperature, conductivity, chlorophyll a, and turbidity.
    30. DelMarVa Reefs Survey: This survey occurs annually during 
August in coastal waters off Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. The 
objective is to determine the extent and distribution of rock outcrops 
and coral habitats and their use by black sea bass and other reef 
fishes. The survey is conducted using the R/V Sharp and requires 5 DAS. 
The protocol is to deploy and continuously tow a HabCam towed camera 
vehicle at 5 kt and a CTD.
    31. Diving Operations: Daylight diving operations are conducted on 
a year-

[[Page 39555]]

round basis in Long Island Sound. It collects growth data on hard 
clams, oysters and bay scallops. The survey is conducted, using the R/V 
Loosanoff, R/V Milford 17, or R/V Milford 22 and requires 20 DAS.
    The protocol is to deploy wire mesh cages (1.5 in square mesh cages 
60 in x 24 in x 18 in) that are staked to the substrate, and lantern 
nets (18 in diameter x 72 in long) that are anchored to the seabed with 
4 four cinder blocks with the net oriented vertically.
    32. Ecology of Coastal Ocean Seascapes: This survey is conducted 
annually in spring, summer, and fall within the New York Bight. It 
provides information required for a next generation spatially and 
temporally explicit population simulation model for commercially 
important stocks such as summer flounder. Approximately 80 tows are 
conducted using the R/V Nauvoo or R/V Resolute, and the survey requires 
35 DAS.
    The protocol is to deploy a video sled containing a Sea Cam 5000 12 
v video cam towed at 1 kt for 300 m. Additional protocols include 
deployment of CTD, YSI, (1.4 m x 1 m Tucker trawl), plankton net, 
multi-nutrient analyzer (EcoLAB 2) and Kemmerer bottle. Active 
acoustics include an ADCP (600 kHz) and multi-frequency echosounder 
(output frequencies: 38 and 120 kHz).
    33. Finfish Nursery Habitat Study: This survey is conducted from 
May through October in Long Island Sound during daylight hours within 
two hours of high tide. It collects fish eggs, larvae, and juvenile 
fish from the seabed to identify essential habitats, and to track 
movements of juvenile fish. The survey is conducted using the R/V 
Loosanoff, R/V Milford 17, or Milford 22 and requires 10 DAS.
    The protocol is to deploy: (1) An epibenthic sled (1 m x 333 cm 
opening) towed on the seabed at 1.5 kts for 5 min; (2) bongo net tow at 
0.5 kts at varying depths between the surface and bottom; and (3) 
Neuston plankton net (1 m x 0.5 m opening a 1 kt at the surface). An 
additional protocol is to implant 30 acoustic (70 kHz) tags on juvenile 
fish. The tags have a 14-month battery life.
    34. Gear Effects on Amphipod Tubes: This survey occurs annually in 
July and August in Sandy Hook, Barnegat, and Great South Bay, NJ. It 
assesses the abundance of amphipod tubes and the effects of bull raking 
and crab dredging. Sampling is conducted during day and night using the 
R/V Nauvoo, R/V Resolute, and R/V Harvey and requires 20 DAS. The 
protocol is to deploy a Ponar sediment grab, YSI, 1 m x 1 m Tucker 
trawl, and a plankton net. The number of samples varies.
    35. Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System Mooring Cruise: This 
survey occurs annually during May and Oct in the Gulf of Maine and 
northern portion of Georges Bank. It services oceanographic moorings 
operated by the University of Maine. The vessels used are the R/V H.B. 
Bigelow, R/V Pisces, and R/V G. Gunther which operate on a 24-hour 
schedule. The cruise requires 12 DAS. The protocol is to operate the 
ADCP (300 kHz) during vessel transects to moorings and service ADCP 
(300 and 75 kHz) on moorings.
    36. Hydroacoustic Surveys: This survey occurs from spring to autumn 
(Apr-Nov) in Penobscot Bay and estuary. The purpose of the 
hydroacoustic component of the estuary surveys is to describe the 
spatial and temporal patterns of fish distribution in the estuary with 
a focus on diadromous species. The objective is to inform abundance and 
habitat-use data gaps through systematic sampling using a variety of 
gears. The surveys which require 25 DAS operate during daylight hours 
using the R/V Silver Smolt or similar size charter vessel. The protocol 
is to operate active multi-frequency acoustics: Split-beam (38 and 120 
kHz) and DIDSON sonars (1.1 megahertz (MHz)).
    37. Maine Estuaries Diadromous Survey: This survey occurs annually 
(Apr-Nov) in the Penobscot River estuary. It assesses the fish 
community. Survey operations are on a 24-hour schedule.
    Protocols include setting a 2 m (2 m x 2 m; 1.9 cm mesh) or 1 m (1m 
x 1 m; 0.6 cm mesh) inshore by small boat crews during daylight at low 
tide. The fyke net soaks overnight and is hauled the next day. A marine 
mammal excluder device is incorporated into the 2 m net (but not the 1 
m net). The marine mammal excluder device is a grate of metal bars with 
14 centimeter spacing between the bars. The 1 m net has a throat 
opening of only 12.7 centimeters, which is too small for marine mammals 
to enter the net. From April-May the nets are set weekly, then twice 
per month through Nov. The survey averages 100 sets per year which 
requires about 100 days to complete.
    38. Miscellaneous Fish Collections and Experimental Survey Gear 
Trials: These small-scale and opportunistic projects are conducted in 
all seasons in New York Bight estuary waters. The research activities 
are conducted on the R/V Nauvoo, R/V Resolute, R/V Harvey, or R/V 
Chemist.
    The survey protocol depends on the sampling or gear trial 
protocols. Potential gear are: (1) Combination bottom trawl--net size: 
23 ft head rope, 32 ft sweep, 7 ft rise, tow speed 2.5 kts for 20 min;
    (2) Lobster pots--18 in x 24 in x 136 in wire pot connected by \3/
8\ in rope with 7 in x 14 in surface float. One to 60 posts are set for 
24 to 96 hours between retrievals;
    (3) Fish pots--9 in x 9 in x 18 in wire pots with \1/8\ in mesh 
liner, connected by \3/8\ in rope with 7 in x 14 in surface floats. One 
to 60 pots are set for 24-96 hours between retrievals;
    (4) A 2-m beam trawl towed at 2 kts for 15 minutes, up to 5 tows 
per year;
    (5) A seine net; and
    (6) Trammel nets--multi trammel net, 12 in walling, 3 in mesh, 6 ft 
deep x 25 ft long.
    39. NEFOP Observer Gillnet Training Trips: As described earlier, 
these one day trips are certification training for NEFOP observers and 
occur from Maine to North Carolina annually for 6 to 10 DAS on 
contracted commercial fishing vessels using the contracted vessel's 
gillnet gear. The nets are strings of 3 to 5 panels each soaked for 12 
to 24 hours with 4 sets per trip, 40 sets total. There are no standard 
dimensions for commercial gillnets, but panels generally measure 3 m 
high and 91 m long.
    40. Nutrients and Frontal Boundaries: This study is conducted 
quarterly in February, May-Jun, Aug, and Nov in the mid-Atlantic Bight 
(i.e., coastal New Jersey and Long Island waters). The survey is 
conducted using the R/V Resolute and requires 10 DAS. Sampling occurs 
day and night. The survey protocol requires ADCP (600 kHz), multi-
frequency active acoustic devices (38 and 120 kHz), and deployment of 
CTD.
    41. Ocean Acidification: These studies are conducted quarterly in 
the Hudson River and adjacent coastal waters. The purpose is to develop 
baseline pH measurements in the Hudson River water. This is conducted 
using the R/V Resolute and requires 10 DAS. Sampling occurs day and 
night. The protocol is to deploy a YSI 6000, CTD, Kemmerer bottle, and 
EcoLAB2 multi-nutrient analyzer.
    42. Pilot Studies: This project is conducted annually in June in 
Massachusetts coastal waters or on Georges Bank. The survey protocol is 
to deploy an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV; Remus 100) during 
daylight hours to test equipment. The AUV is deployed from the R/V G. 
Michelle and requires 5 DAS.
    43. Rotary Screw Trap (RSTs) Survey: Rotary screw trap sampling is 
conducted annually from Apr to Jun, daily (mornings) in the Penobscot 
River estuary. It assesses the fish community

[[Page 39556]]

within the estuary. This project requires 60 DAS.
    The protocol is to deploy one to three traps depending on the 
sampling site. Trap dimensions are 1.2 m x 1.5 m x 2.4 m and tending 
schedules are adjusted according to conditions of the river/estuary and 
potential for interactions with protected species. Sampling can be 
modified (period fishing), delayed, or concluded according to the 
potential for interactions with Atlantic salmon or other protected 
species.
    44. Sea Bed Habitat Classification Survey: This survey is conducted 
year round in Long Island Sound during daylight hours within two hours 
of high tide. It determines the composition of the surface layer of the 
seabed utilizing hydroacoustic equipment. The survey requires 20 DAS 
using the R/V Loosanoff, R/V Milford 17, or R/V Milford 22.
    The protocol is to connect a Quester Tangent seabed classification 
system to the 50/200 kHz hull-mounted transducer while transects are 
made at 4.5 kts. In addition, a drop camera (24 in x 24 in x 24 in) in 
a water filled box is deployed 2 m or less above the seabed directly 
below the support vessel.
    45. Trawling to Support Finfish Aquaculture Research: This work is 
conducted annually from May through Aug in Long Island Sound. It 
collects finfish broodstock for laboratory spawning and rearing and 
experimental studies.
    The protocol is to deploy a combination bottom trawl with a net 
size (40 ft x 40 ft x 7 ft) at 2.5 kts for a maximum duration of 30 
min; or shrimp trawl (16 ft x 16 ft x 2ft) at 1.5 kts for a maximum of 
30 min. Additional protocols include rod and reel (I/O circle and J 
hooks, and gill net which is 150 ft long 8 ft high, with 4 in stretched 
mesh. The combination and shrimp trawls require 50 tows, the rod and 
reel 12 hooks fished for 1000 hr and 15 gillnet sets. The survey 
requires 30 DAS using the R/V Loosanoff, R/V Milford 17, or R/V Milford 
22.
    46. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bottom Sampling: Bottom grab 
samples are collected every two years in Woods Hole Harbor for habitat 
assessment monitoring. The protocol is to deploy a Peterson grab to 
collect 6 random samples. This is conducted by the R/V G. Michelle 
during daylight hours and requires one DAS.
    47. COASTSPAN Longline and Gillnet Surveys: The purpose of this 
survey is to determine the location of shark nurseries, their species 
composition, relative abundance, distribution, and migration patterns. 
It is used to identify and refine essential fish habitat and provides 
standardized indices of abundance by species used in multiple species 
specific stock assessments. Cooperating institutions and agencies 
conduct this component of COASTSPAN (e.g., South Carolina Department of 
Natural Resources, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and 
University of North Florida). It occurs from Florida to Rhode Island 
annually during summer using 85 DAS on cooperating institution and 
agency vessels.
    The protocol for the survey includes deployment of bottom longline 
gear or anchored sinking gillnet. There are two categories of longline 
gear characteristics based on the size of sharks targeted; small 
juvenile sharks and large juvenile/adult sharks. The mainline length is 
1000 ft for both categories. Gangion length is 5 ft for small sharks 
and 8 ft for large sharks. Gangion spacing is 20 ft for small sharks 
and 40 ft for large sharks. Mustad circle hooks of size 12/0 are used 
for small sharks and size 16/0 for large sharks. Sets for small sharks 
use 50 hooks per set while large shark sets have 25 hooks. The bait is 
finfish (mackerel or herring) for both types of sets. Soak time is 30 
minutes for small sharks and 2 hours for large sharks. Approximately 
150 total sets are made per survey. The single panel anchored gillnet 
is 325 ft long x 10 ft high with 4 in stretch mesh made of #177 (20 lb 
test) nylon monofilament. The soak time is 3 hours, but the net is 
continuously checked to retrieve, tag and release target species and 
release all bycatch.
    48. Opportunistic Hydrographic Sampling: This program consists of 
opportunistic plankton and hydrographic sampling during summer transits 
on the R/V Okeanos Explorer in waters less than 300 m deep. The 
protocol is to deploy small plankton nets (1 m x 2 m) to a depth of 25 
m and to record hydrographic data from expendable bathythermographs.

Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

    This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the 
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this 
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the NEFSC's 
specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document. We 
also describe the active acoustic devices used by the NEFSC.
    Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are 
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number 
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and 
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the 
distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave 
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths 
than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more 
rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the 
height of the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is 
typically described using the relative unit of the decibel (dB). A 
sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a 
measured pressure and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this 
is 1 microPascal [[mu]Pa]), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for 
large variations in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in 
dB corresponds to large changes in sound pressure. The source level 
(SL) represents the SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source 
(referenced to 1 [mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the 
listener's position (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
    Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over 
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the 
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square 
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for both positive and 
negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values positive so 
that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure levels 
(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in the 
context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because behavioral 
effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be better expressed 
through averaged units than by peak pressures.
    Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s) 
represents the total energy contained within a pulse, and considers 
both intensity and duration of exposure. For a single pulse, the 
numerical value of the SEL measurement is usually 5-15 dB lower than 
the rms sound pressure in dB re 1 [mu]Pa, with the comparative 
difference between measurements of rms and SEL measurements often 
tending to decrease with increasing range (Greene, 1997; McCauley et 
al., 1998). Peak sound pressure is the maximum instantaneous sound 
pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the 
source, and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure. 
Another common metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure (p-p), which is 
the algebraic difference between the peak positive and peak

[[Page 39557]]

negative sound pressures. Peak-to-peak pressure is typically 
approximately 6 dB higher than peak pressure (Southall et al., 2007).
    When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure 
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the 
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a 
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either 
directed in a beam or beams (as for the sources considered here) or may 
radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources). The compressions 
and decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes 
in pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as 
hydrophones.
    Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the 
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient 
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a 
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level 
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated 
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., 
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds 
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic 
(e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number of sources 
contribute to ambient sound, including the following (Richardson et 
al., 1995):
     Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and 
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of 
naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50 
kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase 
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf sound becomes 
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5 
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 
during heavy surf conditions.
     Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the 
water surface can become an important component of total sound at 
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 
times.
     Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to 
ambient sound levels, as can some fish and shrimp. The frequency band 
for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 
kHz.
     Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient sound related to human 
activity include transportation (surface vessels), dredging and 
construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys, 
sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically 
dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300 
Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 
and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate 
rapidly. Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the 
activity of interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is sometimes termed 
background sound, as opposed to ambient sound.
    The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at 
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or 
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as 
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and 
human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through 
the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the 
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea 
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on a 
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected 
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. 
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB 
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that, 
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the 
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local 
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine 
mammals. Details of source types are described in the following text.
    Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types: 
Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction 
between these two sound types is important because they have differing 
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to 
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see 
Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.
    Impulsive sound sources (e.g., explosions, airguns, sonic booms, 
impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically 
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients 
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur 
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds 
are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure 
to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may 
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal 
pressures, and generally have a greater potential to affect hearing 
sensitivity as compared to sounds that lack these features.
    Non-pulsed (i.e., continuous) sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or 
broadband, brief or prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-
continuous (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds 
can be transient signals of short duration but without the essential 
properties of pulses (e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 
sounds include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery 
operations such as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and 
active sonar systems (such as those used by the U.S. Navy). The 
duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly 
extended in a highly reverberant environment.
    We use generic sound exposure thresholds (see Table 1 in this 
notice) to determine when an activity that produces sound might result 
in impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might 
occur. These thresholds should be considered guidelines for estimating 
when harassment may occur (i.e., when an animal is exposed to levels 
equal to or exceeding the relevant criterion) in specific contexts; 
however, useful contextual information that may inform our assessment 
of effects is typically lacking and we consider these thresholds as 
step functions.

               Table 1--Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Criterion                Definition             Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment            Injury (PTS--any      180 dB (cetaceans)/
 (underwater).                 level above that      190 dB (pinnipeds)
                               which is known to     (rms).
                               cause TTS).
Level B harassment            Behavioral            160 dB (impulsive
 (underwater).                 disruption.           source)/120 dB
                                                     (continuous source)
                                                     (rms).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 39558]]

    These are simple step-function thresholds that do not consider the 
repetition or sustained presence of a sound source nor does it account 
for the known differential hearing capabilities between species. Sound 
produced by the NEFSC's acoustic sources here are very short in 
duration (typically on the order of milliseconds), intermittent, have 
high rise times, and are operated from moving platforms. Thus, we 
consider them as impulsive sources.
    NMFS is currently revising these acoustic guidelines; for more 
information on that process, please visit www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm. NMFS has determined that the 160-dB threshold 
for impulsive sources is most appropriate for use in considering the 
potential effects of the NEFSC's activities.

Sound Propagation Assumptions

    The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound 
source is dependent on a variety of factors, most notably the water 
bathymetry and presence or absence of reflective or absorptive 
conditions including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical 
spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment 
not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6-dB reduction in 
sound level for each doubling of distance from the source 
(20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in 
which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, 
resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of 
distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value 
of fifteen is often used under conditions where water increases with 
depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an 
expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and 
cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss (4.5 dB 
reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance) is not assumed 
for this proposed rulemaking. The use of a spherical spreading remains 
a reasonable, if not conservative, assumption for a generalized 
approach assessing the Level B harassment zones around various echo-
sounders for this proposed rulemaking.
    For the frequencies of the echo sounders/sonars used in the 
fisheries acoustics applications (greater than 10 kHz) and the 
realistic water depths involved in the surveys (greater than 30 m), the 
ratio of depth to the wave length is typically greater than 200, 
unlikely causing any type of cylindrical-like spreading, i.e. waveguide 
effect.
    Due to the relatively short distances these sounds travel before 
falling below threshold due to spreading loss and absorption of these 
typically high-frequency sources, most are unlikely to reach distances 
far enough from the source to transition to propagation loss 
approaching cylindrical spreading. The multi-path arrivals that might 
lead to a lower propagation loss for more continuous signals, are more 
likely for these very short duration signals to lead to a lengthening 
of the signal (or even discrete pulses if surface/bottom bounces occur) 
rather than an increase in sound pressure level. This would leave the 
range at which the signal drops to a particular SPL (e.g., 160 dB re 
1uPa rms) unaltered from the spherical spreading model. Also critically 
important to consider is that these sources are highly directional, and 
most often pointed towards the bottom. When this acoustic energy hits 
the bottom at low angles of incidence or large grazing angle (e.g. on a 
path nearly perpendicular to the ocean floor), the much of this energy 
will be both absorbed and scattered, rather than reflected, leading to 
a very high loss of energy due to interaction with the bottom. As a 
result, the transmission loss would likely be much higher, rather than 
having a perfect reflection of all energy which could then lead to a 
less than 20LogR transmission loss overall.
    Finally, there are also a number of very conservative assumptions 
used in the NEFSC's calculations (e.g., highest source level and lowest 
frequency for range calculations) which leads to overestimates of the 
potential range where Level B harassment might occur, since 
operationally, parameters like the source level are likely to be lower 
in shallow water where a large range detection is unnecessary.

Description of NEFSC's Active Acoustic Devices

    NEFSC's fisheries surveys may use a wide range of active acoustic 
devices for remotely sensing bathymetric, oceanographic, and biological 
features of the environment. Most of these sources involve relatively 
high frequency, directional, and brief repeated signals tuned to 
provide sufficient focus and resolution on specific objects. The NEFSC 
may also use passive listening sensors (i.e., remotely and passively 
detecting sound rather than producing it), which do not have the 
potential to impact marine mammals. NEFSC active acoustic sources 
include various echosounders (e.g., multibeam systems), scientific 
sonar systems, positional sonars (e.g., net sounders for determining 
trawl position), and environmental sensors (e.g., acoustic Doppler 
current profilers).
    Mid- and high-frequency underwater acoustic sources typically used 
for scientific purposes operate by creating an oscillatory overpressure 
through rapid vibration of a surface, using either electromagnetic 
forces or the piezoelectric effect of some materials. A vibratory 
source based on the piezoelectric effect is commonly referred to as a 
transducer. Transducers are usually designed to excite an acoustic wave 
of a specific frequency, often in a highly directive beam, with the 
directional capability increasing with operating frequency. The main 
parameter characterizing directivity is the beam width, defined as the 
angle subtended by diametrically opposite ``half power'' (-3 dB) points 
of the main lobe. For different transducers at a single operating 
frequency the beam width can vary from 180[deg] (almost 
omnidirectional) to only a few degrees. Transducers are usually 
produced with either circular or rectangular active surfaces. For 
circular transducers, the beam width in the horizontal plane (assuming 
a downward pointing main beam) is equal in all directions, whereas 
rectangular transducers produce more complex beam patterns with 
variable beam width in the horizontal plane. Please see Zykov and Carr 
(2014) for further discussion of electromechanical sound sources.
    The types of active sources employed in fisheries acoustic research 
and monitoring may be considered in two broad categories here, based 
largely on their respective operating frequency (e.g., within or 
outside the known audible range of marine species) and other output 
characteristics (e.g., signal duration, directivity). As described 
below, these operating characteristics result in differing potential 
for acoustic impacts on marine mammals.
    Category 1 active fisheries acoustic sources include those with 
high output frequencies (greater than 180 kHz) that are outside the 
known functional hearing capability of any marine mammal. Sounds that 
are above the functional hearing range of marine animals may be audible 
if sufficiently loud (e.g., Mohl, 1968) or may elicit some type of 
behavioral response (e.g., Deng et al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2014). 
However, the relative output levels of these sources mean that they 
would potentially be detectable to marine mammals at maximum distances 
of only a few meters, and are highly unlikely to be of sufficient 
intensity to result in behavioral harassment. These sources also 
generally have short duration signals and highly directional beam

[[Page 39559]]

patterns, meaning that any individual marine mammal would be unlikely 
to even receive a signal that would almost certainly be inaudible. 
Therefore, Category 1 sources are not expected to have any effect on 
marine mammals and are not considered further in this document.
    Category 2 acoustic sources, which are present on most NEFSC 
fishery research vessels, include a variety of single, dual, and multi-
beam echosounders (many with a variety of modes), sources used to 
determine the orientation of trawl nets, and several current profilers 
with lower output frequencies than Category 1 sources. Category 2 
active acoustic sources have moderate to high output frequencies (10 to 
180 kHz) that are generally within the functional hearing range of 
marine mammals and therefore have the potential to cause behavioral 
harassment. However, while likely potentially audible to certain 
species, these sources have generally short ping durations and are 
typically focused (highly directional) to serve their intended purpose 
of mapping specific objects, depths, or environmental features. These 
characteristics reduce the likelihood of an animal receiving or 
perceiving the signal. A number of these sources, particularly those 
with relatively lower output frequencies coupled with higher output 
levels can be operated in different output modes (e.g., energy can be 
distributed among multiple output beams) that may lessen the likelihood 
of perception by and potential impact on marine mammals.
    We now describe specific acoustic sources used by the NEFSC. The 
acoustic system used during a particular survey is optimized for 
surveying under specific environmental conditions (e.g., depth and 
bottom type). Lower frequencies of sound travel further in the water 
(i.e., good range) but provide lower resolution (i.e., are less 
precise). Pulse width and power may also be adjusted in the field to 
accommodate a variety of environmental conditions. Signals with a 
relatively long pulse width travel further and are received more 
clearly by the transducer (i.e., good signal-to-noise ratio) but have a 
lower range resolution. Shorter pulses provide higher range resolution 
and can detect smaller and more closely spaced objects in the water. 
Similarly, higher power settings may decrease the utility of collected 
data. Power level is also adjusted according to bottom type, as some 
bottom types have a stronger return and require less power to produce 
data of sufficient quality. Power is typically set to the lowest level 
possible in order to receive a clear return with the best data. Survey 
vessels may be equipped with multiple acoustic systems; each system has 
different advantages that may be utilized depending on the specific 
survey area or purpose. In addition, many systems may be operated at 
one of two frequencies or at a range of frequencies. We summarize 
characteristics of these sources in Table 2.
    1. Multi-Frequency Narrow Beam Scientific Echosounders--
Echosounders and sonars work by transmitting acoustic pulses into the 
water that travel through the water column, reflect off the seafloor, 
and return to the receiver. Water depth is measured by multiplying the 
time elapsed by the speed of sound in water (assuming accurate sound 
speed measurement for the entire signal path), while the returning 
signal itself carries information allowing ``visualization'' of the 
seafloor. Multi-frequency split-beam sensors are deployed from NEFSC 
survey vessels to acoustically map the distributions and estimate the 
abundances and biomasses of many types of fish; characterize their 
biotic and abiotic environments; investigate ecological linkages; and 
gather information about their schooling behavior, migration patterns, 
and avoidance reactions to the survey vessel. The use of multiple 
frequencies allows coverage of a broad range of marine acoustic survey 
activity, ranging from studies of small plankton to large fish schools 
in a variety of environments from shallow coastal waters to deep ocean 
basins. Simultaneous use of several discrete echosounder frequencies 
facilitates accurate estimates of the size of individual fish, and can 
also be used for species identification based on differences in 
frequency-dependent acoustic backscattering between species. The NEFSC 
operates Simrad EK60 system, which transmits and receives at six 
frequencies ranging from 18 to 333 kHz.
    2. Multibeam Echosounder and Sonar--Multibeam echosounders and 
sonars operate similarly to the devices described above. However, the 
use of multiple acoustic ``beams'' allows coverage of a greater area 
compared to single beam sonar. The sensor arrays for multibeam 
echosounders and sonars are usually mounted on the keel of the vessel 
and have the ability to look horizontally in the water column as well 
as straight down. Multibeam echosounders and sonars are used for 
mapping seafloor bathymetry, estimating fish biomass, characterizing 
fish schools, and studying fish behavior. The NEFSC operates the Simrad 
ME70 system, which is mounted to the hull of the research vessels and 
emits frequencies in the 70-120 kHz range.
    3. Single-Frequency Omnidirectional Sonar--Low-frequency, high-
resolution, long range fishery sonars operate with user selectable 
frequencies between 20-30 kHz, which provide longer range and prevent 
interference from other vessels. These sources provide omnidirectional 
imaging around the source with three different vertical beamwidths 
available (single or dual vertical view and 180[deg] tiltable). At the 
30-kHz operating frequency, the vertical beamwidth is less than 7[deg] 
and can be electronically tilted from +10 to -80[deg], which results in 
differential transmitting beam patterns. The cylindrical multi-element 
transducer allows the omnidirectional sonar beam to be electronically 
tilted down to -60[deg], allowing automatic tracking of schools of fish 
within the entire water volume around the vessel. The NEFSC operates 
the Simrad SX90 system.
    4. Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)--An ADCP is a type of 
sonar used for measuring water current velocities simultaneously at a 
range of depths. Whereas current depth profile measurements in the past 
required the use of long strings of current meters, the ADCP enables 
measurements of current velocities across an entire water column. The 
ADCP measures water currents with sound, using the Doppler effect. A 
sound wave has a higher frequency when it moves towards the sensor 
(blue shift) than when it moves away (red shift). The ADCP works by 
transmitting ``pings'' of sound at a constant frequency into the water. 
As the sound waves travel, they ricochet off particles suspended in the 
moving water, and reflect back to the instrument. Due to the Doppler 
effect, sound waves bounced back from a particle moving away from the 
profiler have a slightly lowered frequency when they return. Particles 
moving toward the instrument send back higher frequency waves. The 
difference in frequency between the waves the profiler sends out and 
the waves it receives is called the Doppler shift. The instrument uses 
this shift to calculate how fast the particle and the water around it 
are moving. Sound waves that hit particles far from the profiler take 
longer to come back than waves that strike close by. By measuring the 
time it takes for the waves to return to the sensor, and the Doppler 
shift, the profiler can measure current speed at many different depths 
with each series of pings.
    An ADCP anchored to the seafloor can measure current speed not just 
at the bottom, but at equal intervals to the surface. An ADCP 
instrument may be

[[Page 39560]]

anchored to the seafloor or can be mounted to a mooring or to the 
bottom of a boat. ADCPs that are moored need an anchor to keep them on 
the bottom, batteries, and a data logger. Vessel-mounted instruments 
need a vessel with power, a shipboard computer to receive the data, and 
a GPS navigation system so the ship's movements can be subtracted from 
the current velocity data. ADCPs operate at frequencies between 75 and 
300 kHz.
    5. Net Monitoring Systems--During trawling operations, a range of 
sensors may be used to assist with controlling and monitoring gear. Net 
sounders give information about the concentration of fish around the 
opening to the trawl, as well as the clearances around the opening and 
the bottom of the trawl; catch sensors give information about the rate 
at which the codend is filling; symmetry sensors give information about 
the optimal geometry of the trawls; and tension sensors give 
information about how much tension is in the warps and sweeps. The 
NEFSC uses the NetMind System which measures door spread and monitors 
the door height off of the bottom and operates at 30 and 200 kHz. The 
NEFSC also uses a Simrad ITI Catch Monitoring System, which allows 
monitoring of the exact position of the gear and of what is happening 
in and around the trawl.

                       Table 2--Operating Characteristics of NEFSC Active Acoustic Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Single ping
                                 Operating     Maximum source   duration (ms)     Orientation/       Nominal
   Active acoustic system       frequencies      level  (db)    and repetition   directionality     beamwidth
                                                                  rate  (Hz)                        (degrees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simrad EK60 (surrogate for    18, 38, 70,              224 dB  Variable; most   Downward         7[deg] at 38
 ES60) narrow beam             120, 200, 333                    common           looking.         kHz.
 echosounder.                  kHz; primary                     settings are 1                   11[deg] at 18
                               frequencies                      ms and 0.5 Hz.                    kHz.
                               italicized.
Simrad ME70 multibeam         70-120 kHz.....          205 dB  0.06-5 ms; 1-4   Primarily        130[deg].
 echosounder.                                                   Hz.              downward
                                                                                 looking.
Simrad SX90 narrow beam       20-30 kHz......          219 dB  Variable.......  Omnidirectional  4-5[deg]
 sonar.                                                                                           (variable for
                                                                                                  tilt angles
                                                                                                  from 0-45[deg]
                                                                                                  from
                                                                                                  horizontal).
Teledyne RD Instruments       75 kHz.........          224 dB  0.2 Hz.........  Downward         30[deg].
 ADCP, Ocean Surveyor.                                                           looking.
Simrad ITI Catch Monitoring   27-33 kHz......          214 dB  0.05-0.5 Hz....  Downward         40[deg].
 System.                                                                         looking.
Raymarine SS260 transducer    50, 200 kHz....          217 dB  Unknown........  Downward         19[deg] at 50
 for DSM300 (surrogate for                                                       looking.         kHz.
 FCV-292).                                                                                       6[deg] at 200
                                                                                                  kHz.
Simrad EQ50.................  50, 200 kHz....          210 dB  Variable.......  Downward         16[deg] at 50
                                                                                 looking.         kHz.
                                                                                                 7[deg] at 200
                                                                                                  kHz.
NetMind.....................  30, 200 kHz....          190 dB  Unknown........  Downward         50[deg].
                                                                                 looking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods 
of taking pursuant to such activity, ``and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for subsistence uses.'' Note that taxonomic information for 
certain species mentioned in this section is provided in the following 
section (``Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified 
Activity'').
    The NEFSC proposed to implement the following suite of mitigation 
measures during fisheries research. The Center bases these procedures 
on protocols used during previous research surveys and/or best 
practices developed for commercial fisheries using similar gear. In 
addition, the proposed rule's adaptive management framework would 
require the NEFSC to review its procedures and investigate options for 
incorporating new mitigation measures and equipment into its on-going 
survey programs. The NEFSC will initiate a process for its Chief 
Scientists and vessel captains to communicate with each other about 
their experiences with protected species interactions during research 
work with the goal of improving decision-making regarding avoidance of 
adverse interactions. Evaluations of new mitigation measures include 
assessments of their effectiveness in reducing risk to marine mammals. 
However, consideration of additionally proposed measures must also pass 
safety considerations and allow survey results to remain consistent 
with previous data sets.

General Measures

    Coordination and communication--When NEFSC survey effort is 
conducted aboard NOAA-owned vessels, there are both vessel officers and 
crew and a scientific party. Vessel officers and crew are not composed 
of NEFSC staff, but are employees of NOAA's Office of Marine and 
Aviation Operations (OMAO), which is responsible for the management and 
operation of NOAA fleet ships and aircraft and is composed of uniformed 
officers of the NOAA Commissioned Corps as well as civilians. The 
ship's officers and crew provide mission support and assistance to 
embarked scientists, and the vessel's Commanding Officer (CO) has 
ultimate responsibility for vessel and passenger safety and, therefore, 
decision authority. When NEFSC survey effort is conducted aboard 
cooperative platforms (i.e., non-NOAA vessels), ultimate 
responsibility, and decision authority again rests with non-NEFSC 
personnel (i.e., vessel's master or captain). Decision authority 
includes the implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., whether to 
stop deployment of trawl gear upon observation of marine mammals). The 
scientific party involved in any NEFSC survey effort is composed, in 
part or whole, of NEFSC staff led by a Chief Scientist (CS). Therefore, 
because the NEFSC--not OMAO or any other entity that may have authority 
over survey platforms used by the NEFSC--is the applicant to whom any 
incidental take

[[Page 39561]]

authorization issued under the authority of these proposed regulations 
would be issued, we require that the NEFSC take all necessary measures 
to coordinate and communicate in advance of each specific survey with 
OMAO, or other relevant parties, to ensure that all mitigation measures 
and monitoring requirements described herein, as well as the specific 
manner of implementation and relevant event-contingent decision-making 
processes, are clearly understood and agreed-upon. This may involve 
description of all required measures when submitting cruise 
instructions to OMAO or when completing contracts with external 
entities. NEFSC will coordinate and conduct briefings at the outset of 
each survey and as necessary between ship's crew (CO/master or 
designee(s), as appropriate) and scientific party in order to explain 
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring 
protocol, and operational procedures. The CS will be responsible for 
coordination with the Officer on Deck (OOD; or equivalent on non-NOAA 
platforms) to ensure that requirements, procedures, and decision-making 
processes are understood and properly implemented.
    Protected species training--In an effort to help standardize and 
further emphasize the importance of protected species information, the 
NEFSC will implement a formalized protected species training program 
for all crew members as part of its continuing research program that 
will be required for all NEFSC-affiliated research projects, including 
cooperative research partners. The NEFSC would conduct training 
programs on a regular basis which would include topics such as 
monitoring and sighting protocols, species identification, decision-
making factors for avoiding take, procedures for handling and 
documenting protected species caught in research gear, and reporting 
requirements. Required training would occur through participation in 
protected species training programs developed by the regional 
commercial Fisheries Observer Program, which would typically be the 
Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP).
    All NEFSC research crew members that may be assigned to monitor for 
the presence of marine mammals and sea turtles during future surveys 
will be required to attend an initial training course and refresher 
courses annually or as necessary. The implementation of this new 
training program will formalize and standardize the information 
provided to all crew that might experience protected species 
interactions during research activities.
    Vessel speed--Vessel speed during active sampling rarely exceeds 5 
kt, with typical speeds being 2 to 4 kt. Transit speeds vary from 6 to 
14 kt but average 10 kt. These low vessel speeds minimize the potential 
for ship strike (see ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on 
Marine Mammals and Their Habitat'' for an in-depth discussion of ship 
strike). At any time during a survey or in transit, if a crew member 
standing watch or dedicated marine mammal observer sights marine 
mammals that may intersect with the vessel course that individual will 
immediately communicate the presence of marine mammals to the bridge 
for appropriate course alteration or speed reduction, as possible, to 
avoid incidental collisions.
    Other gears--The NEFSC deploys a wide variety of gear to sample the 
marine environment during all of their research cruises. Many of these 
types of gear (e.g., plankton nets, video camera and ROV deployments) 
are not considered to pose any risk to marine mammals and are therefore 
not subject to specific mitigation measures. In addition, specific 
aspects of gear design, survey protocols (e.g., number of hooks), and 
limited frequency of use indicate that certain types of gears that may 
otherwise be expected to have the potential to result in take of marine 
mammals do not pose significant risk to certain species of marine 
mammals (e.g., large whales interactions with NEFSC longline gears) and 
are not subject to specific mitigation measures due to the low level of 
survey effort and small survey footprint relative to that of commercial 
fisheries. However, at all times when the NEFSC is conducting survey 
operations at sea, the OOD and/or CS and crew will monitor for any 
unusual circumstances that may arise at a sampling site and use best 
professional judgment to avoid any potential risks to marine mammals 
during use of all research equipment.
    Handling procedures--The NEFSC will implement a number of handling 
protocols to minimize potential harm to marine mammals that are 
incidentally taken during the course of fisheries research activities. 
In general, protocols have already been prepared for use on commercial 
fishing vessels. Because incidental take of marine mammals in fishing 
gear is similar for commercial fisheries and research surveys, NEFSC 
proposes to adopt these protocols, which are expected to increase post-
release survival. In general, following a ``common sense'' approach to 
handling captured or entangled marine mammals will present the best 
chance of minimizing injury to the animal and of decreasing risks to 
scientists and vessel crew. Handling or disentangling marine mammals 
carries inherent safety risks, and using best professional judgment and 
ensuring human safety is paramount. The NEFSC protected species 
training programs would include procedures for handling and documenting 
protected species caught in research gear, and reporting requirements. 
The CS and appropriate members of the research crews would also be 
trained using the same monitoring, data collection, and reporting 
protocols for protected species as is required by the NEFOP.
    Written protocols--For all NEFSC-affiliated research projects and 
vessels, the vessel coordinator and center director reviews cruise 
instructions and protocols for avoiding adverse interactions with 
protected species. If the research is conducted on a NOAA vessel, the 
Commanding Officer finalizes these instructions. If any inconsistencies 
or deficiencies are found, the written instructions will be made fully 
consistent with the NEFOP training materials and any guidance on 
decision-making that arises out of the training opportunities described 
earlier. In addition, the NEFSC would review informational placards and 
reporting procedures and update them as necessary for consistency and 
accuracy. Many research cruises already include pre-sail review of 
protected species protocols. The NEFSC will require pre-sail briefings 
before all research cruises, including those conducted by cooperating 
partners, as part of its continuing research program.

Trawl Survey Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    The mitigation requirements described here are applicable to all 
beam, mid-water, and bottom trawl operations conducted by the NEFSC.
    Visual monitoring--The OOD, CS (or other designated member of the 
Scientific Party), and crew standing watch on the bridge visually scan 
for marine mammals (and other protected species) during all daytime 
operations. Marine mammal watches will be conducted by scanning the 
surrounding waters with bridge binoculars to survey the area upon 
arrival at the station, during visual and sonar reconnaissance of the 
trawl line to look for potential hazards (e.g., commercial fishing 
gear, unsuitable bottom for trawling, etc.), and while the gear is 
deployed. During nighttime operations, visual observation will be 
conducted using the naked eye and available vessel lighting.

[[Page 39562]]

    The NEFSC considered a modification of the move-on rule to monitor 
for marine mammals for a 30-minute period while on station before 
deploying trawl gear. However, the NEFSC deemed this as not practicable 
because the measure would result in substantial delays to complete the 
surveys, increased costs and days at sea, and reductions in the number 
of stations and amount of fish sampled annually. The reduction in 
effort would adversely affect the scientific integrity of its research 
programs and quality of data used to inform NEFSC stock assessments by 
compromising the statistical continuity of long-term time-series data 
sets which could affect future fisheries management decisions.
    Operational procedures--The primary purpose of conducting visual 
monitoring period is to implement the ``move-on rule.'' If marine 
mammals are sighted around the vessel before setting the gear, the OOD 
may decide to move the vessel away from the marine mammal to a 
different section of the sampling area if the animal appears to be at 
risk of interaction with the gear. During daytime trawl operations), 
research trawl gear is not deployed if marine mammals have been sighted 
near the ship unless those animals do not appear to be in danger of 
interactions with the trawl, as determined by the judgment of the OOD 
and CS. The efficacy of the move-on rule is limited during night time 
trawl operations or other periods of limited visibility. However, 
operational lighting from the vessel illuminates the water in the 
immediate vicinity of the vessel during gear setting and retrieval.
    After moving on, if marine mammals are still visible from the 
vessel and appear to be at risk, the OOD may decide to move the vessel 
again or skip the sampling station. The OOD will consult with the CS or 
other designated scientist (identified prior to the voyage and noted on 
the cruise plan) and other experienced crew as necessary to determine 
the best strategy to avoid potential takes of these species. Strategies 
are based on the species encountered, their numbers and behavior, their 
position and vector relative to the vessel, and other factors. For 
instance, a whale transiting through the area and heading away from the 
vessel may not require any move, or may require only a short move from 
the initial sampling site, while a pod of dolphins gathered around the 
vessel may require a longer move from the initial sampling site or 
possibly cancellation of the station if the dolphins follow the vessel. 
If trawling operations have been delayed because of the presence of 
marine mammals, the vessel resumes trawl operations (when practical) 
only when the animals have not been sighted near the vessel or 
otherwise determined to no longer be at risk. This decision is at the 
discretion of the OOD and is situationally dependent.
    In general, trawl operations will be conducted immediately upon 
arrival on station in order to minimize the time during which marine 
mammals may become attracted to the vessel. However, in some cases it 
will be necessary to conduct small net tows (e.g., bongo net) prior to 
deploying trawl gear in order to avoid trawling through extremely high 
densities of gelatinous zooplankton that can damage trawl gear.
    Once the trawl net is in the water, the OOD, CS, and/or crew 
standing watch will continue to visually monitor the surrounding waters 
and will maintain a lookout for marine mammal presence as far away as 
environmental conditions allow.
    If marine mammals are sighted before the gear is fully retrieved, 
the most appropriate response to avoid marine mammal interaction will 
be determined by the professional judgment of the CS, watch leader, OOD 
and other experienced crew as necessary. This judgment will be based on 
past experience operating trawl gears around marine mammals (i.e., best 
professional judgment) and on NEFSC training sessions that will 
facilitate dissemination of expertise operating in these situations 
(e.g., factors that contribute to marine mammal gear interactions and 
those that aid in successfully avoiding such events). Best professional 
judgment takes into consideration the species, numbers, and behavior of 
the animals, the status of the trawl net operation (e.g., net opening, 
depth, and distance from the stern), the time it would take to retrieve 
the net, and safety considerations for changing speed or course. We 
recognize that it is not possible to dictate in advance the exact 
course of action that the OOD or CS should take in any given event 
involving the presence of marine mammals in proximity to an ongoing 
trawl tow, given the sheer number of potential variables, combinations 
of variables that may determine the appropriate course of action, and 
the need to consider human safety in the operation of fishing gear at 
sea. Nevertheless, we require a full accounting of factors that shape 
both successful and unsuccessful decisions and these details will be 
fed back into NEFSC training efforts and ultimately help to refine the 
best professional judgment that determines the course of action taken 
in any given scenario (see further discussion in ``Proposed Monitoring 
and Reporting'').
    The efficacy of the ``move-on'' rule is limited during night time 
or other periods of limited visibility; research gear is deployed as 
necessary when visibility is poor, although operational lighting from 
the vessel illuminates the water in the immediate vicinity of the 
vessel during gear setting and retrieval.
    Tow duration and direction--Standard survey protocols that are 
expected to lessen the likelihood of marine mammal interactions include 
standardized tow durations and distances. Standard tow durations of not 
more than thirty minutes at the target depth will be implemented, 
excluding deployment and retrieval time (which may require an 
additional thirty minutes, depending on target depth), to reduce the 
likelihood of attracting and incidentally taking marine mammals. Short 
tow durations decrease the opportunity for marine mammals to find the 
vessel and investigate. The exceptions to the 30-min tow duration are 
the Atlantic Herring Acoustic Pelagic Trawl Survey (AHAPTS) and the 
deep-water biodiversity survey where the total time in the water 
(deployment, fishing, haulback) are 40 to 60 min and 180 min, 
respectively.
    Trawl tow distances will be less than 3 nm--typically 1-2 nm, 
depending on the specific survey and trawl speed--which is also 
expected to reduce the likelihood of attracting and incidentally taking 
marine mammals.
    The NEFSC will tow the bottom trawl in either straight lines or 
following depth contours, whereas the AHAPTS tows would target fish 
aggregations and deep-water biodiversity tows along oceanographic or 
bathymetric features. Sharp course changes will be avoided in all 
surveys.
    Gear maintenance--The crew will be careful when emptying the trawl 
to avoid damage to marine mammals that may be caught in the gear but 
are not visible upon retrieval. The gear will be emptied as quickly as 
possible after retrieval in order to determine whether or not marine 
mammals are present. The vessel's crew will clean trawl nets prior to 
deployment to remove prey items that might attract marine mammals. 
Catch volumes are typically small with every attempt made to collect 
all organisms caught in the trawl.
    Speed and course alterations--The vessel's speed during active 
sampling with trawl nets will not exceed 5 kt. Typical towing speeds 
are 2-4 kt. Transit speed between active sampling stations will range 
from 10-12 kt, except in areas where vessel speeds are regulated to 
lower speeds. When

[[Page 39563]]

operating in North Atlantic right whale Seasonal Management Areas, 
Dynamic Management Areas, or in the vicinity of right whales or surface 
active groups of large baleen whales the vessel's speed will not exceed 
10 kt. Further, vessels will reduce speed and change course in the 
vicinity of resting groups of large whales.
    As noted earlier, if marine mammals are sighted prior to deployment 
of the trawl net, the vessel may be moved away from the animals to a 
new station at the discretion of the OOC. Also, at any time during a 
survey or in transit, any crew member that sights marine mammals that 
may intersect with the vessel course will immediately communicate their 
presence to the bridge for appropriate course alteration or speed 
reduction as possible to avoid incidental collisions.

Dredge Survey Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    The mitigation requirements described here are applicable to all 
hydraulic, New Bedford-type, commercial, and Naturalist dredge 
operations conducted by the NEFSC.
    Visual monitoring--Visual monitoring requirements for all dredge 
gears are the same as those described above for trawl surveys. Please 
see that section for full details of the visual monitoring and ``move-
on'' protocols. The small size of the scallop dredge (eight feet wide) 
and clam dredge (13 feet wide) and the fishing orientation of the 
opening during most of the dredge haul (downward against the seabed) 
minimize the need for marine mammal excluding devices. However, care 
will be taken when emptying the dredge to avoid damage to protected 
species that may be caught in the gear but are not visible upon 
retrieval. The gear will be emptied as quickly as possible after 
retrieval in order to determine whether or not protected species are 
present.
    Tow duration and direction--Standard dredge durations are 15 min or 
less, excluding deployment and retrieval time, to reduce the likelihood 
of attracting and incidentally taking protected species.

Longline Gear Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    Visual monitoring--Visual monitoring requirements for pelagic or 
demersal longline surveys are the same as those described above for 
trawl surveys. Please see that section for full details.
    Operational procedures--The precautions for setting longline gear 
apply to the following NEFSC surveys: Apex Predators Bottom Longline 
Coastal Shark, Apex Predators Pelagic Nursery Grounds Shark, COASTSPAN 
Longline Surveys, and the NEFOP Observer Bottom Longline Training 
Trips. Prior to setting the gear, the OOD, CS, and crew visually scan 
the waters surrounding the vessel for protected species at least 30 
minutes before deploying the longline gear. This typically occurs 
during transit through the setting area and then returning back to the 
starting point. Longline sets may be delayed if marine mammals have 
been detected near the vessel in the 30 minutes prior to setting the 
gear.
    For the Apex Predators Bottom Longline Coastal Shark Survey, the 
OOD, CS, and crew uses a one nautical mile radius around the vessel as 
to guide the decision on whether marine mammals are at risk of 
interactions before deploying the gear). The vessel may be moved to a 
new location if marine mammals are present and the OOD uses 
professional judgment to minimize the risk to marine mammals from 
potential gear interactions.
    During longline sets, the OOD, CS, and crew standing watch will 
monitor the gear to look for hooked or entangled marine mammals and 
other protected species.
    NEFSC longline sets are conducted with either drifting pelagic gear 
marked at both ends with high flyers or radio buoys and at specific 
intervals throughout the line with buoys or bottom set gear also marked 
at both ends with high flyers and buoys at specific intervals 
throughout the line. The NEFSC has established standard soak times of 
three hours for bottom longline and two to five hours for pelagic 
longline surveys. The CS will ensure that soak times do not exceed five 
hours, except in cases where weather or mechanical difficulty delay 
gear retrieval.
    NEFSC longline protocols specifically prohibit chumming (releasing 
additional bait to attract target species to the gear). Bait is removed 
from hooks during retrieval and retained on the vessel until all gear 
is removed from the area. The crew will not discard offal or spent bait 
while longline gear is in the water to reduce the risk of marine 
mammals detecting the vessel or being attracted to the area.
    If marine mammals are detected while longline gear is in the water, 
the OOD exercises similar judgments and discretion to avoid incidental 
take of marine mammals as described for trawl gear. The species, 
number, and behavior of the marine mammals are considered along with 
the status of the ship and gear, weather and sea conditions, and crew 
safety factors.
    If marine mammals are present during setting operations, immediate 
retrieval or halting the setting operations may be warranted. If 
setting operations have been halted due to the presence of marine 
mammals, resumption of setting will not begin until no marine mammals 
have been observed for at least 15 min. When visibility allows, the 
OOD, CS, and crew standing watch will conduct set checks every 15 min 
to look for hooked, or entangled marine mammals.
    If marine mammals are present during retrieval operations, haul-
back will be postponed until the OOD determines that it is safe to 
proceed. The NEFSC would take extra caution during gear retrieval.

Gill Net Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    Visual monitoring--The monitoring procedures for gill nets are 
similar to those described for trawl gear. The NEFSC does not propose 
to use pelagic gillnets in any survey.
    Operational procedures--Gill nets are not deployed if marine 
mammals have been sighted on arrival at the sample site. The exception 
is for animals that, because of their behavior, travel vector or other 
factors, do not appear to be at risk of interaction with the gillnet 
gear. If no marine mammals are present, the gear is set and monitored 
during the soak. If a marine mammal is sighted during the soak and 
appears to be at risk of interaction with the gear, then the gear is 
pulled immediately.
    For the COASTSPAN surveys, the NEFSC will actively monitor for 
potential bottlenose dolphin entanglements by hand-checking the gillnet 
every 20 minutes by lifting the foot net. Also, in the unexpected case 
of a bottlenose dolphin entanglement, the NEFSC would request and 
arrange for expedited genetic sampling in order to determine the stock 
and would photograph the dorsal fin and submit to the Southeast 
Stranding Coordinator for identification/matching to bottlenose 
dolphins in the Mid-Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin Photo-identification 
Catalog.
    On the NEFOP Observer Training cruises, acoustic pingers and weak 
links are used on all gill nets consistent with the Harbor Porpoise 
Take Reduction Plan regulations at (50 CFR 229.33) for commercial 
fisheries to reduce marine mammal bycatch. Under the Harbor Porpoise 
Take Reduction Plan, gillnet gear used in specific areas during 
specific times are required to be equipped with pingers. We discuss the 
use of pingers and their acoustic characteristics later within the 
subsection titled ``Cooperative Research

[[Page 39564]]

Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols, Acoustic Deterrent 
Devices.''
    All NEFOP protocols concerning monitoring and reporting protected 
species interactions are followed as per the current NEFOP Observer 
Manual (available on the Internet at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/manuals/2013/NEFSC_Observer_Program_Manual.pdf). The soak duration time 
is 12 to 24 hours. Communication with the NEFOP Training Lead and the 
vessel captain occurs within 24 to 48 hours prior to setting of gear. 
During these communications, the NEFOP Training Lead and Captain decide 
when to set the gear, specifically taking into account any possible 
weather delays to avoid a long soak period. They do not deploy the gear 
if a significant weather delay is expected that would increase the 
preferred soak duration to greater than 24 hours. In those situations, 
the gear set times will be delayed.

Fyke Net Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    Visual monitoring--Fyke nets are normally set inshore by small boat 
crews, who will visually survey areas prior to deploying the nets. 
Monitoring is done prior to setting and during net retrieval which is 
is conducted every 12 to 24-. If marine mammals are in close proximity 
(approximately 100 m) of the setting location, the field team will make 
a determination if the set location needs to be moved. If marine 
mammals are observed to interact with the gear during the setting, the 
crew will lift and remove the gear from the water.
    Operational procedures--A 2-m fyke net will be deployed with a 
marine mammal excluder device that reduces the effective mouth opening 
to less than 15 cm. The 1-m fyke net does not require an excluder 
device as the opening is 12 cm. These small openings will prevent 
marine mammals from entering the nets.

Beach Seine Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    Visual monitoring--Prior to setting the seine nets, researchers 
would visually survey the area for marine mammals. They would also 
observe for marine mammals continuously during sampling.
    Operational procedures--Seines are deployed with one end held on 
shore by a crew member and the net slowly deployed by boat in an arc 
and then retrieved by pulling both ends onto shore. Typical seine hauls 
are less than 15 min with the resulting catch sampled and released. 
Scientists would look as far as field of view permits from the beach in 
the general sampling area before the net is fished and would not deploy 
if marine mammals are present. If marine mammals are observed to be 
interacting with the gear, it will be lifted and removed from the 
water.

Rotary Screw Trap Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    Visual monitoring--Sites are visually surveyed for marine mammals 
prior to submerging the gear in the water channel. The traps remain in 
the water for an extended period of time and sampling crews tend the 
traps on a daily basis. The researchers would modify, delay, or 
conclude the sampling period depending on the numbers of marine mammals 
nearby and their potential for interacting with the gear as determined 
by the professional judgment of the researchers.
    Operational procedures--Under most conditions the live car (i.e., 
catch holding pen) is about 75 percent full of water, which would allow 
any trapped mammals to breath until release from the trap. RST tending 
schedules are adjusted according to conditions of the river/estuary and 
threats to protected species (i.e., presence of ESA-listed fish or 
marine mammals in the area). If capture occurs, animal is temporarily 
retained in live tank and released as soon as possible.

Cooperative Research Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    The mitigation requirements described earlier are applicable to 
commercial fishing vessels engaged in NEFSC cooperative research using 
trawls, dredges, longline, and gillnet gears.
    These commercial fishing vessels are significantly smaller than the 
NOAA vessels and depending on their size and configuration, marine 
mammal sighting may be difficult to make during all aspects of fishing 
operations. Further, scientific personnel are normally restricted from 
the deck during gear setting and haulback operations. For all vessel 
size classes, it is unlikely that the individual(s) searching for 
marine mammals will have unrestricted 360 degree visibility around the 
vessel. However, observations during approach to a fishing station and 
during gear setting and haulback may be feasible and practicable from 
the wheelhouse.
    These projects will also comply with the TRP mitigation measures 
and gear requirements specified for their respective fisheries and 
areas (e.g., pingers, sinking groundlines, and weak links on gillnet 
gear).
    The NEFSC will review all NEFSC-affiliated research instructions 
and protocols for avoiding adverse interactions with protected species. 
If those instructions/protocols are not fully consistent with NEFOP 
training materials and guidance on decision-making that arises from 
NEFSC protected species training, the NEFSC will incorporate specific 
language into its contracts and agreements with NEFSC-affiliated 
research partners requiring adherence to all required training 
requirements, operating procedures, and reporting requirements for 
protected species.
    Visual monitoring--Commercial fishing vessels are significantly 
smaller than the NOAA white boats, and depending on their size and 
configuration, marine mammal sighting may be difficult to make during 
all aspects of fishing operations. Also, scientific personnel are 
normally restricted from the deck during gear setting and haulback 
operations. However, observations during approach to a fishing station, 
and during gear setting and haulback may be feasible from the 
wheelhouse.
    Operational procedures--For the Apex Predators Bottom Longline 
Coastal Shark and COASTSPAN longline and gillnet surveys, NEFSC 
partners would implement the Move-on-Rule. During the soak, the line is 
run and if any marine mammals are sighted the line is pulled 
immediately. On COASTSPAN gillnet surveys, gillnets are continuously 
monitored during the 3-hour soak time by under-running it, pulling it 
across the boat while leaving the net ends anchored. All animals, algae 
and other objects are removed with each pass as the net is reset into 
the water to minimize bycatch mortality.
    Acoustic deterrent devices--NEFSC-affiliated cooperative research 
projects involving commercial vessels and gear, as well as the NEFOP 
Observer Training Gillnet Surveys currently deploy acoustic pingers on 
anchored sinking gillnets in areas where they are required by 
commercial fisheries to comply with requirements in the Harbor Porpoise 
Take Reduction Plan (50 CFR 229.33). A pinger is an acoustic deterrent 
device which, when immersed in water, broadcasts a 10 kHz (2 kHz) sound at 132 dB (4 dB) re 1 micropascal at 1 
m, lasting 300 milliseconds (15 milliseconds), and 
repeating every 4 seconds (.2 seconds).
    Acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) are underwater sound-emitting 
devices that have been shown to decrease the probability of 
interactions with certain species of marine mammals when fishing gear 
is fitted with the devices. Multiple studies have reported large 
decreases in harbor porpoise mortality (approximately eighty to ninety 
percent)

[[Page 39565]]

in bottom-set gillnets (nets composed of vertical panes of netting, 
typically set in a straight line and either anchored to the bottom or 
drifting) during controlled experiments (e.g., Kraus et al., 1997; 
Trippel et al., 1999; Gearin et al., 2000). Using commercial fisheries 
data rather than a controlled experiment, Palka et al. (2008) reported 
that harbor porpoise bycatch rates in the northeast U.S gillnet fishery 
when fishing without pingers was about two to three times higher 
compared to when pingers were used. After conducting a controlled 
experiment in a California drift gillnet fishery during 1996-97, Barlow 
and Cameron (2003) reported significantly lower bycatch rates when 
pingers were used for all cetacean species combined, all pinniped 
species combined, and specifically for short-beaked common dolphins (85 
percent reduction) and California sea lions (69 percent reduction). 
While not a statistically significant result, catches of Pacific white-
sided dolphins were reduced by seventy percent. Carretta et al. (2008) 
subsequently examined nine years of observer data from the same drift 
gillnet fishery and found that pinger use had eliminated beaked whale 
bycatch. Carretta and Barlow (2011) assessed the long-term 
effectiveness of pingers in reducing marine mammal bycatch in the 
California drift gillnet fishery by evaluating fishery data from 1990-
2009 (with pingers in use beginning in 1996), finding that bycatch 
rates of cetaceans were reduced nearly fifty percent in sets using a 
sufficient number of pingers. However, in contrast to the findings of 
Barlow and Cameron (2003), they report no significant difference in 
pinniped bycatch.
    To be effective, a pinger must emit a signal that is sufficiently 
aversive to deter the species of concern, which requires that the 
signal is perceived while also deterring investigation. In rare cases, 
aversion may be learned as a warning when an animal has survived 
interaction with gear fitted with pingers (Dawson, 1994). The 
mechanisms by which pingers work in operational settings are not fully 
understood, but field trials and captive studies have shown that sounds 
produced by pingers are aversive to harbor porpoises (e.g., Laake et 
al., 1998; Kastelein et al., 2000; Culik et al., 2001), and it is 
assumed that when marine mammals are deterred from interacting with 
gear fitted with pingers that it is because the sounds produced by the 
devices are aversive. Two primary concerns expressed with regard to 
pinger effectiveness in reducing marine mammal bycatch relate to 
habituation (i.e., marine mammals may become habituated to the sounds 
made by the pingers, resulting in increasing bycatch rates over time; 
Dawson, 1994; Cox et al., 2001; Carlstrom et al., 2009) and the 
``dinner bell effect'' (Dawson, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995), which 
implies that certain predatory marine mammal species (e.g., sea lions) 
may come to associate pingers with a food source (e.g., fish caught in 
nets) with the result that bycatch rates may be higher in nets with 
pingers than in those without.
    Palka et al. (2008) report that habituation has not occurred on a 
level that affects the bycatch estimate for the northeast U.S. gillnet 
fishery, while cautioning that the data studied do not provide a direct 
method to study habituation. Similarly, Carretta and Barlow (2011) 
report that habituation is not apparent in the California drift gillnet 
fishery, with the proportion of pinger-fitted sets with bycatch not 
significantly different for either cetaceans or pinnipeds between the 
periods 1996-2001 and 2001-09; in fact, bycatch rates for both taxa 
overall were lower in the latter period. We are not aware of any long-
term behavioral studies investigating habituation. Bycatch rates of 
California sea lions, specifically, did increase during the latter 
period. However, the authors do not attribute the increase to pinger 
use (i.e., the ``dinner bell effect''); rather, they believe that 
continuing increases in population abundance for the species (Carretta 
et al., 2014) coincident with a decline in fishery effort are 
responsible for the increased rate of capture. Despite these potential 
limitations on the effectiveness of pingers, and while effectiveness 
has not been tested on trawl gear, we believe that the available 
evidence supports an assumption that use of pingers is likely to reduce 
the potential for marine mammal interactions with NEFSC gear.
    If one assumes that use of a pinger is effective in deterring 
marine mammals from interacting with fishing gear, one must therefore 
assume that receipt of the acoustic signal has a disturbance effect on 
those marine mammals (i.e., Level B harassment). However, Level B 
harassment that may be incurred as a result of NEFSC's use of pingers 
does not constitute take that must be authorized under the MMPA. The 
MMPA prohibits the taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens or within 
the U.S. EEZ unless such taking is appropriately permitted or 
authorized. However, the MMPA provides several narrowly defined 
exemptions from this requirement (e.g., for Alaskan natives; for 
defense of self or others; for Good Samaritans [16 U.S.C. 1371(b)-
(d)]). Section 109(h) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1379(h)) allows for the 
taking of marine mammals in a humane manner by federal, state, or local 
government officials or employees in the course of their official 
duties if the taking is necessary for ``the protection or welfare of 
the mammal,'' ``the protection of the public health and welfare,'' or 
``the non-lethal removal of nuisance animals.'' Section 101(a)(4)(A) of 
the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371) allows for the owner of fishing gear or 
catch, or an employee or agent of such owner, to deter a marine mammal 
from damaging the gear or catch if the deterrence does not result in 
mortality or serious injury.
    The NEFSC's use of pingers as a deterrent device, which may cause 
Level B harassment of marine mammals, is intended solely for the 
avoidance of potential marine mammal interactions with NEFSC and 
cooperative research gear (i.e., avoidance of Level A harassment, 
serious injury, or mortality). Therefore, use of such deterrent 
devices, and the taking that may result, is for the protection and 
welfare of the mammal and is covered explicitly under MMPA section 
109(h)(1)(A) or section 101(a)(4)(A). Potential taking of marine 
mammals resulting from NEFSC's use of pingers is not discussed further 
in this document.

Acoustic Telemetry Gear Visual Monitoring and Operational Protocols

    The NEFSC deploys passive acoustic telemetry receivers in many of 
Maine's rivers, estuaries, bays and into the Gulf of Maine. These 
receivers are used to monitor tagged Atlantic salmon, as well as other 
tagged animals of collaborators along the east coast.
    Visual monitoring--The receivers are set by small boat crews that 
visually survey the area for marine mammals prior to setting. 
Interactions with the gear or boats are not expected.
    Operational Procedures--Receivers are anchored using a 24 pound 
mushroom anchor or a 79 pound cement mooring and attached to a surface 
float by 11/16 inch sinking pot warp with a weight rating of 1,200 
pounds. Units in the estuary and bay are equipped with whale-safe weak 
links with a weight rating of 600 pounds. Other receivers are deployed 
on coastal commercial lobstermen's fishing gears which comply with 
fishing regulations for nearshore operations. The receivers are 
recovered twice annually, but the traps are tended according to 
required fishing schedules of the fishery.
    We have carefully evaluated the NEFSC's proposed mitigation 
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of 
ensuring that

[[Page 39566]]

we prescribed the means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their 
habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of 
the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in 
which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the 
measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) 
the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize 
adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure 
for applicant implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed below:
    (1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
    (2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals 
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may 
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment 
only).
    (3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine 
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental 
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 
behavioral harassment only).
    (4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to 
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
    (5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or 
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat 
during a biologically important time.
    (6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of the NEFSC's proposed measures, we have 
preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide 
the means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on marine 
mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention 
to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    We have reviewed NEFSC' species descriptions--which summarize 
available information regarding status and trends, distribution and 
habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and auditory 
capabilities of the potentially affected species--for accuracy and 
completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the NEFSC's 
application, as well as to NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of reprinting the information 
here. Table 3 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence 
in the Atlantic coast region where the NEFSC proposes to conduct the 
specified activity and summarize information related to the population 
or stock, including potential biological removal (PBR). For taxonomy, 
we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2014).
    PBR, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not 
including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal 
stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum 
sustainable population, is discussed in greater detail later in this 
document (see ``Negligible Impact Analyses'').
    Species that could potentially occur in the proposed research areas 
but are not expected to have the potential for interaction with NEFSC 
research gear or that are not likely to be harassed by NEFSC's use of 
active acoustic devices are described briefly in the NEFSC's 
application and in this document but omitted from further analysis. 
These include extralimital species (e.g., beluga (Delphinapterus 
leucas), Bryde's (Balaenoptera edeni), and false killer (Pseudorca 
crassidens) whales, which are species that do not normally occur in a 
given area but for which there are one or more occurrence records that 
are considered beyond the normal range of the species.
    For status of species, we provide information regarding U.S. 
regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA. Marine mammal abundance 
estimates presented in this document represent the total number of 
individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated 
within a particular study area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for 
most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the 
geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, 
this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. Survey abundance 
(as compared to stock or species abundance) is the total number of 
individuals estimated within the survey area, which may or may not 
align completely with a stock's geographic range as defined in the 
SARs. These surveys may also extend beyond U.S. waters.

                  Table 3--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of NEFSC Research Activities in the Atlantic Coast Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Stock abundance
                                                                                 ESA/MMPA  status;     (CV, Nmin, most                      Annual M/SI
           Common name                Scientific name            Stock         strategic  (Y/N) \1\    recent abundance       PBR \3\           \3\
                                                                                                         survey) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Family Balaenidae (right whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale.......  Eubalaena glacialis.  Western Atlantic....  E/D; Y..............  465 (n/a, 465,                  0.9            4.75
                                                                                                      2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minke whale......................  Balaenoptera          Canadian East Coast.  -; N................  20,741 (0.30,                   162        \6\ 9.45
                                    acutorostrata                                                     16,199, 2007).
                                    acutorostrata.

[[Page 39567]]

 
Sei whale........................  B. borealis borealis  Nova Scotia.........  E/D; Y..............  357 (0.52, 236,                 0.5             0.8
                                                                                                      2011).
Blue whale.......................  B. musculus musculus  Western North         E/D; Y..............  Unk (n/a, 440,                  0.9             Unk
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2009) \4\.
Fin whale........................  B. physalus physalus  Western North         E/D; Y..............  1,618 (0.33, 1,234,             2.5            3.35
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2011).
Humpback whale...................  Megaptera             Gulf of Maine.......  E/D; Y..............  823 (0, 823, 2008).             2.7       \7\ 10.15
                                    novaeangliae
                                    novaeangliae.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Family Physeteridae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale......................  Physeter              Western North         E/D; Y..............  2,288 (0.28, 1,815,             3.6             0.8
                                    macrocephalus.        Atlantic.                                   2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Family Kogiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy sperm whale................  Kogia breviceps.....  Western North         -; N................  3,785 (0.47, 2,598,              26             3.4
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2011).
Dwarf sperm whale................  K. sima.............  Western North         -; N................  3,785 (0.47, 2,598,              26             3.4
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern bottlenose whale........  Hyperoodon            Western North         -; N................  Unk................             Unk               0
                                    ampullatus.           Atlantic.
Blainville's beaked whale........  Mesplodon             Western North         -; N................  7,092 (0.54, 4,632,              46             0.2
                                    densirostris.         Atlantic.                                   2011) \5\.
Sowerby's beaked whale...........  M. bidens...........  Western North         -; N................  7,092 (0.54, 4,632,              46               0
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2011) \5\.
Gervais' beaked whale............  M. europaeus........                                                                   ..............  ..............
True's beaked whale..............  M. mirus............                                                                   ..............  ..............
Cuvier's beaked whale............  Ziphius cavirostris.  Western North         -; N................  6,532 (0.32, 5,021,              50             0.4
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-beaked common dolphin......  Delphinus delphis     Western North         -; N................  173,486 (0.55,                1,125         \6\ 289
                                    delphis.              Atlantic.                                   112,531, 2007).
Pygmy killer whale...............  Feresa attenuata....  Western North         -; N................  Unk................             Unk             Unk
                                                          Atlantic.
Short-finned pilot whale.........  Globicephala          Western North         -; N................  21,515 (0.37,                   159             140
                                    macrorhynchus.        Atlantic.                                   15,913, 2011).
Long-finned pilot whale..........  G. melas............  Western North         -; N................  26,535 (0.35,                   199              35
                                                          Atlantic.                                   19,930, 2006).
Risso's dolphin..................  Grampus griseus.....  Western North         -; N................  18,250 (0.46,                   126              51
                                                          Atlantic.                                   12,619, 2011).
Fraser's dolphin.................  Lagenodelphis hosei.  Western North         -; N................  Unk................               0               0
                                                          Atlantic.
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.....  Lagenorhynchus        Western North         -; N................  48,819 (0.61,                   304             116
                                    acutus.               Atlantic.                                   30,403, 2011).
White-beaked dolphin.............  L. albirostris......  Western North         -; N................  3,003 (0.94, 1,023,              10               0
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2006).
Killer whale.....................  Orcinus orca........  Western North         -; N................  Unk................             Unk             Unk
                                                          Atlantic.
Melon-headed whale...............  Peponocephala         Western North         -; N................  Unk................             Unk               0
                                    electra.              Atlantic.
Pantropical spotted dolphin......  Stenella attenuata..  Western North         -; N................  3,333 (0.91, 1,733,              17               0
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2011).
Clymene dolphin..................  S. clymene..........  Western North         -; N................  Unk................             Unk             Unk
                                                          Atlantic.
Striped dolphin..................  S. coeruleoalba.....  Western North         -; N................  54,807 (0.3,                    428               0
                                                          Atlantic.                                   42,804, 2011).
Atlantic spotted dolphin.........  S. frontalis........  Western North         -; N................  44,715 (0.43,                   316               0
                                                          Atlantic.                                   31,610, 2011).

[[Page 39568]]

 
Spinner dolphin..................  S. longirostris.....  Western North         -; N................  Unk................             Unk             Unk
                                                          Atlantic.
Rough-toothed dolphin............  Steno bredanensis...  Western North         -; N................  271 (1.0, 134,                  1.3               0
                                                          Atlantic.                                   2011).
Common bottlenose dolphin........  Tursiops truncatus    Western North         -; N................  77,532 (0.40,                   561            45.1
                                    truncatus.            Atlantic (WNA)                              56,053, 2011).
                                                          Offshore.
                                                         WNA Northern          -/D; Y..............  11,548 (0.36,                    86     \8\ 3.8-5.8
                                                          Migratory Coastal.                          8,620, 2011).
                                                         WNA Southern          -/D; Y..............  9,173 (0.46, 6,326,              63    \8\ 2.6-16.5
                                                          Migratory Coastal.                          2011).
                                                         WNA S. Carolina/      -/D; Y..............  4,377 (0.43, 3,097,              31             Unk
                                                          Georgia Coastal.                            2011).
                                                         WNA Northern Florida  -/D; Y..............  1,219 (0.67, 730,                 7             Unk
                                                          Coastal.                                    2011).
                                                         WNA Central Florida   -/D; Y..............  4,895 (0.71, 2,851,              29             Unk
                                                          Coastal.                                    2011).
                                                         Northern North        -; Y................  950 (0.23, 785,                 7.9     \8\ 1.9-9.1
                                                          Carolina Estuarine                          2006).
                                                          System.
                                                         Southern North        -; Y................  188 (0.19, 160,                 1.6     \8\ 0.2-0.8
                                                          Carolina Estuarine                          2006).
                                                          System.
                                                         Northern South        -; Y................  Unk................             Unk         \6\ Unk
                                                          Carolina Estuarine
                                                          System.
                                                         Charleston Estuarine  -; Y................  289 (0.03, 281,                 2.8             Unk
                                                          System.                                     2006).
                                                         Northern Georgia/     -; Y................  Unk................             Unk             Unk
                                                          Southern South
                                                          Carolina Estuarine
                                                          System.
                                                         Southern Georgia      -; Y................  194 (0.05, 185,                 1.9             Unk
                                                          Estuarine System.                           2009).
                                                         Jacksonville          -; Y................  Unk................             Unk             Unk
                                                          Estuarine System.
                                                         Indian River Lagoon   -; Y................  Unk................             Unk             Unk
                                                          Estuarine System.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise..................  Phocoena phocoena     Gulf of Maine/Bay of  -; N................  79,883 (0.32,                   706         \6\ 683
                                    phocoena.             Fundy Stock.                                61,415, 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hooded seal......................  Cystophora cristata.  Western North         -; N................  Unk................             Unk       \9\ 5,199
                                                          Atlantic.
Gray seal........................  Halichoerus grypus    Western North         -; N................  331,000 (n/a, n/a,              Unk  \6\ \10\ 4,959
                                    grypus.               Atlantic.                                   2012).
Harp seal........................  Pagophilus            Western North         -; N................  Unk................             Unk         306,082
                                    groenlandicus.        Atlantic.
Harbor seal......................  Phoca vitulina        Western North         -; N................  75,834 (0.15,                 2,006         \6\ 441
                                    vitulina.             Atlantic.                                   66,884, 2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. NMFS automatically designates
  any species or stock listed under the ESA as depleted and as a strategic stock under the MMPA.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock
  abundance. In some cases, abundance and PBR is unknown (Unk) and the CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent PBR and annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
  commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, and ship strike). In some cases PBR is unknown (Unk) because the minimum population size cannot be
  determined. Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or as unknown (Unk).
\4\ Given the small proportion of the distribution range that has been sampled and considering the low number of blue whales encountered and
  photographed, the current data, based on photo-identification, do not allow for an estimate of abundance of this species in the Northwest Atlantic
  with a minimum degree of certainty (Sears et al. 1987; Hammond et al. 1990; Sears et al. 1990; Sears and Calambokidis 2002; Fisheries and Oceans
  Canada 2009).

[[Page 39569]]

 
\5\ The total number of this species of beaked whale off the eastern U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast is unknown, and seasonal abundance estimates are
  not available for this stock. However, several estimates of the undifferentiated complex of beaked whales (Ziphius and Mesoplodon spp.) from selected
  regions are available for select time periods (Barlow et al. 2006) as well as two estimates of Mesoplodon spp. beaked whales alone (Waring et al.,
  2015).
\6\ The NEFSC has historically taken this species in a NEFSC research survey (2004-2015) (see Tables 4, 5, and 6).
\7\ This average includes humpback mortalities and serious injuries that occurred in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic states that could not be
  confirmed as involving members of the Gulf of Maine stock. This average includes Canadian records from the southern side of Nova Scotia within the
  mortality and serious injury rates, to reflect the effective range of this stock.
\8\ The range for the total estimated average annual fishery mortality (minimum-maximum) reflects the uncertainty in assigning observed or reported
  mortalities to a particular stock.
\9\ The average consists of three components: 1) 5,173 from 2001-2005 (2001 = 3,960; 2002 = 7,341; 2003 = 5,446, 2004 = 5,270; and 2005 = 3,846) average
  catches of Northwest Atlantic population of hooded seals by Canada and Greenland; 2) 25 hooded seals (CV = 0.82) from the observed U.S. fisheries; and
  3) one hooded seal from average 2001-2005 stranding mortalities resulting from non-fishery human interactions (Waring et al., 2015).
\10\ The average consists of five components: 1) 1,100 (CV = 0.11) (Table 3) from the 2007-2011 U.S. observed fishery; 2) 9 from average 2007-2011 non-
  fishery related, human interaction stranding mortalities (NMFS unpublished data); 3) 750 from average 2007-2011 kill in the Canadian hunt (DFO, 2013);
  4) 81 from average 2007-2011 DFO scientific collections (DFO, 2013); and 5) 3,019 from average 2007-2011 removals of nuisance animals in Canada (DFO,
  2013; Waring et al., 2015).

    Take reduction planning--Take reduction plans help recover and 
prevent the depletion of strategic marine mammal stocks that interact 
with certain U.S. commercial fisheries, as required by Section 118 of 
the MMPA. The immediate goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce, 
within six months of its implementation, the M/SI of marine mammals 
incidental to commercial fishing to less than the PBR level. The long-
term goal is to reduce, within five years of its implementation, the M/
SI of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing to insignificant 
levels, approaching a zero serious injury and mortality rate, taking 
into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing 
technology, and existing state or regional fishery management plans. 
NMFS convenes Take Reduction Teams to develop these plans.
    For marine mammals in specified geographic region of NEFSC research 
programs, there are currently four take reduction plans in effect (the 
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, the Bottlenose Dolphin Take 
Reduction Plan, the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan, and the 
Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan). As discussed earlier in the 
``Proposed Mitigation'' section, the NEFSC and NEFSC cooperative 
research projects comply with applicable TRP mitigation measures and 
gear requirements specified for their respective fisheries and areas.
    The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP)--The goal of 
this plan is to reduce mortality/serious injury (M/SI) of North 
Atlantic right, humpback, fin, and minke whales in several northeast 
fisheries that use lobster trap/pots and gillnets. Gear modification 
requirements and restrictions vary by location, date, and gear type but 
may include the use of weak links, and gear marking and configuration 
specifications. Detailed requirements may be found in the regional 
guides to gillnet and pot/trap gear fisheries available at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/whaletrp/.
    Of the species/stocks of concern, the NEFSC has requested the 
authorization of incidental M/SI + Level A harassment for the minke 
whale only (see ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' later in 
this document).
    The Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan--The goal of this plan 
is to reduce M/SI of coastal bottlenose dolphins incidental to the 
North Carolina inshore gillnet, Southeast Atlantic gillnet, 
Southeastern U.S. shark gillnet, U.S. Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet, 
Atlantic blue crab trap/pot, Mid-Atlantic haul/beach seine, North 
Carolina long haul seine, North Carolina roe mullet stop net, and 
Virginia pound net fisheries (71 FR 24776, April 26, 2006). The 
following general requirements were implemented: Spatial/temporal 
gillnet restrictions, gear proximity (fishermen must stay within a set 
distance of gear), gear modifications, non-regulatory conservation 
measures, and a revision to the large mesh gillnet size restriction. 
Detailed requirements may be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/bdtrp.htm.
    Of the species/stocks of concern, the NEFSC has requested the 
authorization of incidental M/SI + Level A harassment for 3 stocks of 
bottlenose dolphins (see ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' 
later in this document).
    The Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan--The goal of this plan is 
to reduce interactions between harbor porpoises and commercial gillnet 
gear fisheries in the New England and the Mid-Atlantic areas. 
Management includes seasonal time and area closures that correspond 
with peak seasonal abundances of harbor porpoises and gear modification 
requirements such as the use of pingers, floatline length, twine size, 
tie downs, net size, net number, and numbers of nets per string. 
Detailed requirements may be found at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/porptrp/.
    The NEFSC has requested the authorization of incidental M/SI + 
Level A harassment for harbor porpoises (see ``Estimated Take by 
Incidental Harassment'' later in this document).
    The Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan--The plan addresses M/SI 
of long-finned and short-finned pilot whales as well as Risso's, 
common, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins in commercial pelagic 
longline fishing gear in the Atlantic. Regulatory measures include 
limiting mainline length to 20 nautical miles or less within the Mid-
Atlantic Bight and posting an informational placard on careful handling 
and release of marine mammals in the wheelhouse and on working decks of 
the vessel. Detailed requirements are on the internet at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/mmp/atgtrp/.
    Of the species/stocks of concern, the NEFSC has requested the 
authorization of incidental M/SI + Level A harassment for Risso's, 
common, and Atlantic white-sided dolphins (see ``Estimated Take by 
Incidental Harassment'' later in this document).
    Unusual Mortality Events (UME)--the MMPA defines a UME as ``a 
stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any 
marine mammal population; and demands immediate response.'' From 1991 
to the present, there have been 22 formally recognized UMEs in the 
Atlantic coast region involving species under NMFS' jurisdiction. 
Bottlenose dolphins have been stranding at elevated rates since July 
2013 along the Atlantic coast from New York to Florida (through Brevard 
County). All ages of bottlenose dolphins are stranding. A few live 
animals have stranded, but most were found dead, many times very 
decomposed. Many dolphins have lesions on their skin, mouth, joints, or 
lungs. The causes and mechanisms of this UME remain under

[[Page 39570]]

investigation. For more information on UMEs, please visit: 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/.
    Of the species/stocks of concern, the NEFSC has requested the 
authorization of incidental M/SI + Level A harassment for 3 stocks of 
bottlenose dolphins (see ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' 
later in this document).

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that 
components of the specified activity (e.g., gear deployment, use of 
active acoustic sources, visual disturbance) may impact marine mammals 
and their habitat. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' 
section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of 
the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this 
activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include an 
analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and 
will consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by 
Incidental Harassment'' section, and the ``Proposed Mitigation'' 
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this 
activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals, 
and from that, on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In 
the following discussion, we consider potential effects to marine 
mammals from ship strike, physical interaction with the gear types 
described previously, use of active acoustic sources, and visual 
disturbance of pinnipeds.

Ship Strike

    Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or ship strikes, can result 
in death or serious injury of the animal. Wounds resulting from ship 
strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or 
propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal at the 
surface may be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit 
the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just below the surface may be cut 
by a vessel's propeller. More superficial strikes may not kill or 
result in the death of the animal. These interactions are typically 
associated with large whales (e.g., fin whales), which are occasionally 
found draped across the bulbous bow of large commercial ships upon 
arrival in port. Although smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds are more 
maneuverable in relation to large vessels than are large whales, they 
may also be susceptible to strike. The severity of injuries typically 
depends on the size and speed of the vessel, with the probability of 
death or serious injury increasing as vessel speed increases (Knowlton 
and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn 
and Silber, 2013). Impact forces increase with speed, as does the 
probability of a strike at a given distance (Silber et al., 2010; Gende 
et al., 2011).
    Pace and Silber (2005) found that the probability of death or 
serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed. 
Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death 
increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 
kn, and exceeded ninety percent at 17 kn. Higher speeds during 
collisions result in greater force of impact, but higher speeds also 
appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death through 
increased likelihood of collision by pulling whales toward the vessel 
(Clyne, 1999; Knowlton et al., 1995). In a separate study, Vanderlaan 
and Taggart (2007) analyzed the probability of lethal mortality of 
large whales at a given speed, showing that the greatest rate of change 
in the probability of a lethal injury to a large whale as a function of 
vessel speed occurs between 8.6 and 15 kt. The chances of a lethal 
injury decline from approximately eighty percent at 15 kt to 
approximately twenty percent at 8.6 kt. At speeds below 11.8 kt, the 
chances of lethal injury drop below fifty percent, while the 
probability asymptotically increases toward one hundred percent above 
15 kt.
    In an effort to reduce the number and severity of strikes of the 
endangered North Atlantic right whale, NMFS implemented speed 
restrictions in 2008 (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008). These 
restrictions require that vessels greater than or equal to 65 ft (19.8 
m) in length travel at less than or equal to 10 kn near key port 
entrances and in certain areas of right whale aggregation along the 
U.S. eastern seaboard. Conn and Silber (2013) estimated that these 
restrictions reduced total ship strike mortality risk levels by eighty 
to ninety percent.
    For vessels used in NEFSC research activities, transit speeds 
average 10 kt (but vary from 6-14 kt), while vessel speed during active 
sampling is typically only 2 to 4 kt. At sampling speeds, both the 
possibility of striking a marine mammal and the possibility of a strike 
resulting in serious injury or mortality are discountable. At average 
transit speed, the probability of serious injury or mortality resulting 
from a strike, if one occurred, is less than fifty percent. However, 
the likelihood of a strike actually happening is again discountable. 
Ship strikes, as analyzed in the studies cited above, generally involve 
commercial shipping, which is much more common in both space and time 
than is research activity. Jensen and Silber (2004) summarized ship 
strikes of large whales worldwide from 1975-2003 and found that most 
collisions occurred in the open ocean and involved large vessels (e.g., 
commercial shipping). Commercial fishing vessels were responsible for 
three percent of recorded collisions, while only one such incident 
(0.75 percent) was reported for a research vessel during that time 
period.
    It is possible for ship strikes to occur while traveling at slow 
speeds. For example, a NOAA-chartered survey vessel traveling at low 
speed (5.5 kt) while conducting multi-beam mapping surveys off the 
central California coast struck and killed a blue whale in 2009. The 
State of California determined that the whale had suddenly and 
unexpectedly surfaced beneath the hull, with the result that the 
propeller severed the whale's vertebrae, and that this was an 
unavoidable event. This strike represents the only such incident in 
approximately 540,000 hours of similar coastal mapping activity (p = 
1.9 x 10 -6; 95% CI = 0-5.5 x 10 -6; NMFS, 2013). 
In addition, a research vessel reported a fatal strike in 2011 of a 
dolphin in the Atlantic, demonstrating that it is possible for strikes 
involving smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds to occur. In that case, the 
incident report indicated that an animal apparently was struck by the 
vessel's propeller as it was intentionally swimming near the vessel. 
While indicative of the type of unusual events that cannot be ruled 
out, neither of these instances represents a circumstance that would be 
considered reasonably foreseeable or that would be considered 
preventable.
    In summary, we anticipate that vessel collisions involving NEFSC 
research vessels, while not impossible, represent unlikely, 
unpredictable events. However, there are several preventive measures to 
minimize the risk of vessel collisions with right whales and other 
species of marine mammals. The compliance guide for the North Atlantic 
right whale ship strike reduction rule (NMFS, 2008) states that all 
vessels 65 feet in overall length or greater must slow to speeds of 10 
knots or less in seasonal management areas. The Northeast U.S. Seasonal 
Right Whale Management Areas include: Cape Cod Bay (January 1 to May 
15), Off Race Point (March 1 to April 30) and Great South Channel 
(April 1 to July 31). Mid-Atlantic Seasonal Management Areas include 
several port or bay entrances

[[Page 39571]]

from November 1 to April 30. When research vessels are actively 
sampling, cruise speeds are less than five knots, a speed at which the 
probability of collision and serious injury or mortality of large 
whales is low. When transiting between sampling stations, research 
vessels can travel at speeds of up to 14 knots. However, when NEFSC 
vessels are operating in right whale Seasonal Management Areas, Dynamic 
Management Areas, or at times and locations when whales are otherwise 
known to be present, they operate at speeds no greater than 10 knots.
    NEFSC research vessel captains and crew watch for marine mammals 
while underway during daylight hours and take necessary actions to 
avoid them. NEFSC surveys using large NOAA vessels (e.g., R/V Henry B. 
Bigelow) include one bridge crew dedicated to watching for obstacles at 
all times, including marine mammals. At any time during a survey or in 
transit, any bridge personnel that sights protected species that may 
intersect with the vessel course immediately communicates their 
presence to the helm for appropriate course alteration or speed 
reduction as possible to avoid incidental collisions, particularly with 
large whales (e.g., North Atlantic right whales).
    Finally, the Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) is a NMFS 
program designed to reduce collisions between ships and the critically 
endangered North Atlantic right whale by alerting mariners to the 
presence of the right whales. All NOAA research vessels operating in 
North Atlantic right whale habitat participate in the RWSAS.
    No ship strikes have been reported from any fisheries research 
activities conducted or funded by the NEFSC in the Atlantic coast 
region. Given the relatively slow speeds of research vessels, the 
presence of bridge crew watching for obstacles at all times (including 
marine mammals), the presence of marine mammal observers on some 
surveys, and the small number of research cruises, we believe that the 
possibility of ship strike is discountable and, further, that were a 
strike of a large whale to occur, it would be unlikely to result in 
serious injury or mortality. No incidental take resulting from ship 
strike is anticipated, and this potential effect of research will not 
be discussed further in the following analysis.

Research Gear

    The types of research gear used by the NEFSC were described 
previously under ``Detailed Description of Activity.'' Here, we broadly 
categorize these gears into those whose use we consider to have 
extremely unlikely potential to result in marine mammal interaction and 
those whose use we believe may result in marine mammal interaction. 
Gears in the latter category are carried forward for further analysis. 
Gears with likely potential for marine mammal interaction include high-
speed midwater, pelagic, and bottom trawl nets, anchored sinking 
gillnets, fyke nets, and longline gear.
    Trawl nets, gillnets, fyke nets, and longline gears deployed by the 
NEFSC are similar to gear used in various commercial fisheries, and the 
potential for and history of marine mammal interaction with these gears 
through physical contact (i.e., capture or entanglement) is well-
documented. Read et al. (2006) estimated marine mammal bycatch in U.S. 
fisheries from 1990-99 and derived an estimate of global marine mammal 
bycatch by expanding U.S. bycatch estimates using data on fleet 
composition from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 
(FAO). Although most U.S. bycatch for both cetaceans (84 percent) and 
pinnipeds (98 percent) occurred in gillnets, global marine mammal 
bycatch in trawl nets and longlines is likely substantial given that 
total global bycatch is thought to number in the hundreds of thousands 
of individuals (Read et al., 2006). In addition, global bycatch via 
longline has likely increased, as longlines have become the most common 
method of capturing swordfish and tuna since the U.N. banned the use of 
high seas driftnets over 2.5 km long in 1991 (high seas driftnets were 
previously often 40-60 km long) (Read, 2008; FAO, 2001).
    Marine mammals are widely regarded as being quite intelligent and 
inquisitive, and when their pursuit of prey coincides with human 
pursuit of the same resources, it should be expected that physical 
interaction with fishing gear may occur (e.g., Beverton, 1985). 
Fishermen and marine mammals are both drawn to areas of high prey 
density, and certain fishing activities may further attract marine 
mammals by providing food (e.g., bait, captured fish, bycatch discards) 
or by otherwise making it easier for animals to feed on a concentrated 
food source. Provision of foraging opportunities near the surface may 
present an advantage by negating the need for energetically expensive 
deep foraging dives (Hamer and Goldsworthy, 2006). Trawling, for 
example, can make available previously unexploited food resources by 
gathering prey that may otherwise be too fast or deep for normal 
predation, or may concentrate calories in an otherwise patchy landscape 
(Fertl and Leatherwood, 1997). Pilot whales, which are generally 
considered to be teuthophagous (i.e., feeding primarily on squid), were 
commonly observed in association with Atlantic mackerel (Scomber 
scombrus) trawl fisheries from 1977-88 in the northeast U.S. EEZ 
(Waring et al., 1990). Not surprisingly, stomach contents of captured 
whales were observed to have high proportions of mackerel (68 percent 
of non-trace food items), indicating that the ready availability of a 
novel, concentrated, high-calorie prey item resulted in changed dietary 
composition (Read, 1994).
    These interactions can result in injury or death for the animal(s) 
involved and/or damage to fishing gear. Coastal animals, including 
various pinnipeds, bottlenose dolphins, and harbor porpoises, are 
perhaps the most vulnerable to these interactions. They are most likely 
to interact with set or passive fishing gear such as gillnets, traps 
(Beverton, 1985; Barlow et al., 1994; Read et al., 2006; Byrd et al., 
2014; Lewison et al., 2014). Although interactions are less common for 
use of trawl nets and longlines, they do occur with sufficient 
frequency to necessitate the establishment of required mitigation 
measures for multiple U.S. fisheries using both types of gear (NMFS, 
2014). It is likely that no species of marine mammal can be 
definitively excluded from the potential for interaction with fishing 
gear (e.g., Northridge, 1984); however, the extent of interactions is 
likely dependent on the biology, ecology, and behavior of the species 
involved and the type, location, and nature of the fishery.
    Trawl nets--As described previously, trawl nets are towed nets 
(i.e., active fishing) consisting of a cone-shaped net with a codend or 
bag for collecting the fish and can be designed to fish at the bottom, 
surface, or any other depth in the water column. Here we refer to 
bottom trawls and midwater trawls (i.e., any net not designed to tend 
the bottom while fishing). Trawl nets in general have the potential to 
capture or entangle marine mammals, which have been known to be caught 
in bottom trawls, presumably when feeding on fish caught therein, and 
in midwater trawls, which may or may not be coincident with their 
feeding (Northridge, 1984).
    Capture or entanglement may occur whenever marine mammals are 
swimming near the gear, intentionally (e.g., foraging) or 
unintentionally (e.g., migrating), and any animal captured in a net is 
at significant risk of drowning unless quickly freed. Animals can also 
be captured or entangled in netting or tow lines (also called lazy 
lines) other than the main body of the net; animals

[[Page 39572]]

may become entangled around the head, body, flukes, pectoral fins, or 
dorsal fin. Interaction that does not result in the immediate death of 
the animal by drowning can cause injury (i.e., Level A harassment) or 
serious injury. Constricting lines wrapped around the animal can 
immobilize the animal or injure it by cutting into or through blubber, 
muscles and bone (i.e., penetrating injuries) or constricting blood 
flow to or severing appendages. Immobilization of the animal, if it 
does not result in immediate drowning, can cause internal injuries from 
prolonged stress and/or severe struggling and/or impede the animal's 
ability to feed (resulting in starvation or reduced fitness) (Andersen 
et al., 2008).
    Marine mammal interactions with trawl nets, through capture or 
entanglement, are well-documented. Dolphins are known to attend 
operating nets to either benefit from disturbance of the bottom or to 
prey on discards or fish within the net. For example, Leatherwood 
(1975) reported that the most frequently observed feeding pattern for 
bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico involved herds following 
working shrimp trawlers, apparently feeding on organisms stirred up 
from the benthos. Bearzi and di Sciara (1997) opportunistically 
investigated working trawlers in the Adriatic Sea from 1990-94 and 
found that ten percent were accompanied by foraging bottlenose 
dolphins. However, midwater trawls have greater potential to capture 
cetaceans, because the nets may be towed at faster speeds, these trawls 
are more likely to target species that are important prey for marine 
mammals (e.g., squid, mackerel), and the likelihood of working in 
deeper waters means that a more diverse assemblage of species could 
potentially be present (Hall et al., 2000).
    Globally, at least seventeen cetacean species are known to feed in 
association with trawlers and individuals of at least 25 species are 
documented to have been killed by trawl nets, including several large 
whales, porpoises, and a variety of delphinids (Karpouzli and Leaper, 
2004; Hall et al., 2000; Fertl and Leatherwood, 1997; Northridge, 
1991). At least eighteen species of seals and sea lions are known to 
have been killed in trawl nets (Wickens, 1995). Generally, direct 
interaction between trawl nets and marine mammals (both cetaceans and 
pinnipeds) has been recorded wherever trawling and animals co-occur. 
Tables 8, 9, and 10 (later in this document) display more recent 
information regarding interactions specifically in U.S. fisheries and 
are more relevant to the development of take estimates for this 
proposed rule. In evaluating risk relative to a specific fishery (or 
comparable research survey), one must consider the size of the net as 
well as frequency, timing, and location of deployment. These 
considerations inform determinations of whether interaction with marine 
mammals is likely.
    Of the net types described previously under ``Trawl Nets,'' NEFSC 
has recorded marine mammal interactions with the Gourock high-speed 
midwater rope trawl net and a 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl net.
    Longlines--Longlines are basically strings of baited hooks that are 
either anchored to the bottom, for targeting groundfish, or are free-
floating, for targeting pelagic species and represent a passive fishing 
technique. Pelagic longlines, which notionally fish near the surface 
with the use of floats, may be deployed in such a way as to fish at 
different depths in the water column. For example, deep-set longlines 
targeting tuna may have a target depth of 400 m, while a shallow-set 
longline targeting swordfish is set at 30-90 m depth. We refer here to 
bottom and pelagic longlines. Any longline generally consists of a 
mainline from which leader lines (gangions) with baited hooks branch 
off at a specified interval, and is left to passively fish, or soak, 
for a set period of time before the vessel returns to retrieve the 
gear. Longlines are marked by two or more floats that act as visual 
markers and may also carry radio beacons; aids to detection are of 
particular importance for pelagic longlines, which may drift a 
significant distance from the deployment location. Pelagic longlines 
are generally composed of various diameter monofilament line and are 
generally much longer, and with more hooks, than are bottom longlines. 
Bottom longlines may be of monofilament or multifilament natural or 
synthetic lines.
    Marine mammals may be hooked or entangled in longline gear, with 
interactions potentially resulting in death due to drowning, 
strangulation, severing of carotid arteries or the esophagus, 
infection, an inability to evade predators, or starvation due to an 
inability to catch prey (Hofmeyr et al., 2002), although it is more 
likely that animals will survive being hooked if they are able to reach 
the surface to breathe. Injuries, which may include serious injury, 
include lacerations and puncture wounds. Animals may attempt to 
depredate either bait or catch, with subsequent hooking, or may become 
accidentally entangled. As described for trawls, entanglement can lead 
to constricting lines wrapped around the animals and/or immobilization, 
and even if entangling materials are removed the wounds caused may 
continue to weaken the animal or allow further infection (Hofmeyr et 
al., 2002). Large whales may become entangled in a longline and then 
break free with a portion of gear trailing, resulting in alteration of 
swimming energetics due to drag and ultimate loss of fitness and 
potential mortality (Andersen et al., 2008). Weight of the gear can 
cause entangling lines to further constrict and further injure the 
animal. Hooking injuries and ingested gear are most common in small 
cetaceans and pinnipeds but have been observed in large cetaceans 
(e.g., sperm whales). The severity of the injury depends on the 
species, whether ingested gear includes hooks, whether the gear works 
its way into the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, whether the gear 
penetrates the GI lining, and the location of the hooking (e.g., 
embedded in the animal's stomach or other internal body parts) 
(Andersen et al., 2008). Bottom longlines pose less of a threat to 
marine mammals due to their deployment on the ocean bottom, but can 
still result in entanglement in buoy lines or hooking as the line is 
either deployed or retrieved. The rate of interaction between longline 
fisheries and marine mammals depends on the degree of overlap between 
longline effort and species distribution, hook style and size, type of 
bait and target catch, and fishing practices (such as setting/hauling 
during the day or at night).
    The NEFSC plans to use pelagic and bottom longline gear in three 
programs: The Apex Predators Bottom Longline Coastal Shark, Apex 
Predators Pelagic Nursery Grounds Shark, and Cooperative Atlantic 
States Shark Pupping and Nursery (COASTSPAN) Longline surveys. The 
NEFSC has no recorded marine mammal interactions during the conduct of 
its pelagic and bottom longline surveys in the Atlantic coast region. 
While the NEFSC has not historically interacted with large whales or 
other cetaceans in its longline gear, documentation exists that some of 
these species are taken in commercial longline fisheries.
    Gillnets and Fyke Nets--Marine mammal interactions with gillnets, 
through entanglement, are well-documented (Reeves et al., 2013). At 
least 75 percent of odontocete species, 64 percent of mysticetes, 66 
percent of pinnipeds, all sirenians, and marine mustelids have been 
recorded as gillnet bycatch over the past 20-plus years (Reeves et al., 
2013). Reeves et al., (2013) note that numbers of marine

[[Page 39573]]

mammals killed in gillnets tend to be greatest for species that are 
widely distributed in coastal and shelf waters. Common dolphins and 
striped dolphins, for example, have continued to be taken in large 
numbers globally despite the fact that large-scale driftnet fishing on 
the high seas has been illegal since 1993, eliminating one source of 
very large bycatches of northern right whale dolphins and common 
dolphins (Reeves et al., 2013).
    Minke whales are probably especially vulnerable to gillnet 
entanglement for several reasons, including their near-shore and shelf 
occurrence, their proclivity for preying on fish species that are also 
targeted by net fisheries, and their small size and consequently 
greater difficulty (compared to the larger mysticetes) of extricating 
themselves once caught (Reeves et al., 2013).
    Entanglement in fishing gear and bycatch in commercial fisheries 
occur with regularity in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions and are 
the primary known causes of mortality and serious injury for pinnipeds 
in these areas. Gillnets are responsible for most observed and reported 
bycatch for marine mammals (Lewison et al., 2014; Zollett, 2009). From 
2006 to 2010, the average annual mortality of harbor seals incidental 
to commercial fisheries was 332; 280 incidents in the Northeast sink 
gillnet fishery and 50 incidents reported in the Mid-Atlantic sink 
gillnet fishery (Waring et al., 2014). Gray seal incidental mortality 
from 2006 to 2010 was greater, with an annual average of 853 seals, 794 
of which were in the Northeast sink gillnet and 53 in the Mid-Atlantic 
sink gillnet fisheries (Waring et al., 2014).
    Although bycatch is well known and well studied in marine 
fisheries, there are few studies on bycatch in freshwater fisheries 
using fyke nets (Larocque et al., 2011). Fyke nets are passive fishing 
gear that have limited species selectivity and are set for long 
durations (Hubert, 1996; Larocque et al., 2011). Thus, this gear has 
the potential to capture non-targeted fauna that use the same habitat 
as targeted species, even without the use of bait (Larocque et al., 
2011). Mortality in fyke nets can arise from stress and injury 
associated with anoxia, abrasion, confinement, and starvation (Larocque 
et al., 2011).
    Of the gear types described previously under ``Gillnets and Fyke 
Nets'' NEFSC has recorded marine mammal interactions with anchored 
sinking gillnets and fyke nets.
    Other research gear--We discussed the potential for interactions 
with research gear in the previous sections. All other gears used in 
NEFSC fisheries research (e.g., a variety of plankton nets, CTDs, ROVs) 
do not have the expected potential for marine mammal interactions, and 
are not known to have been involved in any marine mammal interaction 
anywhere. Specifically, we consider CTDs, XBTs, CUFES, ROVs, small 
trawls (Oozeki, IKMT, MOCNESS, and Tucker trawls), plankton nets 
(Bongo, Pairovet, and Manta nets), and vertically deployed or towed 
imaging systems to be no-impact gear types.
    Unlike trawl nets and longline gear, which are used in both 
scientific research and commercial fishing applications, these other 
gears are not considered similar or analogous to any commercial fishing 
gear and are not designed to capture any commercially salable species, 
or to collect any sort of sample in large quantities. They are not 
considered to have the potential to take marine mammals primarily 
because of their design and how they are deployed. For example, CTDs 
are typically deployed in a vertical cast on a cable and have no loose 
lines or other entanglement hazards. A Bongo net is typically deployed 
on a cable, whereas neuston nets (these may be plankton nets or small 
trawls) are often deployed in the upper one meter of the water column; 
either net type has very small size (e.g., two bongo nets of 0.5 m\2\ 
each or a neuston net of approximately 2 m\2\) and no trailing lines to 
present an entanglement risk. These other gear types are not considered 
further in this document.

Acoustic Effects

    We previously provided general background information on sound and 
the specific sources used by the NEFSC (see ``Description of Active 
Acoustic Sound Sources''). Here, we first provide background 
information on marine mammal hearing before discussing the potential 
effects of NEFSC use of active acoustic sources on marine mammals.
    Marine mammal hearing--Hearing is the most important sensory 
modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic 
sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the 
potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand 
the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Current data 
indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing 
capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; 
Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 
recommended that marine mammals be divided into functional hearing 
groups based on directly measured or estimated hearing ranges on the 
basis of available behavioral response data, audiograms derived using 
auditory evoked potential techniques, anatomical modeling, and other 
data. Note that no direct measurements of hearing ability have been 
successfully completed for low-frequency cetaceans. The functional 
groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (note that 
these frequency ranges correspond to the range for the composite group, 
with the entire range not necessarily reflecting the capabilities of 
every species within that group):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (mysticetes): Functional hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz (up to 30 
kHz in some species), with best hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 
8 kHz (Watkins, 1986; Ketten, 1998; Houser et al., 2001; Au et al., 
2006; Lucifredi and Stein, 2007; Ketten et al., 2007; Parks et al., 
2007a; Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger toothed whales, beaked 
whales, and most delphinids): Functional hearing is estimated to occur 
between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, with best hearing from 10 to 
less than 100 kHz (Johnson, 1967; White, 1977; Richardson et al., 1995; 
Szymanski et al., 1999; Kastelein et al., 2003; Finneran et al., 2005a, 
2009; Nachtigall et al., 2005, 2008; Yuen et al., 2005; Popov et al., 
2007; Au and Hastings, 2008; Houser et al., 2008; Pacini et al., 2010, 
2011; Schlundt et al., 2011);
     High-frequency cetaceans (porpoises, river dolphins, and 
members of the genera Kogia and Cephalorhynchus; including two members 
of the genus Lagenorhynchus, including the hourglass dolphin, on the 
basis of recent echolocation data and genetic data [May-Collado and 
Agnarsson, 2006; Kyhn et al., 2009, 2010; Tougaard et al., 2010]): 
Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz 
and 180 kHz (Popov and Supin, 1990a, b; Kastelein et al., 2002; Popov 
et al., 2005); and
     Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true seals): Functional 
hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz to 100 kHz, 
with best hearing between 1-50 kHz (Mohl, 1968; Terhune and Ronald, 
1971, 1972; Richardson et al., 1995; Kastak and Schusterman, 1999; 
Reichmuth, 2008; Kastelein et al., 2009);
     Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared seals): Functional 
hearing is estimated to occur between 100 Hz and 40 kHz for Otariidae, 
with best hearing between 2-48 kHz (Schusterman et al., 1972; Moore and 
Schusterman, 1987; Babushina et al., 1991; Richardson et al., 1995; 
Kastak and Schusterman, 1998; Kastelein et al.,

[[Page 39574]]

2005a; Mulsow and Reichmuth, 2007; Mulsow et al., 2011a, b).
    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range (Hemila 
et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013).
    Within the Atlantic coast region, 37 marine mammal species (33 
cetacean and 4 pinniped [0 otariid and 4 phocid] species) have the 
potential to co-occur with NEFSC research activities. Please refer to 
Table 3. Of the 37 cetacean species that may be present, six are 
classified within the low-frequency functional hearing group (i.e., all 
mysticete species), 24 are classified within the mid-frequency 
functional hearing group (i.e., all delphinidae and ziphiidae species 
and the sperm whale), three are classified within the high-frequency 
functional hearing group (i.e., habor porpoise and Kogia spp.); and 
four are classified within the pinnipeds in water functional hearing 
group
    Potential effects of underwater sound--Please refer to the 
information given previously (``Description of Active Acoustic 
Sources'') regarding sound, characteristics of sound types, and metrics 
used in this document. Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of 
frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of highly variable 
impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe 
responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, 
behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential effects of 
underwater sound from active acoustic sources can potentially result in 
one or more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral 
disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et 
al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Gotz et al., 
2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically related to the signal 
characteristics, received level, distance from the source, and duration 
of the sound exposure. In general, sudden, high level sounds can cause 
hearing loss, as can longer exposures to lower level sounds. Temporary 
or permanent loss of hearing will occur almost exclusively for noise 
within an animal's hearing range. We first describe specific 
manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific 
to the NEFSC's use of active acoustic sources (e.g., echosounders).
    Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of 
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a 
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing 
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would be 
audible (potentially perceived) to the animal, but not strong enough to 
elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone 
corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and 
of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological 
responsiveness. Third is a zone within which, for signals of high 
intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause 
discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying 
these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e., 
when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to 
detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing 
threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.
    We describe the more severe effects (i.e., permanent hearing 
impairment, certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects) 
only briefly as we do not expect that there is a reasonable likelihood 
that the NEFSC's use of active acoustic sources may result in such 
effects (see below for further discussion). Marine mammals exposed to 
high-intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged 
periods, can experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss 
of hearing sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Kastak et al., 
1999; Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005b). TS can be 
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not 
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's 
hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe 
cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most 
cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific 
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
    When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in 
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue 
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other 
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of 
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical 
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to 
constitute auditory injury.
    Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied 
in marine mammals--PTS data exists only for a single harbor seal 
(Kastak et al., 2008)--but are assumed to be similar to those in humans 
and other terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels 
at least several decibels above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates 
PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild 
TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et 
al. 2007). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 
assumption is that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as 
impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at 
least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis and 
PTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher 
than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 
2007). Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration 
necessary to cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is considerably less 
likely that PTS could occur.
    Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically 
might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or 
as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions (e.g., change in 
dive profile as a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure 
to sound include neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance 
effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; 
Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). NEFSC activities do not 
involve the use of devices such as explosives or mid-frequency active 
sonar that are associated with these types of effects.
    When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is 
incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a ``stranding'' (16 
U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to strand for a variety of 
reasons, such as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery 
interaction, ship strike, unusual oceanographic or weather events, 
sound exposure, or combinations of these stressors sustained 
concurrently or in series (e.g., Geraci et al., 1999). However, the 
cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (e.g., Best, 1982). 
Combinations of dissimilar stressors may combine to kill an animal or 
dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure without the 
other would not be expected to produce the same outcome (e.g., Sih et 
al., 2004). For further description of stranding events see, e.g., 
Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013.
    1. Temporary threshold shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing 
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). 
While experiencing TTS,

[[Page 39575]]

the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in 
order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from 
minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, 
hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. 
Few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS 
have been obtained for marine mammals, and none of the data published 
at the time of this writing concern TTS elicited by exposure to 
multiple pulses of sound.
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to 
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate 
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency 
range that occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower, and there 
are not as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger 
amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during time when 
communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could 
have more serious impacts.
    Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans 
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale [Delphinapterus leucas], harbor 
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise [Neophocoena asiaeorientalis]) 
and three species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal, harbor seal, 
and California sea lion) exposed to a limited number of sound sources 
(i.e., mostly tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings 
(e.g., Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 2004; Kastak et al., 
2005; Lucke et al., 2009; Popov et al., 2011). In general, harbor seals 
(Kastak et al., 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012a) and harbor porpoises 
(Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein et al., 2012b) have a lower TTS onset 
than other measured pinniped or cetacean species. Additionally, the 
existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of 
individuals within these species. There are no data available on noise-
induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS in 
marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 
please see Southall et al. (2007) and Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
    2. Behavioral effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety 
of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous 
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or 
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment 
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly 
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous 
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, 
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, 
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g., 
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; 
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not 
only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on 
previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other 
factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on 
characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it is 
moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). 
Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of 
studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
    Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes 
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated 
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to 
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that 
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in 
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor 
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to 
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is 
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent 
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of 
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response. 
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral 
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are 
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with 
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions, 
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; 
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to 
loud pulsed sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic 
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance 
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and 
Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
    Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater 
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given 
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving 
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater 
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts 
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let 
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces 
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a 
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be 
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 
2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which 
we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive 
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
    Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of 
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as 
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel 
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 
al.; 2004). Variations in dive behavior may reflect interruptions in 
biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be of 
little biological significance. The impact of an alteration to dive 
behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what the animal 
is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the 
response.
    Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with 
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed 
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary 
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, 
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as 
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to 
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al., 
2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness 
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic 
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship

[[Page 39576]]

between prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life 
history stage of the animal.
    Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors 
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure 
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a 
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates 
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute 
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may 
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and 
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in 
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise 
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic 
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005b, 2006; Gailey et 
al., 2007).
    Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple 
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and 
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic 
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to 
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased 
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of 
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have 
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales 
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward 
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic 
noise (Parks et al., 2007b). In some cases, animals may cease sound 
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
    Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or 
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other 
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance 
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales 
are known to change direction--deflecting from customary migratory 
paths--in order to avoid noise from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 
1984). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area 
once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; 
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). 
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to 
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species 
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does 
not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann 
et al., 2006).
    A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a 
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound 
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in 
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of 
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine 
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight 
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and 
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from 
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the 
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings 
(Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to 
a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and 
Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may 
influence the response.
    Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more 
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to 
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of 
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to 
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects 
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies 
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased 
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and 
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In 
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through 
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent 
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington 
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, 
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose 
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any 
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption 
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound 
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one 
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not 
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe 
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et 
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day 
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic 
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple 
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either 
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further, 
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive 
behavioral responses.
    3. Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be 
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination 
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses, 
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; 
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most 
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral 
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses 
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short 
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an 
animal's fitness.
    Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that 
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction, 
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been 
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune 
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated 
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of 
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores 
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such 
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious 
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient 
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, 
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of 
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves 
sufficient to restore normal function.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress

[[Page 39577]]

responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both 
laboratory and free-ranging animals (e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood 
et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et 
al., 2005). Stress responses due to exposure to anthropogenic sounds or 
other stressors and their effects on marine mammals have also been 
reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, more 
rarely, studied in wild populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For 
example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced 
ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress 
in North Atlantic right whales. These and other studies lead to a 
reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will experience 
physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors and 
that it is possible that some of these would be classified as 
``distress.'' In addition, any animal experiencing TTS would likely 
also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
    4. Auditory masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or 
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or 
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for 
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, 
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995). Masking 
occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by another 
coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or higher 
intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g., snapping 
shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, 
sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to 
mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of 
both the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise 
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and 
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, 
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, 
age or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation 
conditions.
    Under certain circumstances, marine mammals experiencing 
significant masking could also be impaired from maximizing their 
performance fitness in survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the 
coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may be considered harassment 
when disrupting or altering behavioral patterns. It is important to 
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from 
masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking 
(without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological 
function, it is not considered a physiological effect but rather a 
potential behavioral effect.
    The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important 
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation 
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection 
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important 
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. 
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be 
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g., 
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in energetic or other costs as 
animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; 
Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt 
et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal 
and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), 
through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other 
compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can be tested 
directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations 
it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking 
compensation. There are few studies addressing real-world masking 
sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild (e.g., 
Branstetter et al., 2013).
    Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and 
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the 
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency 
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than 
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial 
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping 
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially 
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
    Potential effects of NEFSC activity--As described previously (see 
``Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources''), the NEFSC proposes 
to use various active acoustic sources, including echosounders (e.g., 
multibeam systems), scientific sonar systems, positional sonars (e.g., 
net sounders for determining trawl position), and environmental sensors 
(e.g., current profilers). These acoustic sources, which are present on 
most NEFSC fishery research vessels, include a variety of single, dual, 
and multi-beam echosounders (many with a variety of modes), sources 
used to determine the orientation of trawl nets, and several current 
profilers.
    Many typically investigated acoustic sources (e.g., seismic 
airguns, low- and mid-frequency active sonar used for military 
purposes, pile driving, vessel noise)--sources for which certain of the 
potential acoustic effects described above have been observed or 
inferred--produce signals that are either much lower frequency and/or 
higher total energy (considering output sound levels and signal 
duration) than the high-frequency mapping and fish-finding systems used 
by the NEFSC. There has been relatively little attention given to the 
potential impacts of high-frequency sonar systems on marine life, 
largely because their combination of high output frequency and 
relatively low output power means that such systems are less likely to 
impact many marine species. However, some marine mammals do hear and 
produce sounds within the frequency range used by these sources and 
ambient noise is much lower at high frequencies, increasing the 
probability of signal detection relative to other sounds in the 
environment.
    As noted above, relatively high levels of sound are likely required 
to cause TTS in most pinnipeds and odontocete cetaceans. While 
dependent on sound exposure frequency, level, and duration, NMFS' 
acoustics experts believe that existing studies indicate that for the 
kinds of relatively brief exposures potentially associated with 
transient sounds such as those produced by the active acoustic sources 
used by the NEFSC, SPLs in the range of approximately 180-220 dB rms 
might be required to induce onset TTS levels for most species (NEFSC, 
2014). However, it should be noted that there may be increased 
sensitivity to TTS for certain species generally (harbor porpoise; 
Lucke et al., 2009) or specifically at higher sound exposure 
frequencies, which correspond to a species' best hearing range (20 kHz 
vs. 3 kHz for bottlenose dolphins; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010). 
However, for these animals, which are better able to hear higher 
frequencies and may be more sensitive to higher frequencies, exposures 
on the order of approximately 170 dB rms or higher for brief transient 
signals are likely required for even temporary (recoverable) changes in 
hearing sensitivity that would likely not

[[Page 39578]]

be categorized as physiologically damaging (NEFSC, 2014). The 
corresponding estimates for PTS would be at very high received levels 
that would rarely be experienced in practice.
    Based on discussion provided by Southall et al. (2007), Lurton and 
DeRuiter (2011) modeled the potential impacts of conventional 
echosounders on marine mammals, estimating PTS onset at typical 
distances of 10-100 m for the kinds of sources considered here. Kremser 
et al. (2005) modeled the potential for TTS in blue, sperm, and beaked 
whales (please see Kremser et al. [2005] for discussion of assumptions 
regarding TTS onset in these species) from a multibeam echosounder, 
finding similarly that TTS would likely only occur at very close ranges 
to the hull of the vessel. The authors estimated ship movement at 12 kn 
(faster than NEFSC vessels would typically move), which would result in 
an underestimate of the potential for TTS to occur, but the modeled 
system (Hydrosweep) operates at lower frequencies and with a wider beam 
pattern than do typical NEFSC systems, which would result in a likely 
more significant overestimate of TTS potential. The results of both 
studies emphasize that these effects would very likely only occur in 
the cone ensonified below the ship and that animal responses to the 
vessel (sound or physical presence) at these extremely close ranges 
would very likely influence their probability of being exposed to these 
levels. At the same distances, but to the side of the vessel, animals 
would not be exposed to these levels, greatly decreasing the potential 
for an animal to be exposed to the most intense signals. For example, 
Kremser et al. (2005) note that SPLs outside the vertical lobe, or 
beam, decrease rapidly with distance, such that SPLs within the 
horizontal lobes are about 20 dB less than the value found in the 
center of the beam. For certain species (i.e., odontocete cetaceans and 
especially harbor porpoises), these ranges may be somewhat greater 
based on more recent data (Lucke et al., 2009; Finneran and Schlundt, 
2010) but are likely still on the order of hundreds of meters. In 
addition, potential behavioral responses further reduce the already low 
likelihood that an animal may approach close enough for any type of 
hearing loss to occur.
    Various other studies have evaluated the environmental risk posed 
by use of specific scientific sonar systems. Burkhardt et al. (2007) 
considered both the Hydrosweep system evaluated by Kremser et al. 
(2005) and the Simrad EK60, which is used by the NEFSC, and concluded 
that direct injury (i.e., sound energy causes direct tissue damage) and 
indirect injury (i.e., self-damaging behavior as response to acoustic 
exposure) would be unlikely given source and operational use (i.e., 
vessel movement) characteristics, and that any behavioral responses 
would be unlikely to be significant. Similarly, Boebel et al. (2006) 
considered the Hydrosweep system in relation to the risk for direct or 
indirect injury, concluding that (1) risk of TTS (please see Boebel et 
al. [2006] for assumptions regarding TTS onset) would be less than two 
percent of the risk of ship strike and (2) risk of behaviorally-induced 
damage would be essentially nil due to differences in source 
characteristics between scientific sonars and sources typically 
associated with stranding events (e.g., mid-frequency active sonar, but 
see discussion of Madagascar stranding event below). It should be noted 
that the risk of direct injury may be greater when a vessel operates 
sources while on station (i.e., stationary), as there is a greater 
chance for an animal to receive the signal when the vessel is not 
moving.
    Boebel et al. (2005) report the results of a workshop in which a 
structured, qualitative risk analysis of a range of acoustic technology 
was undertaken, specific to use of such technology in the Antarctic. 
The authors assessed a single-beam echosounder commonly used for 
collecting bathymetric data (12 kHz, 232 dB, 10[deg] beam width), an 
array of single-beam echosounders used for mapping krill (38, 70, 120, 
and 200 kHz; 230 dB; 7[deg] beam width), and a multibeam echosounder 
(30 kHz, 236 dB, 150[deg] x 1[deg] swath width). For each source, the 
authors produced a matrix displaying the severity of potential 
consequences (on a six-point scale) against the likelihood of 
occurrence for a given degree of severity. For the former two systems, 
the authors determined on the basis of the volume of water potentially 
affected by the system and comparisons between its output and available 
TTS data that the chance of TTS is only in a small volume immediately 
under the transducers, and that consequences of level four and above 
were inconceivable, whereas level one consequences (``Individuals show 
no response, or only a temporary (minutes) behavior change'') would be 
expected in almost all instances. Some minor displacement of animals in 
the immediate vicinity of the ship may occur. Boebel et al. (2005) note 
an increase in the likelihood of animal displacement because of the 
high output and broad width of the swath (abeam of the vessel) of the 
multibeam echosounder. However, the fore and aft beam width is small 
and the pulse length very short, so the risk of ensonification above 
TTS levels is still considered quite small and the likelihood of 
auditory or other injuries low. In general, the authors reached the 
same conclusions described for the single-beam systems, but note that 
more severe impacts--including fatalities resulting from herding of 
sensitive species in narrow sea ways--are at least possible (i.e., may 
occur in exceptional circumstances). However, the probability of 
herding remains low not just because of the rarity of the necessary 
confluence of species, bathymetry, and likely other factors, but 
because the restricted beam shape makes it unlikely that an animal 
would be exposed more than briefly during the passage of the vessel 
(Boebel et al., 2005).
    We have, however, considered the potential for severe behavioral 
responses such as stranding and associated indirect injury or mortality 
from the NEFSC use of the multibeam echosounder, on the basis of a 2008 
mass stranding of approximately one hundred melon-headed whales in a 
Madagascar lagoon system. An investigation of the event indicated that 
use of a high-frequency mapping system (12-kHz multibeam echosounder; 
it is important to note that all NEFSC sources operate at higher 
frequencies [see Table 2]) was the most plausible and likely initial 
behavioral trigger of the event, while providing the caveat that there 
is no unequivocal and easily identifiable single cause (Southall et 
al., 2013). The panel's conclusion was based on (1) very close temporal 
and spatial association and directed movement of the survey with the 
stranding event; (2) the unusual nature of such an event coupled with 
previously documented apparent behavioral sensitivity of the species to 
other sound types (Southall et al., 2006; Brownell et al., 2009); and 
(3) the fact that all other possible factors considered were determined 
to be unlikely causes. Specifically, regarding survey patterns prior to 
the event and in relation to bathymetry, the vessel transited in a 
north-south direction on the shelf break parallel to the shore, 
ensonifying large areas of deep-water habitat prior to operating 
intermittently in a concentrated area offshore from the stranding site; 
this may have trapped the animals between the sound source and the 
shore, thus driving them towards the lagoon system.
    The investigatory panel systematically excluded or deemed highly 
unlikely nearly all potential reasons for these

[[Page 39579]]

animals leaving their typical pelagic habitat for an area extremely 
atypical for the species (i.e., a shallow lagoon system). Notably, this 
was the first time that such a system has been associated with a 
stranding event.
    The panel also noted several site- and situation-specific secondary 
factors that may have contributed to the avoidance responses that led 
to the eventual entrapment and mortality of the whales. Specifically, 
shoreward-directed surface currents and elevated chlorophyll levels in 
the area preceding the event may have played a role (Southall et al., 
2013). The report also notes that prior use of a similar system in the 
general area may have sensitized the animals and also concluded that, 
for odontocete cetaceans that hear well in higher frequency ranges 
where ambient noise is typically quite low, high-power active sonars 
operating in this range may be more easily audible and have potential 
effects over larger areas than low frequency systems that have more 
typically been considered in terms of anthropogenic noise impacts. It 
is, however, important to note that the relatively lower output 
frequency, higher output power, and complex nature of the system 
implicated in this event, in context of the other factors noted here, 
likely produced a fairly unusual set of circumstances that indicate 
that such events would likely remain rare and are not necessarily 
relevant to use of lower-power, higher-frequency systems more commonly 
used for scientific applications. The risk of similar events recurring 
may be very low, given the extensive use of active acoustic systems 
used for scientific and navigational purposes worldwide on a daily 
basis and the lack of direct evidence of such responses previously 
reported.
    Characteristics of the sound sources predominantly used by the 
NEFSC further reduce the likelihood of effects to marine mammals, as 
well as the intensity of effect assuming that an animal perceives the 
signal. Intermittent exposures--as would occur due to the brief, 
transient signals produced by these sources--require a higher 
cumulative SEL to induce TTS than would continuous exposures of the 
same duration (i.e., intermittent exposure results in lower levels of 
TTS) (Mooney et al., 2009a; Finneran et al., 2010). In addition, 
intermittent exposures recover faster in comparison with continuous 
exposures of the same duration (Finneran et al., 2010). Although 
echosounder pulses are, in general, emitted rapidly, they are not 
dissimilar to odontocete echolocation click trains. Research indicates 
that marine mammals generally have extremely fine auditory temporal 
resolution and can detect each signal separately (e.g., Au et al., 
1988; Dolphin et al., 1995; Supin and Popov, 1995; Mooney et al., 
2009b), especially for species with echolocation capabilities. 
Therefore, it is likely that marine mammals would indeed perceive 
echosounder signals as being intermittent.
    We conclude here that, on the basis of available information on 
hearing and potential auditory effects in marine mammals, high-
frequency cetacean species would be the most likely to potentially 
incur temporary hearing loss from a vessel operating high-frequency 
sonar sources, and the potential for PTS to occur for any species is so 
unlikely as to be discountable. Even for high-frequency cetacean 
species, individuals would have to make a very close approach and also 
remain very close to vessels operating these sources in order to 
receive multiple exposures at relatively high levels, as would be 
necessary to cause TTS. Additionally, given that behavioral responses 
typically include the temporary avoidance that might be expected (see 
below), the potential for auditory effects considered physiological 
damage (injury) is considered extremely low in relation to realistic 
operations of these devices. Given the fact that fisheries research 
survey vessels are moving, the likelihood that animals may avoid the 
vessel to some extent based on either its physical presence or due to 
aversive sound (vessel or active acoustic sources), and the 
intermittent nature of many of these sources, the potential for TTS is 
probably low for high-frequency cetaceans and very low to zero for 
other species.
    Based on the source operating characteristics, most of these 
sources may be detected by odontocete cetaceans (and particularly high-
frequency specialists such as porpoises) but are unlikely to be audible 
to mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency cetaceans) and most pinnipeds. While 
low-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds have been observed to respond 
behaviorally to low- and mid-frequency sounds (e.g., Frankel, 2005), 
there is little evidence of behavioral responses in these species to 
high-frequency sound exposure (e.g., Jacobs and Terhune, 2002; 
Kastelein et al., 2006). If a marine mammal does perceive a signal from 
a NEFSC active acoustic source, it is likely that the response would 
be, at most, behavioral in nature. Behavioral reactions of free-ranging 
marine mammals to scientific sonars are likely to vary by species and 
circumstance. For example, Watkins et al. (1985) note that sperm whales 
did not appear to be disturbed by or even aware of signals from 
scientific sonars and pingers (36-60 kHz) despite being very close to 
the transducers, but Gerrodette and Pettis (2005) report that, when a 
38-kHz echosounder and ADCP were on (1) the average size of detected 
schools of spotted dolphins and pilot whales was decreased; (2) 
perpendicular sighting distances increased for spotted and spinner 
dolphins; and (3) sighting rates decreased for beaked whales. As 
described above, behavioral responses of marine mammals are extremely 
variable, depending on multiple exposure factors, with the most common 
type of observed response being behavioral avoidance of areas around 
aversive sound sources. Certain odontocete cetaceans (particularly 
harbor porpoises and beaked whales) are known to avoid high-frequency 
sound sources in both field and laboratory settings (e.g., Kastelein et 
al., 2000, 2005b, 2008a, b; Culik et al., 2001; Johnston, 2002; Olesiuk 
et al., 2002; Carretta et al., 2008). There is some additional, low 
probability for masking to occur for high-frequency specialists, but 
similar factors (directional beam pattern, transient signal, moving 
vessel) mean that the significance of any potential masking is probably 
inconsequential.

Potential Effects of Visual Disturbance

    The NEFSC anticipates that some trawl, fyke net, and beach seine 
surveys may disturb a small number of pinnipeds during the conduct of 
these activities in upper Penobscot Bay above Fort Point Ledge, ME. 
Pinnipeds are expected to be hauled out on tidal ledges and at times 
may experience incidental close approaches by the survey vessel and/or 
researchers during the course of its fisheries research activities. The 
NEFSC expects that some of these animals will exhibit a behavioral 
response to the visual stimuli (e.g., including alert behavior, 
movement, vocalizing, or flushing). NMFS does not consider the lesser 
reactions (e.g., alert behavior) to constitute harassment. These events 
are expected to be infrequent and cause only a temporary disturbance on 
the order of minutes. Monitoring results from other activities 
involving the disturbance of pinnipeds and relevant studies of pinniped 
populations that experience more regular vessel disturbance indicate 
that individually significant or population level impacts are unlikely 
to occur.
    In areas where disturbance of haul-outs due to periodic human 
activity

[[Page 39580]]

(e.g., researchers approaching on foot, passage of small vessels, 
maintenance activity) occurs, monitoring results have generally 
indicated that pinnipeds typically move or flush from the haul-out in 
response to human presence or visual disturbance, although some 
individuals typically remain hauled-out (e.g., SCWA, 2012). The nature 
of response is generally dependent on species. For example, California 
sea lions and northern elephant seals have been observed as less 
sensitive to stimulus than harbor seals during monitoring at numerous 
sites. Monitoring of pinniped disturbance as a result of abalone 
research in the Channel Islands showed that while harbor seals flushed 
at a rate of 69 percent, California sea lions flushed at a rate of only 
21 percent. The rate for elephant seals declined to 0.1 percent 
(VanBlaricom, 2010).
    Upon the occurrence of low-severity disturbance (i.e., the approach 
of a vessel or person as opposed to an explosion or sonic boom), 
pinnipeds typically exhibit a continuum of responses, beginning with 
alert movements (e.g., raising the head), which may then escalate to 
movement away from the stimulus and possible flushing into the water. 
Flushed pinnipeds typically re-occupy the haul-out within minutes to 
hours of the stimulus.
    In a popular tourism area of the Pacific Northwest where human 
disturbances occurred frequently, past studies observed stable 
populations of seals over a twenty-year period (Calambokidis et al., 
1991). Despite high levels of seasonal disturbance by tourists using 
both motorized and non-motorized vessels, Calambokidis et al. (1991) 
observed an increase in site use (pup rearing) and classified this area 
as one of the most important pupping sites for seals in the region. 
Another study observed an increase in seal vigilance when vessels 
passed the haul-out site, but then vigilance relaxed within ten minutes 
of the vessels' passing (Fox, 2008). If vessels passed frequently 
within a short time period (e.g., 24 hours), a reduction in the total 
number of seals present was also observed (Fox, 2008).
    Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality could likely only 
occur as a result of trampling in a stampede (a potentially dangerous 
occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and 
rush away from a stimulus) or abandonment of pups. However, given the 
nature of potential disturbance--which would entail the gradual and 
highly visible approach of a small vessel and small research crew--we 
would expect that pinnipeds would exhibit a gradual response 
escalation, and that stampeding or abandonment of pups would likely not 
be an issue.
    Disturbance of pinnipeds caused by NEFSC survey activities--which 
are sparsely distributed in space and time--would be expected to last 
for only short periods of time, separated by significant amounts of 
time in which no disturbance occurred. Because such disturbance is 
sporadic, rather than chronic, and of low intensity, individual marine 
mammals are unlikely to incur any detrimental impacts to vital rates or 
ability to forage and, thus, loss of fitness. Correspondingly, even 
local populations, much less the overall stocks of animals, are 
extremely unlikely to accrue any significantly detrimental impacts.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    Effects to prey--In addition to direct, or operational, 
interactions between fishing gear and marine mammals, indirect (i.e., 
biological or ecological) interactions occur as well, in which marine 
mammals and fisheries both utilize the same resource, potentially 
resulting in competition that may be mutually disadvantageous (e.g., 
Northridge, 1984; Beddington et al., 1985; Wickens, 1995). Marine 
mammal prey varies by species, season, and location and, for some, is 
not well documented. NEFSC fisheries research removals of species 
commonly utilized by marine mammals are relatively low. Prey of right 
whales, sei whales, and blue whales are primarily zooplankton, which 
are not directly targeted by NEFSC fisheries research, thus the 
likelihood of research activities changing prey availability is 
unlikely. There is some overlap in prey of humpback and fin whales 
(e.g., Atlantic herring and sandeels) and possibly sperm whales 
(squid).
    The removal by NEFSC fisheries research, regardless of season and 
location is, however, insignificant relative to that taken through 
commercial fisheries (See Section 4.2.3 of the NEFSC EA for more 
information on fish catch during research surveys). For example, the 
2009 research catch of Atlantic herring in the GOM/GB represented 
0.009% of the 2010 Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) for commercial 
harvest. Similarly, research catch of Atlantic mackerel in 2009 equaled 
0.001% of the 2010 ABC and research catch for longfin squid was 0.021% 
of ABC.
    The total prey removal by all NEFSC fisheries research surveys and 
projects, regardless of season and location across the Atlantic Coast 
region, totals a few hundreds of tons of fish per year (Table 4.2-8), 
which is a negligible percentage of the estimated fish consumed by 
cetaceans. The NEFSC research catch of invertebrate prey is also small; 
the average annual NEFSC research catch of long-finned squid was less 
than 12 tons (See Table 4.2-19 of the NEFSC EA for more information).
    In addition to the small total biomass taken, some of the size 
classes of fish targeted in research surveys are smaller than that 
generally targeted by marine mammals. Research catches are also 
distributed over a wide area because of the random sampling design 
covering large sample areas. Fish removals by research are therefore 
highly localized and unlikely to affect the spatial concentrations and 
availability of prey for any marine mammal species. This is especially 
true for pinnipeds in the Atlantic coast region, which are 
opportunistic predators that consume a wide assortment of fish and 
squid. With pinniped populations increasing and ranges expanding in New 
England, food availability does not appear to be a limiting factor 
(Baraff and Loughlin, 2000).
    In the southern portion of the Atlantic coast region, NEFSC-
affiliated fisheries research is primarily related to catch, tag, and 
release studies of sharks, with minimal numbers of finfish collected 
for lab analysis. This level of effort would have no impact on prey 
sources for marine mammals in southern portion of the Atlantic coast 
region.
    Acoustic habitat--Acoustic habitat is the soundscape--which 
encompasses all of the sound present in a particular location and time, 
as a whole--when considered from the perspective of the animals 
experiencing it. Animals produce sound for, or listen for sounds 
produced by, conspecifics (communication during feeding, mating, and 
other social activities), other animals (finding prey or avoiding 
predators), and the physical environment (finding suitable habitats, 
navigating). Together, sounds made by animals and the geophysical 
environment (e.g., produced by earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, 
waves) make up the natural contributions to the total acoustics of a 
place. These acoustic conditions, termed acoustic habitat, are one 
attribute of an animal's total habitat.
    Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced 
by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include 
incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic, or may be 
intentionally introduced to the

[[Page 39581]]

marine environment for data acquisition purposes (as in the NEFSC's use 
of active acoustic sources). Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its 
frequency content, duration, and loudness and these characteristics 
greatly influence the potential habitat-mediated effects to marine 
mammals (please see also the previous discussion on masking under 
``Acoustic Effects''), which may range from local effects for brief 
periods of time to chronic effects over large areas and for long 
durations. Depending on the extent of effects to habitat, animals may 
alter their communications signals (thereby potentially expending 
additional energy) or miss acoustic cues (either conspecific or 
adventitious). For more detail on these concepts see, e.g., Barber et 
al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 2011; Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et 
al., 2014.
    Problems arising from a failure to detect cues are more likely to 
occur when noise stimuli are chronic and overlap with biologically 
relevant cues used for communication, orientation, and predator/prey 
detection (Francis and Barber, 2013). As described above (``Acoustic 
Effects''), the signals emitted by NEFSC active acoustic sources are 
generally high frequency, of short duration, and transient. These 
factors mean that the signals will attenuate rapidly (not travel over 
great distances), may not be perceived or affect perception even when 
animals are in the vicinity, and would not be considered chronic in any 
given location. The NEFSC's use of these sources is widely dispersed in 
both space and time. In conjunction with the prior factors, this means 
that it is highly unlikely that the NEFSC's use of these sources would, 
on their own, have any appreciable effect on acoustic habitat. Sounds 
emitted by NEFSC vessels would be of lower frequency and continuous, 
but would also be widely dispersed in both space and time. NEFSC vessel 
traffic--including both sound from the vessel itself and from the 
active acoustic sources--is of very low density compared to commercial 
shipping traffic or commercial fishing vessels and would therefore be 
expected to represent an insignificant incremental increase in the 
total amount of anthropogenic sound input to the marine environment.
    Physical habitat--Fishing gear that contacts the seafloor can alter 
and/or physically damage seafloor habitat. Physical damage includes 
furrowing and smoothing of the seafloor as well as the displacement of 
rocks and boulders as fishing gear is towed across the bottom (Morgan 
and Chuenpagdee, 2003). Physical damage to the seafloor can increase 
with multiple tows in the same area (Stevenson et al., 2004). Bottom 
contact fishing gear historically used in NEFSC fishery research 
activities includes bottom trawls, otter trawls, sea scallop dredges, 
and hydraulic surfclam dredges. Short-term cooperative research 
projects have also used pot gear for research on scup and sea bass as 
well as lobsters. The NEFSC has historically conducted bottom trawls in 
the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, Mid-Atlantic Bight, and southern New 
England subareas of the Atlantic coast region during each season. 
However, bottom trawl effort is generally lower in the winter relative 
to other seasons. The NEFSC has also used dredges in each of the 
Atlantic coast region subareas previously identified; however, dredging 
is restricted to spring, summer, and fall seasons. The geographic 
extent of any physical contact with benthic habitats caused by NEFSC 
fisheries research activities would be much less than two percent of 
the NEFSC research area. Physical damage to the seafloor typically 
recovers within 18 months through the action of water currents and 
natural sedimentation, with the exception of rock and boulder 
displacement (Stevenson et al., 2004).
    The seafloor in the specified geographic region is comprised 
primarily of silt, sand, clay, gravel, and boulders. Any physical 
damage caused by NEFSC fisheries research survey activities in these 
substrates would be expected to recover within 18 months (Stevenson et 
al., 2004). The geographic area directly affected by NEFSC bottom trawl 
and dredge surveys in 2008 was estimated to be about 70 square miles, 
an unusually high amount due to the need for extra calibration trials 
with a new vessel. More typical coverage is estimated to be about 50 
square miles per year (NEFSC, 2014). The area affected by research each 
year is a very small fraction of the total area of each of the Atlantic 
coast subregions (see Table 4.2-2 in the NEFSC's draft EA). The GOM 
covers an area of approximately 35,000 mi\2\, the GB covers more than 
16,000 square miles, the SNE subregion covers approximately 30,500 
square miles, and the MAB covers approximately 32,000 square miles. 
Bottom disturbance resulting from annual NEFSC fisheries research 
activity with trawl and dredge gear would affect less than 0.05 percent 
of the total area of each Atlantic coast subregion (See Table 4.2-2 of 
the NEFSC EA for more information).
    The geographical area directly affected by NEFSC bottom trawl and 
dredge surveys every year is estimated to be about 181 km\2\. In 
addition, cooperative research activities not contributable to 
commercial fishing is likely to affect 150 to 250 km\2\ each year. The 
area affected by research each year is a very small fraction of the 
total area involved in survey efforts.
    Soft bottom habitats are typically less affected by pot gear than 
vegetated or hard bottom habitats (Barnette, 2001). Weights and anchors 
associated with fishing pots may physically damage fragile species such 
as coarls, which are more common in rocky substrates (Macdonald et al., 
1996, Eno et al., 2001). Although pot gear may be deployed in some hard 
bottom habitats that are not suitable for trawling or dredging, its use 
is not limited to rocky substrates and data on the substrate for each 
pot used in past research is not available for quantitative estimates 
by habitat type. Overall, the effect of pot gear used for NEFSC 
fisheries research on benthic habitats is expected to be very small, 
especially compared to the number of pots used for commercial fisheries 
in the Northeast.
    As described in the preceding section, the potential for NEFSC 
research to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals or to 
meaningfully impact the quality of acoustic habitat is considered to be 
insignificant for all species, in the specified geographical region. 
Effects to habitat will not be discussed further in this document.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment, Serious Injury, or Mortality

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment]. Serious injury means any injury that 
will likely result in mortality (50 CFR 216.3).
    Take of marine mammals incidental to NEFSC research activities 
could occur as a result of: (1) Injury or mortality due to gear 
interaction; (2) behavioral disturbance resulting from the use of 
active acoustic sources (Level B harassment only); or (3) behavioral 
disturbance of pinnipeds hauled out on the shoreline resulting from 
close proximity of research vessels (Level B harassment only).

[[Page 39582]]

Estimated Take Due to Gear Interaction

    Historical Interactions--In order to estimate the number of 
potential incidents of take that could occur by M/SI + Level A through 
gear interaction, we first consider the NEFSC's past record of such 
incidents, and then consider in addition other species that may have 
similar vulnerabilities to the NEFSC's trawl, gillnet, and fyke net 
gear for which we have historical interaction records. We describe 
historical interactions with NEFSC research gear in Tables 4, 5, and 6. 
Available records are for the years 2004 through the present. Please 
see Figure 4.2-2 in the NEFSC EA for specific locations of these 
incidents.

                                                    Table 4--Historical Interactions With Trawl Gear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Number
                 Gear                           Survey                Date               Species           Number killed  released alive       Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourock high speed midwater rope       Atlantic Herring Survey.       10/8/2004  Short-beaked common                   2               0               2
 trawl.                                                                           dolphin (Western NA
                                                                                  stock).
Bottom trawl (4-seam, 3 bridle)......  NEFSC Standard Bottom         11/11/2007  Short-beaked common                   1               0               1
                                        Trawl Survey.                             dolphin (Western NA
                                                                                  stock).
Gourock high speed midwater rope       Atlantic Herring Survey.      10/11/2009  Minke whale............               0           \1\ 1               1
 trawl.
Bottom trawl (4-seam, 3 bridle)......  Spring Bottom Trawl               4/4/15  Gray seal..............           \2\ 1               0               1
                                        Survey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total individuals captured (total number of interactions given in parentheses)  Short-beaked common                   3               0               3
                                                                                  dolphin (3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Minke whale (1)........               0               1               1
                                                                                 Gray seal (1)..........               1               0               1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to the incident report, ``The net's cod end and whale were brought aboard just enough to undo the cod end and free the whale. It was on
  deck for about five minutes. While on deck, it was vocalizing and moving its tail up and down. The whale swam away upon release and appeared to be
  fine. Estimated length was 19 feet.'' The NEFSC later classified this incidental take as a serious injury using NMFS criteria for such determinations
  published in January 2012 (Cole and Henry, 2013).
\2\ The NEFSC filed an incident report for this incidental take on April 4, 2015.


                                                   Table 5--Historical Interactions With Gillnet Gear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Number
                 Gear                           Survey                Date               Species           Number killed  released alive       Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillnet..............................  COASTSPAN...............      11/29/2008  Common Bottlenose                     1               0               1
                                                                                  dolphin (Northern
                                                                                  South Carolina
                                                                                  Estuarine System
                                                                                  stock) \1\.
Gillnet..............................  NEFOP Observer Gillnet          5/4/2009  Gray seal..............               1               0               1
                                        Training Trips.
Gillnet..............................  NEFOP Observer Gillnet          5/4/2009  Harbor porpoise........               1               0               1
                                        Training Trips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total individuals captured (total number of interactions given in parentheses)  Bottlenose dolphin (1).               1               0               1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Gray seal (1)..........               1               0               1
                                                                                 Harbor porpoise (1)....               1               0               1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2008, the COASTSPAN gillnet survey caught and killed one common bottlenose dolphin in 2008 while a cooperating institution was conducting the
  survey in South Carolina. This was the only occurrence of incidental take in these surveys. Although no genetic information is available from this
  dolphin, based on the location of the event, NMFS retrospectively assigned this mortality to the Northern South Carolina Estuarine System stock in
  2015 from the previous classification as the western North Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2014).


                                                   Table 6--Historical Interactions With Fyke Net Gear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                              Number
                 Gear                           Survey                Date               Species           Number killed  released alive       Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fyke Net.............................  Maine Estuaries               10/25/2010  Harbor seal............               1               0               1
                                        Diadromous Survey.
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................  ........................  ..............  .......................               1               0               1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NEFSC has no recorded interactions with any gear other than 
midwater and bottom trawl, gillnet, and fyke net gears. As noted 
previously in ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine 
Mammals,'' we anticipate future interactions with the same gear types.
    In order to use these historical interaction records in a 
precautionary manner as the basis for the take estimation process, and 
because we

[[Page 39583]]

have no specific information to indicate whether any given future 
interaction might result in M/SI versus Level A harassment, we 
conservatively assume that all interactions equate to mortality.
    During trawl surveys, the NEFSC has recorded interactions with 
short-beaked common dolphins (Western North Atlantic stock; two total 
interactions with three individual animals); minke whale (one total 
interaction with one animal); and gray seal (one total interaction with 
one animal). Common dolphins are the species most likely to interact 
with NEFSC trawl gear with an average of 1.5 dolphins captured per 
interaction.
    During gillnet surveys, the NEFSC has recorded interactions with 
short-beaked common dolphins (Northern South Carolina Estuarine System 
stock; one total interaction with one animal); gray seal (one total 
interaction with one animal); and harbor porpoise (one total 
interaction with one animal).
    During one fyke net survey in 2010, the NEFSC recorded one 
interaction with one harbor seal. Since this recorded interaction, the 
NEFSC now requires the use of marine mammal excluder devices as a 
mitigation measure for this gear type.
    In order to produce the most precautionary take estimates possible, 
we use here the most recent 11 years of data (e.g., 2004-15).
    In order to estimate the potential number of incidents of M/SI + 
Level A that could occur incidental to the NEFSC's use of midwater and 
bottom trawl, gillnet, fyke net, and longline gear in the Atlantic 
coast region over the five-year period from 2015-20, we first look at 
the six species described that have been taken historically and then 
evaluate the potential vulnerability of additional species to these 
gears.
    Table 7 shows the 11-year annual average captures of these six 
species and the projected five-year totals for this proposed rule, for 
trawl, gillnet, and fyke net gear. In order to produce precautionary 
estimates, we calculate the annual average for the 11-year period 
(2004-2015) and round up the annual to the nearest whole number. 
Because the NEFSC requests take for a five-year period, we multiply the 
annual average by five and assume that this number may be taken within 
the effective five-year period of the proposed authorization.
    To date, infrequent interactions of trawl nets, gillnets, pelagic 
and bottom longline, and fyke net gears with marine mammals have 
occurred in the Atlantic coast region during NEFSC research activities. 
The NEFSC interaction rates have exhibited some inter-annual variation 
in numbers, possibly due to changing marine mammal densities and 
distributions and dynamic oceanographic conditions. This approach is 
precautionary. Estimating takes of species captured historically will 
produce an estimate higher than the historic average take for each 
species taken incidentally during past NEFSC research. We use this 
methodology to ensure accounting for the maximum amount of potential 
take in the future as well as accounting for the fluctuations in inter-
annual variability observed during the 11-year time period. Moreover, 
these estimates are based on the assumption that annual effort over the 
proposed five-year authorization period will not exceed the annual 
effort during the period 2004-2015.

                       Table 7--Annual Average Captures (2004-15) and Projected Five-Year Total for Historically-Captured Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               Projected
             Gear                  Species       2004    05     06     07     08     09     10     11     12     13     14     15    Avg. per    5-year
                                                                                                                                       year    total \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl........................  Short-beaked         2      0      0      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0       0.27          5
                                common dolphin.
                               Minke whale....      0      0      0      0      0      1      0      0      0      0      0      0       0.09          5
                               Gray seal......      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      0      1       0.09          5
Gillnet......................  Common               0      0      0      0      1      0      0      0      0      0      0      0       0.09      \2\ 5
                                bottlenose
                                dolphin.
                               Harbor porpoise      0      0      0      0      0      1      0      0      0      0      0      0       0.09          5
                               Gray seal......      0      0      0      0      0      1      0      0      0      0      0      0       0.09          5
Fyke net.....................  Harbor seal....      0      0      0      0      0      0      1      0      0      0      0      0       0.09          5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The estimated total is the product of the 2004-2015 annual average rounded up to the nearest whole number and multiplied by the five-year timespan
  of the proposed rule.
\2\ The projected 5-year total includes an estimate of 5 each for the Western North Atlantic offshore, the Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory
  Coastal, and the Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal stocks of common bottlenose dolphins. The NEFSC is not requesting take for the
  estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphins for the COASTPAN longline and gillnet surveys. In 2008, the COASTSPAN gillnet survey caught and killed one
  common bottlenose dolphin in 2008 while a cooperating institution was conducting the survey in South Carolina. This was the only occurrence of
  incidental take in these surveys. Although no genetic information is available from this dolphin, based on the location of the event, NMFS
  retrospectively assigned this mortality to the Northern South Carolina Estuarine System stock in 2015 from the previous classification as the western
  North Atlantic stock (Waring et al., 2014).

    As background to the process of determining which species not 
historically taken may have sufficient vulnerability to capture in 
NEFSC gear to justify inclusion in the take authorization request, we 
note that the NEFSC is NMFS' research arm in the Greater Atlantic 
region which we consider as a leading source of expert knowledge 
regarding marine mammals (e.g., behavior, abundance, density) in the 
areas where the NEFSC operates. The NEFSC formulated the take requests 
for species selected by NEFSC subject matter experts who based their 
selections on the best available information. We have concurred with 
these decisions.
    In order to evaluate the potential vulnerability of additional 
species to trawl, gillnet, fyke net, and longline gear, we first 
consulted NMFS' List of Fisheries (LOF), which classifies U.S. 
commercial fisheries into one of three categories according to the 
level of incidental marine mammal M/SI that is known to occur on an 
annual basis over the most recent five-year period (generally) for 
which data has been analyzed: Category I, frequent incidental M/SI; 
Category II, occasional incidental M/SI; and Category III, remote 
likelihood of or no known incidental M/SI. We provide this information, 
as presented in the 2015 LOF (79 FR 77919; January 28, 2015), in Tables 
8, 9, and 10. In order to simplify information presented, and to 
encompass information related to other similar species from different 
locations, we group marine mammals by genus (where there is more than 
one member of the genus found in U.S. waters). For confirmed and 
documented incidents of M/SI incidental to relevant commercial 
fisheries, we note whether we believe those incidents provide 
sufficient basis upon which to infer vulnerability to capture in NEFSC 
research gear. More

[[Page 39584]]

information is available on the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/.

                         Table 8--U.S. Commercial Fisheries Interactions for Pelagic and Bottom Trawl Gear for Relevant Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Location/Fishery      Vulnerability                           Location/fishery    Vulnerability
          Species \1\             Pelagic trawl \2\           \3\            inferred? \4\       Bottom trawl \2\          \3\           inferred? \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale.................  Y                    AK BSAI pollock     N                    N                    AK/BSAI flatfish   N.
                                                       trawl (1).                                                    trawl (0.2),
                                                                                                                     BSAI pollock
                                                                                                                     trawl (0.2).
North Atlantic right whale.....  N                    n/a...............  N                    N                    n/a..............  N.
Minke whale \5\................  N                    n/a...............  N                    Y                    NE bottom trawl    Y.
                                                                                                                     (1.8).
Sei whale......................  N                    n/a...............  N                    N                    n/a..............  N.
Blue whale.....................  N                    n/a...............  N                    N                    n/a..............  N.
Fin whale......................  N                    n/a...............  N                    N                    n/a..............  N.
Sperm whale....................  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Kogia spp......................  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Cuvier's beaked whale..........  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Mesoplodon spp.................  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Delphinis spp..................  Y                    MA midwater trawl   Y                    Y                    MA bottom trawl    Y.
                                                       (3.2), NE mid-                                                (19).
                                                       water trawl (0).
Common bottlenose dolphin......  N                    MA mid-water trawl  N                    Y                    MA bottom trawl    Y.
                                                       (0).                                                          (20).
                                                                                                                    NE bottom trawl
                                                                                                                     (20).
Pygmy killer whale.............  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Short-finned pilot whale.......  Y                    MA mid-water trawl  N                    Y                    NE bottom trawl    N.
                                                       (2.4) NE mid-                                                 (29).
                                                       water trawl (4).
Long-finned pilot whale........  Y                    MA mid-water trawl  N                    N                    n/a..............  n/a.
                                                       (2.4) NE mid-
                                                       water trawl (4).
Risso's dolphin................  Y                    MA mid-water trawl  Y                    Y                    NE bottom trawl    Y.
                                                       (0.2).                                                        (2.5).
                                                                                                                    MA bottom trawl
                                                                                                                     (42).
Pantropical spotted dolphin....  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Fraser's dolphin...............  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Atlantic white-sided dolphin...  Y                    MA mid-water trawl  Y                    Y                    NE bottom trawl    Y.
                                                       (6).                                                          (73).
                                                                                                                    MA bottom trawl
                                                                                                                     (4).
White-beaked dolphin...........  N                    n/a...............  N                    Y                    n/a..............  N.
Killer whale...................  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    BSAI flatfish      N.
                                                                                                                     trawl (0.4),
                                                                                                                     BSAI rockfish
                                                                                                                     trawl (0.2).
Melon-headed whale.............  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Pantropical spotted dolphin....  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.......  N                    n/a...............  Y                    N                    n/a..............  n/a.
All other Stenella spp.........  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Rough-toothed dolphin..........  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Melon-headed whale.............  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Harbor porpoise................  N                    n/a...............  N                    Y                    NE bottom trawl    Y.
                                                                                                                     (4.5).
                                                                                                                    AK/BSAI flatfish
                                                                                                                     trawl (0.36).
Hooded seal....................  N                    n/a...............  n/a                  N                    n/a..............  n/a.
Gray seal......................  Y                    MA mid-water trawl  Y                    Y                    NE bottom trawl    Y.
                                                       (0.2).                                                        (9.2).
Harbor seal....................  Y                    AK BSAI pollock     Y                    Y                    AK/BSAI flatfish   Y.
                                                       trawl (0.3), NE                                               trawl (0.36).
                                                       midwater trawl                                               MA bottom trawl
                                                       (0.7).                                                        (0.2).
                                                                                                                    NE bottom trawl
                                                                                                                     (0.8).
Harp seal......................  N                    MA mid-water trawl  N                    Y                    NE bottom trawl    N.
                                                       (0).                                                          (0.4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please refer to Table 3 for taxonomic reference.
\2\ Indicates whether any member of the genus has documented incidental M/SI in a U.S. fishery using that gear in the most recent five-year timespan for
  which data is available.
\3\ Values in parentheses represent the mean annual estimate of M/SI for that fishery in the most recent five-year timespan for which data is available
  (2007-11 in most cases). An interaction may be prorated if it is documented as an injury but the severity of the injury is unknown (e.g., one
  entanglement may be estimated as 0.75 M/SI). Where there is less than one hundred percent observer coverage, documented M/SI is extrapolated to
  produce whole-fishery estimates. Associated CVs are not presented here; please refer to relevant SARs for more information. Some species have zero M/
  SI for 2007-11, but remain listed on that fishery's current list of marine mammal species/stocks injured/killed due to older interactions.
\4\ Where there are no documented incidents of M/SI incidental to relevant commercial fisheries, this is not applicable.
\5\ One minke whale was captured in a midwater trawl and released alive by NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center in 2009. It was later determined
  that this capture constituted a serious injury.


[[Page 39585]]


             Table 9--U.S. Commercial Fisheries Interactions for Longline Gear for Relevant Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Vulnerability
             Species \1\                     Longlines \2\         Location/Fishery \3\        inferred? \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale......................  Y                           HI shallow-set          N.
                                                                   longline (0.75).
North Atlantic right whale..........  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Minke whale.........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Sei whale...........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Blue whale..........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Fin whale...........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Sperm whale.........................  Y                           HI deep-set longline    N.
                                                                   (3), ATL large
                                                                   pelagics longline (0).
Kogia spp...........................  Y                           HI shallow-set          N.
                                                                   longline (0).
Cuvier's beaked whale...............  Y                           American Samoa          N.
                                                                   longline (0), ATL
                                                                   large pelagics
                                                                   longline (0).
Mesoplodon spp......................  Y                           HI shallow-set          N.
                                                                   longline (1), ATL
                                                                   large pelagics
                                                                   longline (0).
Delphinis spp.......................  Y                           ATL large pelagics      Y.
                                                                   longline (1.7).
Common bottlenose dolphin...........  Y                           HI deep-set longline    Y.
                                                                   (9), HI shallow-set
                                                                   longline (7), ATL
                                                                   large pelagics
                                                                   longline-WNA offshore
                                                                   (1.7).
Pygmy killer whale..................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Short-finned pilot whale............  Y                           Hawaii-based deep-set   N.
                                                                   longline fishery (1.0
                                                                   outside EEZ, 0.1 in
                                                                   HI EEZ), Hawaii-based
                                                                   shallow-set longline
                                                                   fishery (0.1 outside
                                                                   EEZ, 0 in HI EEZ),
                                                                   ATL large pelagics
                                                                   longline (119).
Long-finned pilot whale.............  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Risso's dolphin.....................  Y                           CA shallow set          Y.
                                                                   longline fishery (0),
                                                                   CA deep set longline
                                                                   fishery (0), Hawaii-
                                                                   based deep-set
                                                                   longline fishery (0.9
                                                                   outside EEZ, 0.6 in
                                                                   HI EEZ), Hawaii-based
                                                                   shallow-set longline
                                                                   fishery (3.6 outside
                                                                   EEZ, 0 in HI EEZ),
                                                                   ATL large pelagics
                                                                   longline (10).
Pantropical spotted dolphin.........  Y                           HI deep-set longline    N.
                                                                   (0.6), HI, ATL large
                                                                   pelagics longline (0).
Fraser's dolphin....................  N                           ATL large pelagics      N.
                                                                   longline (0).
Atlantic white-sided dolphin........  N                           ATL large pelagics      N.
                                                                   longline (0).
Atlantic spotted dolphin............  N                           ATL large pelagics      N.
                                                                   longline (0).
White-beaked dolphin................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Killer whale........................  Y                           BSAI Greenland turbot   N.
                                                                   longline (0.3).
Melon-headed whale..................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Atlantic spotted dolphin............  N                           ATL large pelagics      N.
                                                                   longline (0).
All other Stenella spp..............  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Rough-toothed dolphin...............  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Harbor porpoise.....................  ..........................  ......................  ......................
Hooded seal.........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Gray seal...........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Harbor seal.........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Harp seal...........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please refer to Table 3 for taxonomic reference.
\2\ Indicates whether any member of the genus has documented incidental M/SI in a U.S. fishery using that gear
  in the most recent five-year timespan for which data is available.
\3\ Values in parentheses represent the mean annual estimate of M/SI for that fishery in the most recent five-
  year timespan for which data is available (2007-11 in most cases). An interaction may be prorated if it is
  documented as an injury but the severity of the injury is unknown (e.g., one entanglement may be estimated as
  0.75 M/SI). Where there is less than one hundred percent observer coverage, documented M/SI is extrapolated to
  produce whole-fishery estimates. Associated CVs are not presented here; please refer to relevant SARs for more
  information. Some species have zero M/SI for 2007-11, but remain listed on that fishery's current list of
  marine mammal species/stocks injured/killed due to older interactions.
\4\ Where there are no documented incidents of M/SI incidental to relevant commercial fisheries, this is not
  applicable.


             Table 10--U.S. Commercial Fisheries Interactions for Gillnet Gear for Relevant Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Vulnerability
             Species \1\                     Gillnets \2\          Location/fishery \3\        inferred? \4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale......................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
North Atlantic right whale..........  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Minke whale.........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Sei whale...........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Blue whale..........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Fin whale...........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Sperm whale.........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Kogia spp...........................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Cuvier's beaked whale...............  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Mesoplodon spp......................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Delphinis spp.......................  Y                           Northeast Sink Gillnet  Y.
                                                                   (41), MA Gillnet (12).

[[Page 39586]]

 
Common bottlenose dolphin...........  Y                           Commercial mid-         Y.
                                                                   Atlantic gillnet
                                                                   fisheries post BDTRP
                                                                   (6.02), Southeast
                                                                   Atlantic inshore
                                                                   gillnet fishery
                                                                   (0.2),.
Pygmy killer whale..................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Short-finned pilot whale............  Y                           CA/OR thresher shark/   N.
                                                                   swordfish drift
                                                                   gillnet fishery (0),
                                                                   Northeast Sink
                                                                   Gillnet (1).
Long-finned pilot whale.............  Y                           Northeast Sink Gillnet  N.
                                                                   (1).
Risso's dolphin.....................  Y                           CA/OR thresher shark/   Y.
                                                                   swordfish drift
                                                                   gillnet fishery (7)
                                                                   CA/OR/WA, Mid-
                                                                   Atlantic Gillnet
                                                                   (6.8).
Pantropical spotted dolphin.........  N                           n/a...................  N.
Fraser's dolphin....................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Atlantic white-sided dolphin........  Y                           Northeast Sink Gillnet
                                                                   (33), MA Gillnet (0).
White-beaked dolphin................  N                           n/a...................  N
Killer whale........................  N                           n/a...................  N.
Melon-headed whale..................  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Atlantic spotted dolphin............  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
All other Stenella spp..............  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Rough-toothed dolphin...............  N                           n/a...................  n/a.
Harbor porpoise.....................  Y                           Northeast Sink Gillnet  Y.
                                                                   (462), Mid-Atlantic
                                                                   Gillnet (198),
                                                                   Yakutat salmon set
                                                                   gillnet (21.8),
                                                                   Kodiak Island set
                                                                   gillnet (35.8), Cook
                                                                   Inlet salmon set
                                                                   gillnet (0).
Hooded seal.........................  Y                           Northeast Sink Gillnet  Y.
                                                                   (25), Mid-Atlantic
                                                                   Gillnet (0).
Gray seal...........................  Y                           Northeast Sink Gillnet  Y.
                                                                   (1,043), Mid-Atlantic
                                                                   Gillnet (57).
Harbor seal.........................  Y                           Northeast Sink Gillnet  Y.
                                                                   (346), Mid-Atlantic
                                                                   Gillnet (49).
Harp seal...........................  Y                           Northeast Sink Gillnet  Y.
                                                                   (208), Mid-Atlantic
                                                                   Gillnet (63).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please refer to Table 3 for taxonomic reference.
\2\ Indicates whether any member of the genus has documented incidental M/SI in a U.S. fishery using that gear
  in the most recent five-year timespan for which data is available.
\3\ Values in parentheses represent the mean annual estimate of M/SI for that fishery in the most recent five-
  year timespan for which data is available (2007-11 in most cases). An interaction may be prorated if it is
  documented as an injury but the severity of the injury is unknown (e.g., one entanglement may be estimated as
  0.75 M/SI). Where there is less than one hundred percent observer coverage, documented M/SI is extrapolated to
  produce whole-fishery estimates. Associated CVs are not presented here; please refer to relevant SARs for more
  information. Some species have zero M/SI for 2007-11, but remain listed on that fishery's current list of
  marine mammal species/stocks injured/killed due to older interactions.
\4\ Where there are no documented incidents of M/SI incidental to relevant commercial fisheries, this is not
  applicable.

    Information related to incidental M/SI in relevant commercial 
fisheries is not, however, the sole determinant of whether it may be 
appropriate to authorize M/SI + Level A incidental to NEFSC survey 
operations. A number of factors (e.g., species-specific knowledge 
regarding animal behavior, overall abundance in the geographic region, 
density relative to NEFSC survey effort, feeding ecology, propensity to 
travel in groups commonly associated with other species historically 
taken) were taken into account by the NEFSC to determine whether a 
species may have a similar vulnerability to certain types of gear as 
historically taken species. In some cases, we have determined that 
species without documented M/SI may nevertheless be vulnerable to 
capture in NEFSC research gear. Similarly, we have determined that some 
species groups with documented M/SI are not likely to be vulnerable to 
capture in NEFSC gear. In these instances, we provide further 
explanation later in this document. Those species with no records of 
historical interaction with NEFSC research gear and no documented M/SI 
in relevant commercial fisheries, and for which the NEFSC has not 
requested the authorization of incidental take, are not considered 
further in this section. The NEFSC believes generally that any sex or 
age class of those species for which take authorization is requested 
could be captured.
    Non-historical interactions--In addition to those species the NEFSC 
has directly interacted with research fishing gear over the 11-year 
period (2004-2015), the NEFSC believes it is appropriate to include 
estimates for future incidental takes of a number of species that have 
not been taken historically but inhabit the same areas and show similar 
types of behaviors and vulnerabilities to such gear as the 
``reference'' species taken in the past. The NEFSC believes the 
potential for take of these other ``analogous'' species would be low 
and would occur rarely, if at all, based on lack of takes over the past 
11 years.
    We note that prior takes in the cooperative research fishery are 
assigned to the respective fishery; therefore the NEFSC did not 
consider those types of take in formulating the requested 
authorization. The NEFSC only estimated takes for NEFSC gear that: (1) 
Had a prior take in the historical record, or (2) by analogy to 
commercial fishing gear. Further, given the rare events of M/SI in 
NEFSC fishery research, the NEFSC binned gear into categories (e.g., 
trawls) rather than partitioning take by gear, as it would result in 
estimated takes that far exceed the recorded take history.
    Vulnerability of analogous species to different gear types is 
informed by the record of interactions by the analogous and reference 
species with commercial fisheries using gear types similar to those 
used in research. Furthermore, when determining the amount of take 
requested, we make a distinction between analogous species thought to 
have the same vulnerability for incidental take as the reference 
species and those analogous species that may have a similar 
vulnerability. In those cases thought to have the same vulnerability, 
the request is for the same number per year as the reference

[[Page 39587]]

species. In those cases thought to have similar vulnerability, the 
request is less than the reference species. For example, the NEFSC 
believes the vulnerability of harbor seals to be taken in gillnets is 
the same as for gray seals (one per year) and thus requests one harbor 
seal per year (total of 5 over the authorization period). 
Alternatively, the potential for take of Atlantic white-sided dolphins 
in gillnets is expected to be similar to harbor porpoise (one per year) 
and the reduced request relative to this reference species is one 
Atlantic white sided dolphin over the entire five-year authorization 
period.
    The approach outlined here reflects: (1) Concern that some species 
with which we have not had historical interactions may interact with 
these gears, (2) acknowledgment of variation between sets, and (3) 
understanding that many marine mammals are not solitary so if a set 
results in take, the take could be greater than one animal. In these 
particular instances, the NEFSC estimates the take of these species to 
be equal to the maximum interactions per any given set of a reference 
species historically taken during 2004-2015.
    Trawls--To estimate the requested taking of analogous species, the 
NEFSC identified several species in the western North Atlantic Ocean 
which may have similar vulnerability to research-based trawls as the 
short-beaked common dolphin. The maximum take of short-beaked common 
dolphin was two individuals in one trawl set in 2004. Therefore, on the 
basis of similar vulnerability, the NEFSC estimates two potential takes 
over the five year authorization period for each of the following 
species in trawls: Risso's dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin (offshore 
and both northern and southern coastal migratory stocks), Atlantic-
white-sided dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, 
and harbor porpoise. For these species, we propose to authorize a total 
taking by M/SI + Level A of two individuals over the five-year timespan 
(see Table 11).
    Other dolphin species may have similar vulnerabilities as those 
listed above but because of the timing and location of NEFSC research 
activities, the NEFSC concluded that the likelihood for take of these 
species was low (see Tables 8, 9, and 10). Those species include: 
Pantropical spotted dolphin, striped dolphin, Fraser's dolphin, rough-
toothed dolphin, Clymene dolphin, and spinner dolphin.
    Two pinniped species may be taken in commercial fisheries analogous 
to NEFSC research trawl activities. In general, the NEFSC deems these 
species as less susceptible to incidental take in NEFSC trawl 
activities due to the seasonal timing and low frequency of this 
research as well as the higher distribution of the pinniped species 
near shore when compared to the more offshore distribution of NEFSC 
trawl activities. Therefore, NEFSC requests one potential take each of 
gray and harbor seals in trawls over the LOA authorization period. For 
these pinniped species, we propose to authorize a total taking by M/SI 
+ Level A of one individual over the five-year timespan (see Table 11).
    Gillnets--To estimate the requested take of analogous species for 
gillnets, the NEFSC identified several species in the western North 
Atlantic Ocean which may have similar vulnerability to research-based 
gillnet surveys as the short-beaked common dolphin--due to similar 
behaviors and distributions in the survey areas.
    Gillnet surveys typically occur nearshore in bays and estuaries. 
One gray seal and one harbor porpoise were caught during a Northeast 
Fisheries Observer Program training gillnet survey. The NEFSC believes 
that harbor seals have the same vulnerability to be taken in gillnets 
as gray seals and therefore estimates five takes of harbor seals in 
gillnets over the five-year authorization period. For this species, we 
propose to authorize a total taking by M/SI + Level A of five 
individuals over the five-year timespan (see Table 11).
    Likewise, the NEFSC believes that Atlantic white-sided dolphins and 
short-beaked common dolphins have a similar vulnerability to be taken 
in gillnets as harbor porpoise and bottlenose dolphins (Waring et al., 
2014) and estimates one take each of Atlantic white-sided dolphin and 
short-beaked common dolphin in gillnet gear over the five-year 
authorization period. For this species, we propose to authorize a total 
taking by M/SI + Level A of one individual over the five-year timespan 
(see Table 11).
    In 2008, the COASTSPAN gillnet survey caught and killed one common 
bottlenose dolphin while a cooperating institution was conducting the 
survey in South Carolina. This was the only occurrence of incidental 
take in these surveys. The NEFSC is not requesting any bottlenose 
dolphin takes from the Northern South Carolina Estuarine System stock. 
Further, because of limited survey effort in estuarine waters, the 
NEFSC considers there to be a remote chance of incidentally taking a 
bottlenose dolphin from the estuarine stocks. Thus, the NEFSC is not 
requesting take for the estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphins for the 
COASTPAN longline and gillnet surveys. However, in the future, if there 
is a bottlenose dolphin take from the estuarine stocks as confirmed by 
genetic sampling, the NEFSC will reconsider its take request in 
consultation and coordination with the NMFS Office of Protected 
Resources and the Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team.
    Fyke nets--For fyke nets, the NEFSC believes that gray seals have a 
similar vulnerability for incidental take as harbor seals which 
interacted once in a single fyke net set during the past 11 years. For 
the period of this authorization, the NEFSC estimates one take by fyke 
net for gray seals over the five-year authorization period. Thus, for 
gray seals, we propose to authorize a total taking by M/SI + Level A of 
one individual over the five-year timespan (see Table 11).
    Longlines--While the NEFSC has not historically interacted with 
large whales or other cetaceans in its longline gear, it is well 
documented that some of these species are taken in commercial longline 
fisheries. The 2015 List of Fisheries classifies commercial fisheries 
based on prior interactions with marine mammals. Although the NEFSC 
used this information to help make an informed decision on the 
probability of specific cetacean and large whale interactions with 
longline gear, many other factors were also taken into account (e.g., 
relative survey effort, survey location, similarity in gear type, 
animal behavior, prior history of NEFSC interactions with longline 
gear, etc.). Therefore, there are several species that have been shown 
to interact with commercial longline fisheries but for which the NEFSC 
is not requesting take. For example, the NEFSC is not requesting take 
of large whales, long-finned pilot whales, and short-finned pilot 
whales in longline gear. Although these species could become entangled 
in longline gear, the probability of interaction with NEFSC longline 
gear is extremely low considering a low level of survey effort relative 
to that of commercial fisheries, the short length of the mainline, and 
low numbers of hooks used. Based on the amount of fish caught by 
commercial fisheries versus NEFSC fisheries research, the ``footprint'' 
of research effort compared to commercial fisheries is very small. The 
NEFSC considered previously caught species (as outlined in the 2015 
List of Fisheries, see Tables 8, 9, and 10) in analogous commercial 
fisheries to have a higher probability of take; however, all were not 
included for potential take by the NEFSC. Additionally, marine mammals 
have

[[Page 39588]]

never been caught or entangled in NEFSC longline gear; if interactions 
occur marine mammals depredate caught fish from the gear but leave the 
hooks attached and unaltered. They have never been hooked nor had hooks 
taken off gear during depredation. However, such gear could be 
considered analogous to potential commercial longline surveys that may 
be conducted elsewhere (e.g., Garrison, 2007; Roche et al. 2007; 
Straley et al., 2014). Given the potential for interactions, NEFSC 
estimates one take over the five-year authorization period of the 
following cetaceans in longline gear: Risso's dolphin, common 
bottlenose dolphin (offshore and both northern and southern coastal 
migratory stocks), and short-beaked common dolphins. For these species, 
we propose to authorize a total taking by M/SI + Level A of one 
individual over the five-year timespan (see Table 11).
    It is also possible that researchers may not be able to identify a 
captured animal to the species level with certainty. Certain pinnipeds 
and small cetaceans are difficult to differentiate at sea, especially 
in low-light situations or when a quick release is necessary. For 
example, a captured delphinid that is struggling in the net may escape 
or be freed before positive identification is made. Therefore, the 
NEFSC has requested the authorization of incidental M/SI + Level A for 
an unidentified delphinid by trawl (1 individual), gillnet (1 
individual), and longline (1 individual) gears over the course of the 
five-year period of the proposed authorization. Similarly, the NEFSC 
has requested the authorization of incidental M/SI + Level A for an 
unidentified pinniped by fyke net (1 individual), gillnet (1 
individual), and longline (1 individual) gears.

    Table 11--Total Estimated M/SI + Level A Due to Gear Interaction in the Atlantic Coast Region, 2015-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Est. 5-    Est. 5-    Est. 5-
                                                            Est. 5-      year       year       year
                         Species                              year      total,     total,     total,     Total,
                                                             total,    gillnet    longline   fyke net  all gears
                                                           trawl \1\     \1\        \1\        \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minke whale..............................................          5          0          0          0          5
Risso's dolphin..........................................          2          0          1          0          3
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.............................          2          1          0          0          3
White-beaked dolphin.....................................          2          0          0          0          2
Short-beaked common dolphin..............................          5          1          1          0          7
Atlantic spotted dolphin.................................          2          0          0          0          2
Common bottlenose dolphin (WNA offshore stock) \2\.......          2          5          1          0          8
Common bottlenose dolphin (WNA N. Migratory stock) \2\...          2          5          1          0          8
Common bottlenose dolphin (WNA S. Migratory stock) \2\...          2          5          1          0          8
Harbor porpoise..........................................          2          5          0          0          7
Unidentified delphinid...................................          1          1          1          0          3
Harbor seal..............................................          1          5          0          5         11
Gray seal................................................          1          5          0          1          7
Unidentified pinniped....................................          0          1          1          1          3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please see preceding text for derivation of take estimates.
\2\ The NEFSC is not requesting takes for the estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphins for the COASTPAN longline
  and gillnet surveys.

Estimated Take Due to Acoustic Harassment

    As described previously (``Potential Effects of the Specified 
Activity on Marine Mammals''), we believe that NEFSC's use of active 
acoustic sources has, at most, the potential to cause Level B 
harassment of marine mammals. In order to attempt to quantify the 
potential for Level B harassment to occur, NMFS (including the NEFSC 
and acoustics experts from other parts of NMFS) developed an analytical 
framework considering characteristics of the active acoustic systems 
described previously under ``Description of Active Acoustic Sound 
Sources,'' their expected patterns of use in the NEFSC operational 
areas in the Atlantic coast region, and characteristics of the marine 
mammal species that may interact with them. We believe that this 
quantitative assessment benefits from its simplicity and consistency 
with current NMFS acoustic guidance regarding Level B harassment but 
caution that, based on a number of deliberately precautionary 
assumptions, the resulting take estimates should be seen as a likely 
substantial overestimate of the potential for behavioral harassment to 
occur as a result of the operation of these systems. Additional details 
on the approach used and the assumptions made that result in 
conservative estimates are described later.
    The assessment paradigm for active acoustic sources used in NEFSC 
fisheries research is relatively straightforward and has a number of 
key simplifying assumptions. NMFS' current acoustic guidance requires 
in most cases that we assume Level B harassment occurs when a marine 
mammal receives an acoustic signal at or above a simple step-function 
threshold. For use of these active acoustic systems, the current 
threshold is 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for Level B harassment. 
Estimating the number of exposures at the 160-dB received level 
requires several determinations, each of which is described 
sequentially here:
    (1) A detailed characterization of the acoustic characteristics of 
the effective sound source or sources in operation;
    (2) The operational areas exposed to levels at or above those 
associated with Level B harassment when these sources are in operation;
    (3) A method for quantifying the resulting sound fields around 
these sources; and
    (4) An estimate of the average density for marine mammal species in 
each area of operation.
    Quantifying the spatial and temporal dimension of the sound 
exposure footprint (or ``swath width'') of the active acoustic devices 
in operation on moving vessels and their relationship to the average 
density of marine mammals enables a quantitative estimate of the number 
of individuals for which sound levels exceed the relevant threshold for 
each area. The number of potential incidents of Level B harassment is 
ultimately estimated as the product of the volume of water ensonified 
at 160 dB rms or higher and the volumetric density of animals 
determined from simple assumptions about their vertical stratification 
in the water column. Specifically, reasonable assumptions based on what 
is known about diving behavior across different marine mammal species 
were made to segregate those that predominately remain in the

[[Page 39589]]

upper 200 m of the water column versus those that regularly dive deeper 
during foraging and transit. We describe the methods for estimating 
each of these calculations in greater detail in the following sections, 
along with the simplifying assumptions made, and followed by the take 
estimates for the proposed research surveys in the Atlantic coast 
region.
    Sound source characteristics--The NEFSC conducted an initial 
characterization of the general source parameters for the primary 
active acoustic sources during survey operations, thus, enabling a full 
assessment of all sound sources used by the NEFSC and delineation of 
Category 1 and Category 2 sources (see Table 2) the latter of which are 
carried forward for additional analyses presented here. This auditing 
of the active acoustic sources also enabled a determination of the 
predominant sources that, when operated, would have sound footprints 
exceeding those from any other simultaneously used sources. These 
sources were effectively those used directly in acoustic propagation 
modeling to estimate the zones within which the 160 dB rms received 
level would occur.
    Many of these sources can be operated in different modes and with 
different output parameters. In modeling their potential impact areas, 
those features among those given previously in Table 2 (e.g., lowest 
operating frequency) that would lead to the most precautionary estimate 
of maximum received level ranges (i.e., largest ensonified area) were 
used. The effective beam patterns took into account the normal modes in 
which these sources are typically operated. While these signals are 
brief and intermittent, a conservative assumption was taken in ignoring 
the temporal pattern of transmitted pulses in calculating Level B 
harassment events. Operating characteristics of each of the predominant 
sound sources were used in the calculation of effective line-kilometers 
and area of exposure for each source in each survey.
    Among the eight Category 2 sources identified in Table 2, the NEFSC 
identified six predominant sources (Table 12) as having the largest 
potential impact zones during operations, based on their relatively 
lower output frequency, higher output power, and their operational 
pattern of use.

   Table 12--Effective Exposure Areas for Predominant Acoustic Sources
                         Across Two Depth Strata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Effective
                                        Effective        exposure area:
                                      exposure area:     sea surface to
      Active acoustic system          sea surface to     depth at which
                                       200 m depth      160-dB threshold
                                         (km\2\)           is reached
                                                            (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simrad EK60 (surrogate for ES60)               0.0142             0.1411
 narrow beam echosounder..........
Simrad ME70 multibeam echosounder.             0.0201             0.0201
Teledyne RD Instruments ADCP,                  0.0144             0.0303
 Ocean Surveyor...................
Raymarine SS260 transducer for                 0.0004             0.0004
 DSM300 (surrogate for FCV-292)...
Simrad EQ50.......................             0.0142             0.1411
NetMind...........................             0.0201             0.0201
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NEFSC estimated the effective cross-sectional areas of exposure 
for each of the six predominant sources using a commercial software 
package (MATLAB) and key input parameters including source-specific 
operational characteristics (i.e., frequency, beamwidth, source level, 
tilt angle, and horizontal and vertical resolution; see Table 2) and 
environmental characteristics (i.e., depth for attenuation coefficient, 
temperature, salinity, pH, and latitude). Where relevant, the NEFSC 
performed calculations for different notional operational scenarios, 
and the largest cross-sectional area used in estimating take. For 
example, the EK60 cross-sectional area was calculated for (a) a simple 
cone at 3 dB points; (b) a rectangle derived from strip width times 
depth; and (c) integration of the nominal beam pattern, which assumes 
side lobes of ensonification (and which is displayed in Figure 6-2 of 
the NEFSC's PEA).
    Calculating effective line-kilometers--In determining the effective 
line-kilometers for each of these predominant sources, the operational 
patterns of use relative to one another were further applied to 
determine which source was the predominant one operating at any point 
in time for each survey. When multiple sound sources are used 
simultaneously, the one with the largest potential impact zone in each 
relevant depth strata is considered for use in estimating exposures. 
For example, when species (e.g., sperm whales) regularly dive deeper 
than 200 m, the largest potential impact zone was calculated for both 
depth strata and in some cases resulted in a different source being 
predominant in one depth stratum or the other. This enabled a more 
comprehensive way of accounting for maximum exposures for animals 
diving in a complex sound field resulting from simultaneous sources 
with different spatial profiles. This overall process effectively 
resulted in three sound sources (i.e., the EK60, ME70, and DSM300) 
comprising the total effective line-kilometers, their relative 
proportions depending on the nature of each survey in each region.
    Based on the operating parameters for each source type, the NEFSC 
determined an estimated volume of water ensonified at or above the 160 
dB rms threshold. In all cases where multiple sources are operated 
simultaneously, the one with the largest estimated acoustic footprint 
was considered to be the effective source. This was calculated for each 
depth stratum (0-200 m and > 200m), where appropriate (i.e. in the 
Atlantic coast region, where depth is generally less than 200 m, only 
the exposure area for the 0-200 m depth strata was calculated). In some 
cases, this resulted in different sources being predominant in each 
depth stratum for all line km when multiple sources were in operation; 
this was accounted for in estimating overall exposures for species that 
utilize both depth strata (deep divers). For each ecosystem area, the 
total number of line km that would be surveyed was determined, as was 
the relative percentage of surveyed linear km associated with each 
source type. The total line-kilometers for each vessel, the effective 
percentages associated with each of the resulting three predominant 
source types (EK60, ME70, and DSM300), and the effective total line-
kilometers of operation for each source type follow in Tables 13, 14, 
and 15.

[[Page 39590]]



    Table 13--Annual Linear Survey km for Each Vessel Type and Its Predominant Sources Within the 0-200 m Depth Stratum for the Atlantic Coast Region
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   % Time      Line km/
                                                                           Line km/                                 Overall %      source      dominant
                  Vessel                             Survey(s)              vessel               Source               source    dominant (0-  source (0-
                                                                                                                      usage        200 m)       200 m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R/V H.B. Bigelow.........................  BTS, Spring ECOMon..........        27303  ES60.......................          100            5      1365.15
                                                                                      ME70.......................          100  ...........  ...........
                                                                                      ADCP.......................           95           95     25937.85
                                                                         ...........  Doppler Spd log............           95  ...........  ...........
                                                                         ...........  Doppler Spd log............           25  ...........  ...........
                                           Marine mammal Pop-up           913 <200 m  EK60.......................            2            2        18.26
                                            retrieval.
                                           Marine mammal abundance.....         1700  EK60.......................           50           50          850
R/VG. Michelle...........................  Mass DMF Inshore Spring &            8000  DSM300.....................          100          100         8000
                                            Fall Bottom Trawl Survey.
R/V Pisces...............................  Gulf of Maine Northern               6000  DSM300.....................          100          100         6000
                                            Shrimp Survey.
                                           Pelagics....................         4773  EK60.......................          100            5       238.65
                                                                                      ES60.......................          100  ...........  ...........
                                                                                      ME70.......................           95           95      4534.35
                                                                         ...........  ADCP.......................           95  ...........  ...........
                                                                         ...........  Doppler Spd log............           25  ...........  ...........
                                           Atlantic Herring............         8300  EK60.......................          100           25         2075
                                                                                      ME70.......................           75           75         6225
                                                                                      ADCP.......................          100  ...........  ...........
R/V G. Gunter............................  LMRCSC......................         2880  EK60.......................          100          100         2880
                                                                                      Simrad EQ50................          100  ...........  ...........
                                           Pelagics....................         9500  EK60.......................          100          100         9500
                                                                         ...........  Simrad EQ50................          100  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 14--Annual Linear Survey km for Each Vessel Type and Its Predominant Sources Within the Two Depth Strata for the Offshore (200 m water
                                                                     depth) Habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         % Time       % Time      Line km/     Line km/
                                                         Line km/                         Overall %      source       source      dominant     dominant
             Vessel                    Survey(s)          vessel           Source           source    dominant (0-   dominant    source (0-     source
                                                                                            usage        200 m)      (>200 m)      200 m)      (>200 m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R/V H.B. Bigelow................  Deepwater corals/           4808  EK60...............          100            5          100        240.4         4808
                                   habitat.                         ES60...............          100  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                                    ME70...............           95           95            0       4567.6  ...........
                                                       ...........  ADCP...............           95  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                       ...........  Doppler Spd log....           25  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                  Marine Mammal               3359  EK60...............           50           50           50       1679.5       1679.5
                                   Abundance.
R/V Pisces......................  Deepwater                   2328  EK60...............          100           75          100         1746         2328
                                   Biodiversity.                    ES60...............            5  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                       ...........  ME70...............           25           25            0          582  ...........
                                                       ...........  ADCP...............          100  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                       ...........  Doppler Spd log....          100  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 15--Effective Total Annual Survey Kilometers for Which Each Source Type Is the Predominant Acoustic Source
                                             Within Two Depth Strata
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Summed  dominant
                                       Summed line km/    Summed line km/   source % of total   Summed  dominant
               Source                  source (0-200 m)   source (>200 m)    line km  (0-200   source % of total
                                                                                    m)         line km  (>200 m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Atlantic Coast Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EK60................................              16927                 NA                 25                 NA
ME70................................              36697                 NA                 54                 NA
DSM300..............................              14000                 NA                 21                 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Offshore Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EK60................................               3666               8816                 42                100
ME70................................               5150                  0                 58                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 39591]]

    Calculating volume of water ensonified--The cross-sectional area of 
water ensonified at or above the 160 dB rms threshold was calculated 
using a simple model of sound propagation loss, which accounts for the 
loss of sound energy over increasing range. The NEFSC used a spherical 
spreading model (where propagation loss = 20 * log [range]; such that 
there would be a 6-dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of 
distance from the source (i.e., 60 dB of attenuation over 1,000 m), a 
reasonable approximation over the relatively short ranges involved, and 
accounted for the frequency-dependent absorption coefficient and beam 
pattern of these sound sources, which is generally highly directional. 
The lowest frequency was used for systems that are operated over a 
range of frequencies. The vertical extent of this area is calculated 
for two depth strata (0-200 m and surface to range at which the on-axis 
received level reaches 160 dB rms). A simple visualization of a two-
dimensional slice of modeled sound propagation is shown in Figure 6-2 
of NEFSC's application to illustrate the predicted area ensonified to 
the 160-dB threshold by an EK60 operated at 18 kHz. The NEFSC 
differentially applied these results based on the typical vertical 
stratification of marine mammals.
    Following the determination of effective sound exposure area for 
transmissions considered in two dimensions, the next step was to 
determine the effective volume of water ensonified at or above 160 dB 
rms for the entirety of each survey in each region. For each of the 
three predominant sound sources, the volume of water ensonified is 
estimated as the athwartship cross-sectional area (in square 
kilometers) of sound at or above 160 dB rms (as illustrated in Figure 
6-2 of the NEFSC's application) multiplied by the total distance 
traveled by the ship.
    Where different sources operating simultaneously would be 
predominant in each different depth strata (e.g., ME70 and EK60 
operating simultaneously may be predominant in the shallow stratum and 
deep stratum, respectively), the resulting cross-sectional area 
calculated took this into account. Specifically, for shallow-diving 
species this cross-sectional area was determined for whichever was 
predominant in the shallow stratum, whereas for deeper-diving species 
this area was calculated from the combined effects of the predominant 
source in the shallow stratum and the (sometimes different) source 
predominating in the deep stratum. This creates an effective total 
volume characterizing the area ensonified when each predominant source 
is operated and accounts for the fact that deeper-diving species may 
encounter a complex sound field in different portions of the water 
column.
    Marine mammal densities--One of the primary limitations to 
traditional estimates of behavioral harassment from acoustic exposure 
is the assumption that animals are uniformly distributed in time and 
space across very large geographical areas, such as those being 
considered here. There is ample evidence that this is in fact not the 
case and marine species are highly heterogeneous in terms of their 
spatial distribution, largely as a result of species-typical 
utilization of heterogeneous ecosystem features. Some more 
sophisticated modeling efforts have attempted to include species-
typical behavioral patterns and diving parameters in movement models 
that more adequately assess the spatial and temporal aspects of 
distribution and thus exposure to sound (e.g., Navy, 2013). While 
simulated movement models were not used to mimic individual diving or 
aggregation parameters in the determination of animal density in this 
estimation, the vertical stratification of marine mammals based on 
known or reasonably assumed diving behavior was integrated into the 
density estimates used.
    First, typical two-dimensional marine mammal density estimates 
(animals/km\2\) were obtained from various sources for each ecosystem 
area. These were estimated from marine mammal Stock Assessment Reports 
for the western North Atlantic (Waring et al., 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014). 
However, there are a number of caveats associated with these estimates:
    (1) They are often calculated using visual sighting data collected 
during one season rather than throughout the year. The time of year 
when data were collected and from which densities were estimated may 
not always overlap with the timing of NEFSC fisheries surveys (detailed 
previously in ``Detailed Description of Activities'').
    (2) The densities used for purposes of estimating acoustic 
exposures do not take into account the patchy distributions of marine 
mammals in an ecosystem, at least on the moderate to fine scales over 
which they are known to occur. Instead, animals are considered evenly 
distributed throughout the assessed area and seasonal movement patterns 
are not taken into account.
    In addition, and to account for at least some coarse differences in 
marine mammal diving behavior and the effect this has on their likely 
exposure to these kinds of often highly directional sound sources, a 
volumetric density of marine mammals of each species was determined. 
This value is estimated as the abundance averaged over the two-
dimensional geographic area of the surveys and the vertical range of 
typical habitat for the population. Habitat ranges were categorized in 
two generalized depth strata (0-200 m and 0 to greater than 200 m) 
based on gross differences between known generally surface-associated 
and typically deep-diving marine mammals (e.g., Reynolds and Rommel, 
1999; Perrin et al., 2009). Animals in the shallow-diving stratum were 
assumed, on the basis of empirical measurements of diving with 
monitoring tags and reasonable assumptions of behavior based on other 
indicators, to spend a large majority of their lives (i.e., greater 
than 75 percent) at depths shallower than 200 m. Their volumetric 
density and thus exposure to sound is therefore limited by this depth 
boundary. In contrast, species in the deeper-diving stratum were 
assumed to regularly dive deeper than 200 m and spend significant time 
at these greater depths. Their volumetric density and thus potential 
exposure to sound at or above the 160 dB rms threshold is extended from 
the surface to the depth at which this received level condition occurs 
(e.g., the Atlantic coast region was generally considered to be 
comprised of water no deeper than 200 m).
    The volumetric densities are estimates of the three-dimensional 
distribution of animals in their typical depth strata. For shallow-
diving species the volumetric density is the area density divided by 
0.2 km (i.e., 200 m). For deeper diving species, the volumetric density 
is the area density divided by a nominal value of 0.5 km (i.e., 500 m), 
or the depth of the region of interest (e.g., in the LME area density 
for deep diving species was divided by 0.2km to reflect the depth of 
the region). Table 17 shows the two-dimensional and resulting three-
dimensional (volumetric) densities for each species in the Atlantic 
coast region and adjacent offshore waters.

[[Page 39592]]



    Table 16--Volumetric Densities for Each Species in the Atlantic Coast Region and Adjacent Offshore Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Typical depth
                                    strata                                        Atlantic coast   Offshore area
                             -------------------- Atlantic coast   Offshore area      region        volumetric
           Species                       >200 m   region density    density (#/     volumetric      density (#/
                               0-200 m    (deep      (#/km\2\)        km\2\)        density (#/       km\3\)
                                         divers)                                      km\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale..        X   ........          0.0018               0         0.00900         0.00000
Humpback whale..............        X   ........          0.0009          0.0006         0.00450         0.00300
Fin whale...................        X   ........          0.0036          0.0007         0.01800         0.00350
Sei whale...................        X   ........          0.0027         0.00004         0.01350         0.00020
Minke whale.................        X   ........          0.0066               0         0.03300         0.00000
Blue whale..................        X   ........               0          0.0026         0.00000         0.01300
Sperm whale.................  ........        X          0.00001          0.0152         0.00005         0.03040
Dwarf sperm whale...........  ........        X          0.00002           0.002         0.00010         0.00400
Pygmy sperm whale...........  ........        X          0.00002           0.002         0.00010         0.00400
Killer Whale................        X   ........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Pygmy killer whale..........        X   ........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Northern bottle-nose whale..  ........        X                0          0.0017         0.00000         0.00340
Cuvier's beaked whale.......  ........        X           0.0021          0.0156         0.01050         0.03120
Mesoplodon beaked whales....  ........        X           0.0021          0.0156         0.01050         0.03120
Melon-headed whale..........        X   ........  ..............  ..............         0.00000         0.00000
Risso's dolphin.............        X   ........          0.0022          0.0844         0.01100         0.42200
Long-finned pilot whale.....  ........        X           0.0345          0.0256         0.17250         0.05120
Short-finned pilot whale....  ........        X           0.0345          0.0256         0.17250         0.05120
Atlantic white-sided dolphin        X   ........          0.0244               0         0.12200         0.00000
White-beaked dolphin........        X   ........          0.0081               0         0.04050         0.00000
Short-beaked common dolphin.        X   ........          0.2115          0.1875         1.05750         0.93750
Atlantic spotted dolphin....        X   ........               0          0.0208         0.00000         0.10400
Pantropical spotted dolphin.        X   ........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Striped dolphin.............        X   ........               0          0.3028         0.00000         1.51400
Fraser's dolphin............        X   ........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Rough toothed dolphin.......        X   ........               0          0.0016         0.00000         0.00800
Clymene dolphin.............        X   ........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Spinner dolphin.............  ........        X   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Common bottle-nose dophin           X   ........          0.0060          0.0526         0.03000         0.26300
 (offshore).................
Common bottle-nose dolphin          X   ........          0.1033               0         0.51650         0.00000
 (coastal)..................
Harbor Porpoise.............        X   ........          0.0193               0         0.09650         0.00000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal.................        X   ........          0.2844  ..............         1.42200         0.00000
Gray Seal...................        X   ........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Harp Seal...................        X   ........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
Hooded Seal.................        X   ........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using area of ensonification and volumetric density to estimate 
exposures--Estimates of potential incidents of Level B harassment 
(i.e., potential exposure to levels of sound at or exceeding the 160 dB 
rms threshold) are then calculated for the Atlantic coast region and 
adjacent offshore areas by using: (1) The combined results from output 
characteristics of each source and identification of the predominant 
sources in terms of acoustic output (Tables 2 and 12); (2) their 
relative annual usage patterns for each depth stratum (Tables 13, 14, 
and 15); (3) a source-specific determination made of the area of water 
associated with received sounds at either the extent of a depth 
boundary or the 160 dB rms received sound level; and (4) determination 
of a biologically-relevant volumetric density of marine mammal species 
in each area (Table 16).
    Estimates of Level B harassment by acoustic sources are the product 
of the volume of water ensonified at 160 dB rms or higher for the 
predominant sound source for each portion of the total line-kilometers 
for which it is used and the volumetric density of animals for each 
species. We will present the annual take estimates later in this 
document.
    For each species and sound source, the cross sectional area for the 
relevant depth strata (Tables 13, 14, and 15) was multiplied by the 
effective line km for each respective depth strata for the relevant 
survey area and the volumetric density to estimate Level B harassment.
    To illustrate the process, we focus on the EK60 and the North 
Atlantic right whale.
    (1) EK60 ensonified volume; 0-200 m: 0.0142 km\2\ * 16,927 km = 
240.36 km\3\
    (2) Estimated exposures to sound >= 160 dB rms; North Atlantic 
right whale; EK60: (0.009 North Atlantic right whales/km\3\ * 240.36 
km\3\ = 2.1 [rounded to 2]) = 2 estimated North Atlantic right whale 
exposures to SPLs >= 160 dB rms resulting from use of the EK60 in the 
0-200 m depth stratum.

[[Page 39593]]



    Table 17--Densities and Estimated Source-, Stratum-, and Species-Specific Annual Estimates of Level B Harassment in the Atlantic Coast Region and
                                                                Adjacent Offshore Waters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Estimated Level B harassment (#s of animals)      Estimated
                                                                                      in 0-200m depth stratum                 Level B
                                                            Volumetric   ------------------------------------------------  harassment in
                         Species                            density (#/                                                     >200m depth        Total
                                                              km\3\)                                                          stratum
                                                                               EK60            ME70           DSM300     ----------------
                                                                                                                               EK60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Atlantic Coast Region Cetaceans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale..............................           0.009               2               7               2              NA              11
Humpback whale..........................................          0.0045               1               3               1              NA               5
Fin whale...............................................           0.018               4              13               4              NA              21
Sei whale...............................................          0.0135               3              10               3              NA              16
Minke whale.............................................           0.033               8              24               7              NA              39
Blue whale..............................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Sperm whale.............................................         0.00005               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Dwarf sperm whale.......................................          0.0001               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Pygmy sperm whale.......................................          0.0001               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Killer Whale............................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Pygmy killer whale......................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Northern bottlenose whale...............................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Cuvier's beaked whale...................................          0.0105               3               8               2              NA              13
Mesoplodon beaked whales................................          0.0105               3               8               2              NA              13
Melon-headed whale......................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Risso's dolphin.........................................           0.011               3               8               2              NA              13
Long-finned pilot whale.................................          0.1725              41             127              35              NA             203
Short-finned pilot whale................................          0.1725              41             127              35              NA             203
Atlantic white-sided dolphin............................           0.122              29              90              25              NA             144
White-beaked dolphin....................................          0.0405              10              30               8              NA              48
Short-beaked common dolphin.............................          1.0575             254             780             213              NA            1247
Atlantic spotted dolphin................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Pantropical spotted dolphin.............................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Striped dolphin.........................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Fraser's dolphin........................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Rough toothed dolphin...................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Clymene dolphin.........................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Spinner dolphin.........................................               0               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Common bottlenose dolphin (offshore)....................          0.0300               7              22               6              NA              35
Common bottlenose dolphin (coastal).....................          0.5165             124             381             104              NA             609
Harbor Porpoise.........................................          0.0965              23              71              19              NA             113
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Atlantic Coast Region Pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor Seal.............................................           1.422             342            1049             287              NA            1678
Gray Seal...............................................         0.00000               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Harp Seal...............................................         0.00000               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
Hooded Seal.............................................         0.00000               0               0               0              NA          \1\ 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Offshore Area Cetaceans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale..............................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Humpback whale..........................................           0.003               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Fin whale...............................................           0.004               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Sei whale...............................................          0.0002               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Minke whale.............................................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Blue whale..............................................           0.013               1               1               0               0               2
Sperm whale.............................................          0.0304               2               3               0              14              19
Dwarf sperm whale.......................................           0.004               0               0               0               2               2
Pygmy sperm whale.......................................           0.004               0               0               0               2               2
Killer Whale............................................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Pygmy killer whale......................................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Northern bottlenose whale...............................          0.0034               0               0               0               2               2
Cuvier's beaked whale...................................          0.0312               2               3  ..............              15              20
Mesoplodon beaked whales................................          0.0312               2               3               0              15              20
Melon-headed whale......................................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Risso's dolphin.........................................           0.422              22              44               0               0              66
Long-finned pilot whale.................................          0.0512               3               5               0              24              32
Short-finned pilot whale................................          0.0512               3               5               0              24              32
Atlantic white-sided dolphin............................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
White-beaked dolphin....................................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Short-beaked common dolphin.............................          0.9375              49              97               0               0             146
Atlantic spotted dolphin................................           0.104               5              11               0               0              16
Pantropical spotted dolphin.............................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10

[[Page 39594]]

 
Striped dolphin.........................................           1.514              79             157               0               0             236
Fraser's dolphin........................................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Rough toothed dolphin...................................           0.008               0               1               0               0               1
Clymene dolphin.........................................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Spinner dolphin.........................................               0               0               0               0               0          \1\ 10
Common bottlenose dolphin (offshore)....................          0.2630              14              27               0               0              41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For all species with unknown or very low volumetric density, i.e., <=0.004 animals per km3, or for species unlikely to be impacted by the
  predominant acoustic sources outlined above, the NEFSC requested a precautionary Level B Harassment take of 10 individuals. The number chosen is
  indicative of the very low probability of sighting or interaction with these species during most research cruises with the active acoustic instruments
  used in NEFSC research.

Estimated Take Due to Physical Disturbance

    Estimated take due to physical disturbance could potentially occur 
in the Penobscot River Estuary as a result of the unintentional 
approach of NEFSC vessels to pinnipeds hauled out on ledges. This would 
result in no greater than Level B harassment.
    The NEFSC uses four gear types (fyke nets, beach seine, rotary 
screw traps, and Mamou shrimp trawl) to monitor fish communities in the 
Penobscot River Estuary. The NEFSC conducts the annual surveys over 
specific sampling periods which could use any gear type: Mamou trawling 
is conducted year-round; fyke net and beach seine surveys are conducted 
April-November, and rotary screw trap surveys from April-June.
    We anticipate that trawl, fyke net, and beach seine surveys may 
disturb harbor seals and gray seals hauled out on tidal ledges. The 
NEFSC conducts these surveys in upper Penobscot Bay above Fort Point 
Ledge where there is only one minor seal ledge (Odum Ledge) used by 
approximately 50 harbor seals (i.e., based on a June 2001 survey). 
Although one cannot assume that the number of seals using this region 
is stable over the April-November survey period; it is likely lower in 
spring and autumn.
    There were no observations of gray seals in the 2001 survey, but 
recent anecdotal information suggests that a few gray seals may share 
the haulout site. These fisheries research activities do not entail 
intentional approaches to seals on ledges (i.e., boats avoid close 
approach to tidal ledges and no gear is deployed near the tidal 
ledges), only behavioral disturbance incidental to small boat 
activities is anticipated. It is likely that some pinnipeds on the 
ledges would move or flush from the haul-out into the water in response 
to the presence or sound of NEFSC survey vessels. Behavioral responses 
may be considered according to the scale shown in Table 18. We consider 
responses corresponding to Levels 2-3 to constitute Level B harassment.

                 Table 18--Seal Response to Disturbance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Level            Type of response             Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................  Alert.................  Head orientation in
                                               response to disturbance.
                                               This may include turning
                                               head towards the
                                               disturbance, craning head
                                               and neck while holding
                                               the body rigid in a u-
                                               shaped position, or
                                               changing from a lying to
                                               a sitting position.
2...................  Movement..............  Movements away from the
                                               source of disturbance,
                                               ranging from short
                                               withdrawals over short
                                               distances to hurried
                                               retreats many meters in
                                               length.
3...................  Flight................  All retreats (flushes) to
                                               the water or another
                                               group of seals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NEFSC estimated potential incidents of Level B harassment due 
to physical disturbance (Table 19) using the following assumptions: (1) 
All hauled out seals may be disturbed by passing research skiffs, 
although researchers have estimated that only about 10 percent (5 
animals in a group of 50) have been visibly disturbed in the past; and 
(2) approximately 50 harbor seals and 20 gray seals may be disturbed by 
the passage of researchers for each survey effort (100 fyke net sets, 
100 beach seine sets, and 200 Mamou shrimp trawls per year).
    The resulting estimate (Table 20) is that 50 harbor seals and 20 
gray seals may be disturbed (Level B harassment) by the physical 
presence of researchers in skiffs annually. The estimated total number 
of instances of harassment is approximately 20,000 for harbor seals and 
8,000 for gray seals. However, this level of periodic and temporary 
disturbance is unlikely to affect the use of the haulout by either 
species.

[[Page 39595]]



 Table 19--Estimated Annual Level B Harassment Take of Pinnipeds Associated With Surveys in the Lower Estuary of
                                               the Penobscot River
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Estimated                                                          Estimated
           Species             seals on ledge     Survey gear    Number of sets   Survey season    instances of
                                   haulout                                                          harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..................              50  Fyke net........             100  April-November.           5,000
Gray seal....................              20  ................  ..............  ...............           2,000
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..................              50  Beach seine.....             100  April-November.           5,000
Gray seal....................              20  ................  ..............  ...............           2,000
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal..................              50  Mamou shrimp                 200  Year-round.....          10,000
                                                trawl.
Gray seal....................              20  ................  ..............  ...............           4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Estimated Incidental Take

    Here we provide summary tables detailing the total proposed 
incidental take authorization on an annual basis for the NEFSC in the 
Atlantic coast region, as well as other information relevant to the 
negligible impact analyses.

                   Table 20--Summary Information Related to Proposed Annual Take Authorization in the Atlantic Coast Region, 2015-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Proposed total                    Proposed total
                                     annual Level B      Percent of    M/SI + Level A  Estimated maximum                                    Stock trend
           Species \1\                 harassment         estimated     authorization    annual M/SI +        PBR \3\        % PBR \4\          \5\
                                      authorization      population       2015-2020       Level A \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic Right whale.......  21................            4.52               0  0................             n/a  ..............          [uarr]
Humpback whale...................  15................            1.82               0  0................             n/a  ..............          [uarr]
Minke whale......................  49................            0.02               5  1................             162            0.62               ?
Sei whale........................  26................            7.28               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Fin whale........................  31................            1.92               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Blue whale.......................  12................            2.73               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Sperm whale......................  29................            1.27               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Kogia spp........................  12................            0.32               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Cuvier's beaked whale............  33................            0.51               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Mesoplodont beaked whales........  33................            0.47               0  0................             n/a  ..............  ..............
Bottlenose dolphin (WNA Offshore)  76................            0.10          \6\ 11  2.2..............             561            0.39               ?
 \ 6\.
Bottlenose dolphin (WNA, Northern  609...............            5.27          \6\ 11  2.2..............              86            2.56               ?
 Migratory Coastal) \6\.
Bottlenose dolphin (WNA, Southern  609...............            6.64          \6\ 11  2.2..............              63            3.49               ?
 Migratory Coastal) \ 6\.
Pantropical spotted dolphin......  20................            0.60               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Atlantic spotted dolphin.........  26................            0.06               3  0.6..............             316            0.19               ?
Spinner dolphin..................  20................          undet.               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Striped dolphin..................  246...............            0.45               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Short-beaked common dolphin......  1,393.............            0.80              10  2................             170            1.18               ?
White-beaked dolphin.............  58................            2.90               3  0.6..............              10            6.00               ?
Atlantic white-sided-dolphin.....  154...............            0.32               5  1................             304            0.33               ?
Risso's dolphin..................  79................            0.43               5  1................             126            0.79               ?
Fraser's dolphin.................  20................          undet.               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Clymene dolphin..................  20................            0.33               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Melon-headed whale...............  20................          undet.               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Pygmy killer whale...............  20................          undet.               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Long-finned pilot whale..........  235...............            0.89               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Short-finned pilot whale.........  235...............            1.09               0  0................             n/a  ..............               ?
Harbor porpoise..................  113...............            0.14               7  1.4..............             706            0.20               ?
Gray seal........................  10; 20 \7\........            2.42              10  1.6..............           1,469            0.14          [uarr]
Harp seal........................  10................          0.0001               0  0................             n/a  ..............    [rarr][uarr]
Harbor seal......................  1,768; 50 \7\.....           0.001              14  2.8..............           1,662            0.17               ?
Unidentified delphinid...........  ..................  ..............  ..............  n/a..............             n/a  ..............             n/a
Unidentified pinniped............  ..................  ..............  ..............  n/a..............             n/a  ..............             n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see preceding text for details.
\1\ For species with multiple stocks in the Atlantic coast regions or for species groups (Kogia spp. and Mesoplodont beaked whales), indicated level of
  take could occur to individuals from any stock or species (not including coastal and estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphins).

[[Page 39596]]

 
\2\ This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI + Level A that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock and is the
  number carried forward for evaluation in the negligible impact analysis (later in this document). To reach this total, we add one to the total for
  each pinniped or delphinid that may be captured in longline or gillnet gear, one to the total for each delphinid that may be captured in trawl gear,
  and one pinniped that may be captured in fyke net gear. This represents the potential that the take of an unidentified pinniped or delphinid could
  accrue to any given stock captured in that gear. The proposed take authorization is formulated as a five-year total; the annual average is used only
  for purposes of negligible impact analysis. We recognize that portions of an animal may not be taken in a given year.
\3\ See Table 3 and following discussion for more detail regarding PBR.
\4\ Estimated maximum annual M/SI + Level A expressed as a percentage of PBR.
\5\ See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends. Interannual increases may not be interpreted as evidence of a trend.
\6\ For these stocks of bottlenose dolphins, the estimated annual maximum numbers of M/SI + Level A reflect the stock-specific trawl estimate (2), plus
  five for gillnet take, plus one for longline take, plus three for the potential take of one unidentified delphinid by trawl, gillnet, and longline.
\7\ The first number represents estimated annual Level B take by acoustic sources. The second number represents estimated annual Level B take by the
  physical disturbance during surveys in Penobscot Bay.

Analyses and Preliminary Determinations

    Here we provide negligible impact analyses and small numbers 
analyses for the Atlantic coast region for which we propose rulemaking. 
Unless otherwise specified, the discussion below is intended to apply 
to all of the species for which take is authorized, i.e., those 
discussed previously and indicated in Table 20 given that the 
anticipated effects of these activities are expected to be similar in 
nature, and there is no information about the size, status, or 
structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different 
analysis. In some cases we add species-specific factors.

Negligible Impact Analyses

    NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . . 
an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the 
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or 
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of 
takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact 
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of 
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' by mortality, serious injury, 
and Level A or Level B harassment, we consider other factors, such as 
the likely nature of any behavioral responses (e.g., intensity, 
duration), the context of any such responses (e.g., critical 
reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on 
habitat. We also evaluate the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. The impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic 
activities are incorporated into these analyses via their impacts on 
the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the density/
distribution and status of the species, population size and growth 
rate).
    In 1988, Congress amended the MMPA, with provisions for the 
incidental take of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations. 
Congress directed NMFS to develop and recommend a new long-term regime 
to govern such incidental taking (see MMC, 1994). The need to set 
allowable take levels incidental to commercial fishing operations led 
NMFS to suggest a new and simpler conceptual means for assuring that 
incidental take does not cause any marine mammal species or stock to be 
reduced or to be maintained below the lower limit of its Optimum 
Sustainable Population (OSP) level. That concept (PBR) was incorporated 
in the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, wherein Congress enacted MMPA 
sections 117 and 118, establishing a new regime governing the 
incidental taking of marine mammals in commercial fishing operations 
and stock assessments.
    PBR, which is defined by the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)) as ``the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population,'' is one tool 
that can be used to help evaluate the effects of M/SI on a marine 
mammal stock. OSP is defined by the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)) as ``the 
number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the 
population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the 
habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a 
constituent element.'' A primary goal of the MMPA is to ensure that 
each stock of marine mammal either does not have a level of human-
caused M/SI that is likely to cause the stock to be reduced below its 
OSP level or, if the stock is depleted (i.e., below its OSP level), 
does not have a level of human-caused mortality and serious injury that 
is likely to delay restoration of the stock to OSP level by more than 
ten percent in comparison with recovery time in the absence of human-
caused M/SI.
    PBR appears within the MMPA only in section 117 (relating to 
periodic stock assessments) and in portions of section 118 describing 
requirements for take reduction plans for reducing marine mammal 
bycatch in commercial fisheries. PBR was not designed as an absolute 
threshold limiting human activities, but as a means to evaluate the 
relative impacts of those activities on marine mammal stocks. 
Specifically, assessing M/SI relative to a stock's PBR may signal to 
NMFS the need to establish take reduction teams in commercial fisheries 
and may assist NMFS and existing take reduction teams in the 
identification of measures to reduce and/or minimize the taking of 
marine mammals by commercial fisheries to a level below a stock's PBR. 
That is, where the total annual human-caused M/SI exceeds PBR, NMFS is 
not required to halt fishing activities contributing to total M/SI but 
rather may prioritize working with a take reduction team to further 
mitigate the effects of fishery activities via additional bycatch 
reduction measures.
    Since the introduction of PBR, NMFS has used the concept almost 
entirely within the context of implementing sections 117 and 118 and 
other commercial fisheries management-related provisions of the MMPA, 
including those within section 101(a)(5)(E) related to the taking of 
ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to commercial fisheries (64 FR 
28800; May 27, 1999). The MMPA requires that PBR be estimated in stock 
assessment reports and that it be used in applications related to the 
management of take incidental to commercial fisheries (i.e., the take 
reduction planning process described in section 118 of the MMPA. 
Although NMFS has not historically applied PBR outside the context of 
sections 117 and 118, NMFS recognizes that as a quantitative tool, PBR 
may be useful in certain instances for evaluating the impacts of other 
human-caused activities on marine mammal stocks. In this analysis, we 
consider incidental M/

[[Page 39597]]

SI relative to PBR for each affected stock, in addition to considering 
the interaction of those removals with incidental taking of that stock 
by harassment, within our evaluation of the likely impacts of the 
proposed activities on marine mammal stocks and in determining whether 
those impacts are likely to be negligible. Our use of PBR in this case 
does not make up the entirety of our impact assessment, but rather is 
utilized as a known, quantitative metric for evaluating whether the 
proposed activities are likely to have a population-level effect on the 
affected marine mammal stocks. For the purposes of analyzing this 
specified activity, NMFS acknowledges that some of the fisheries 
research activities use similar gear and may have similar effects, but 
on a smaller scale, as marine mammal take by commercial fisheries.
    Species/Group Specific Analysis--To avoid repetition, the majority 
of our preliminary applies to all the species listed in Table 20, given 
that the anticipated effects of the NEFSC research activities are 
expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful 
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in 
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take 
on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts 
on habitat, we describe them within the section or within a separate 
sub-section. See the Brief Background on Sound section earlier in this 
proposed rule for a description of marine mammal functional hearing 
groups as originally designated by Southall et al. (2007).
    Acoustic Effects--Please refer to Table 20 for information relating 
to this analysis. As described in greater depth previously (see 
``Acoustic Effects''), we do not believe that the NEFSC's use of active 
acoustic sources has the likely potential to cause any effect exceeding 
Level B harassment of marine mammals. In addition, for the majority of 
species, the proposed annual take by Level B harassment is very low in 
relation to the population abundance estimate (less than 7.5 percent) 
for each stock.
    We have produced what we believe to be conservative estimates of 
potential incidents of Level B harassment. The procedure for producing 
these estimates, described in detail in ``Estimated Take Due to 
Acoustic Harassment,'' represents NMFS' best effort towards balancing 
the need to quantify the potential for occurrence of Level B harassment 
due to production of underwater sound with a general lack of 
information related to the specific way that these acoustic signals, 
which are generally highly directional and transient, interact with the 
physical environment and to a meaningful understanding of marine mammal 
perception of these signals and occurrence in the areas where the NEFSC 
operates. The sources considered here have moderate to high output 
frequencies (10 to 180 kHz), generally short ping durations, and are 
typically focused (highly directional) to serve their intended purpose 
of mapping specific objects, depths, or environmental features. In 
addition, some of these sources can be operated in different output 
modes (e.g., energy can be distributed among multiple output beams) 
that may lessen the likelihood of perception by and potential impacts 
on marine mammals in comparison with the quantitative estimates that 
guide our proposed take authorization.
    In particular, low-frequency hearing specialists (i.e., mysticetes) 
and certain pinnipeds (i.e., otariids) are less likely to perceive or, 
given perception, to react to these signals than the quantitative 
estimates indicate. These groups have reduced functional hearing at the 
higher frequencies produced by active acoustic sources considered here 
(e.g., primary operating frequencies of 40-180 kHz) and, based purely 
on their auditory capabilities, the potential impacts are likely much 
less (or non-existent) than we have calculated as these relevant 
factors are not taken into account.
    However, for purposes of this analysis, we assume that the take 
levels proposed for authorization will occur. As described previously, 
there is some minimal potential for temporary effects to hearing for 
certain marine mammals (i.e., odontocete cetaceans), but most effects 
would likely be limited to temporary behavioral disturbance. Effects on 
individuals that are taken by Level B harassment will likely be limited 
to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing 
time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring), 
reactions that are considered to be of low severity (e.g., Southall et 
al., 2007). There is the potential for behavioral reactions of greater 
severity, including displacement, but because of the directional nature 
of the sources considered here and because the source is itself moving, 
these outcomes are unlikely and would be of short duration if they did 
occur. Although there is no information on which to base any 
distinction between incidents of harassment and individuals harassed, 
the same factors, in conjunction with the fact that NEFSC survey effort 
is widely dispersed in space and time, indicate that repeated exposures 
of the same individuals would be very unlikely.
    Take by M/SI + Level A--We now consider the level of taking by M/SI 
+ Level A proposed for authorization. First, it is likely that required 
injury determinations will show some undetermined number of gear 
interactions to result in Level A harassment rather than serious 
injury; therefore, our authorized take numbers are overestimates with 
regard solely to M/SI. In addition, we note that these proposed take 
levels are likely precautionary overall when considering that: (1) 
Estimates for historically taken species were developed assuming that 
the annual average number of takes from 2004-2015, would occur in each 
year from 2015-20; and that (2) the majority of species for which take 
authorization is proposed have never been taken in NEFSC surveys.
    However, assuming that all of the takes proposed for authorization 
actually occur, we assess these quantitatively by comparing to the 
calculated PBR for each stock. Estimated M/SI for all stocks is 
significantly less than PBR and the annual average take by M/SI + Level 
A for these stocks well below the PBR (less than four percent for each 
stock, with the exception of white beaked dolphins at six percent).
    Large whales (North Atlantic right, blue, fin, sei, humpback, and 
sperm whales)--Due to their very low numbers within the NEFSC research 
area and a tendency to occur primarily in waters outside of the NEFSC 
research area, blue, sperm, and sei whales rarely coincide with NEFSC 
fisheries research vessels. Thus, we anticipate that any potential gear 
interactions are unlikely. There have been no entanglements or takes of 
blue, sperm, or sei whales or any ESA-listed marine mammals in NEFSC 
fisheries research. Thus, there are no requested take by M/SI + Level A 
of these species during the next five years. Given the mitigation 
measures in place and the lack of historical takes, the NEFSC does not 
expect to have any adverse gear interactions with ESA-listed cetaceans 
in research surveys.
    Long- and short-finned pilot whales--Due to the low levels of 
survey effort in hotspot areas for pilot whales, adherence to gear 
requirements for longline surveys, low numbers of hooks and sets used 
in longline surveys, and short soak times with continuous monitoring 
during gillnet surveys, we anticipate that any potential gear 
interactions are unlikely. There have been no entanglements or takes of 
long- or short-finned pilot whales in NEFSC fisheries research. Thus, 
there are no

[[Page 39598]]

requested take by M/SI + Level A of these species during the next five 
years.
    Pinnipeds--Given the low historic number of seal interactions with 
research gear and the implementation of mitigation measures, future 
mortalities of pinnipeds would be considered rare or infrequent.
    Take by Physical Disturbance--We note that the NEFSC conducts one 
set of research activities where the physical presence of researchers 
may result in Level B incidental harassment of pinnipeds on haulouts. 
Several research efforts to monitor fish communities in the Penobscot 
River Estuary require researchers in small skiffs to pass seals on one 
tidal ledge (Odum Ledge) where approximately 50 harbor seals and 
perhaps a few gray seals are periodically hauled out. These surveys do 
not entail intentional approaches to seals on haulouts (i.e., the boats 
avoid close approach to tidal ledges), and no research gear is deployed 
near the tidal ledge; only behavioral disturbance incidental to small 
boat activities is anticipated. NEFSC conservatively estimated that all 
hauled out seals may be disturbed by passing research skiffs. However, 
researchers estimate that approximately 10 percent (5 animals in a 
group of 50) have been visibly disturbed in the past. This level of 
periodic incidental harassment would have temporary effects, would not 
be expected to alter the continued use of the tidal ledge by seals.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the planned mitigation measures, we 
preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from NEFSC 
fisheries research activities will have a negligible impact on the 
affected marine mammal species or stocks in the Atlantic coast region. 
In summary, this finding of negligible impact is founded on the 
following factors: (1) The possibility of injury, serious injury, or 
mortality from the use of active acoustic devices may reasonably be 
considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B 
harassment from the use of active acoustic devices consist of, at 
worst, temporary and relatively minor modifications in behavior; (3) 
the predicted number of incidents of combined Level A harassment, 
serious injury, and mortality are at insignificant levels relative to 
all affected stocks; and (4) the presumed efficacy of the planned 
mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity 
to the level of least practicable adverse impact. In addition, no M/SI 
is proposed for authorization for any species or stock that is listed 
under the ESA. In combination, we believe that these factors 
demonstrate that the specified activity will have only short-term 
effects on individuals (resulting from Level B harassment) and that the 
total level of taking will not impact rates of recruitment or survival 
sufficiently to result in population-level impacts.

Small Numbers Analyses

    Please see Table 20 for information relating to this small numbers 
analysis. The total amount of taking proposed for authorization is less 
than 7.5 percent for all stocks.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, 
we preliminarily find that small numbers of marine mammals will be 
taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks in 
the Atlantic coast region.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, 
section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 
``requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such 
taking.'' The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 
indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include 
the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and 
reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of 
the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that 
are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
    Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our 
understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g., 
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving, or feeding areas).
     Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of 
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) population, 
species, or stock.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to 
marine mammals.
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
    The NEFSC plans to make more systematic its training, operations, 
data collection, animal handling and sampling protocols, etc. in order 
to improve its ability to understand how mitigation measures influence 
interaction rates and ensure its research operations are conducted in 
an informed manner and consistent with lessons learned from those with 
experience operating these gears in close proximity to marine mammals. 
It is in this spirit that we propose the monitoring requirements 
described below.

Visual Monitoring

    Marine mammal watches are a standard part of conducting fisheries 
research activities, and are implemented as described previously in 
``Proposed Mitigation.'' Marine mammal watches and monitoring occur 
prior to deployment of gear, and they continue until gear is brought 
back on board. If marine mammals are sighted in the area then the 
sampling station is either moved or canceled. When dedicated marine 
mammal observers are on board they will record the estimated species 
and number of animals present and their behavior. If marine mammal 
observers are not on board or available (due to vessel size limits and 
bunk space) then NEFSC would develop the protocols, provide training as 
practical, and evaluate the reports. This information can be valuable 
in understanding whether some species may be attracted to vessels or 
gears. NOAA vessels are required to monitor interactions with protected 
species (and report interactions to the NEFSC Director) but in reality 
are limited to direct interactions and reporting dead or entangled 
marine mammals. Similarly, there is a condition of grant and contract 
awards for monitoring of protected species takes.
    In the Penobscot Bay only, the NEFSC will monitor any potential 
disturbance of pinnipeds on ledges, paying particular attention to the 
distance at which different species of pinniped are disturbed. 
Disturbance will be recorded according to the three-point scale,

[[Page 39599]]

representing increasing seal response to disturbance, shown in Table 
19.

Training

    The NEFSC anticipates that additional information on practices to 
avoid marine mammal interactions can be gleaned from training sessions 
and more systematic data collection standards. The NEFSC will conduct 
annual trainings for all chief scientists and other personnel who may 
be responsible for conducting dedicated marine mammal visual 
observations to explain mitigation measures and monitoring and 
reporting requirements, mitigation and monitoring protocols, marine 
mammal identification, recording of count and disturbance observations 
(relevant to Penobscot Bay surveys), completion of datasheets, and use 
of equipment. Some of these topics may be familiar to NEFSC staff, who 
may be professional biologists; the NEFSC shall determine the agenda 
for these trainings and ensure that all relevant staff have necessary 
familiarity with these topics.
    The NEFSC will also dedicate a portion of training to discussion of 
best professional judgment (which is recognized as an integral 
component of mitigation implementation; see ``Proposed Mitigation''), 
including use in any incidents of marine mammal interaction and 
instructive examples where use of best professional judgment was 
determined to be successful or unsuccessful. We recognize that many 
factors come into play regarding decision-making at sea and that it is 
not practicable to simplify what are inherently variable and complex 
situational decisions into rules that may be defined on paper. However, 
it is our intent that use of best professional judgment be an iterative 
process from year to year, in which any at-sea decision-maker (i.e., 
responsible for decisions regarding the avoidance of marine mammal 
interactions with survey gear through the application of best 
professional judgment) learns from the prior experience of all relevant 
NEFSC personnel (rather than from solely their own experience). The 
outcome should be increased transparency in decision-making processes 
where best professional judgment is appropriate and, to the extent 
possible, some degree of standardization across common situations, with 
an ultimate goal of reducing marine mammal interactions. It is the 
responsibility of the NEFSC to facilitate such exchange.

Handling Procedures and Data Collection

    Improved standardization of handling procedures were discussed 
previously in ``Proposed Mitigation.'' In addition to the benefits 
implementing these protocols are believed to have on the animals 
through increased post-release survival, NEFSC believes adopting these 
protocols for data collection will also increase the information on 
which ``serious injury'' determinations (NMFS, 2012a, b) are based and 
improve scientific knowledge about marine mammals that interact with 
fisheries research gears and the factors that contribute to these 
interactions. NEFSC personnel will be provided standard guidance and 
training regarding handling of marine mammals, including how to 
identify different species, bring an individual aboard a vessel, assess 
the level of consciousness, remove fishing gear, return an individual 
to water and log activities pertaining to the interaction.
    NEFSC will record interaction information on either existing data 
forms created by other NMFS programs or will develop their own 
standardized forms. To aid in serious injury determinations and comply 
with the current NMFS Serious Injury Guidelines (NMFS, 2012a, b), 
researchers will also answer a series of supplemental questions on the 
details of marine mammal interactions.

Reporting

    As is normally the case, NEFSC will coordinate with the relevant 
stranding coordinators for any unusual marine mammal behavior and any 
stranding, beached live/dead, or floating marine mammals that are 
encountered during field research activities. The NEFSC will follow a 
phased approach with regard to the cessation of its activities and/or 
reporting of such events, as described in the proposed regulatory texts 
following this preamble. In addition, Chief Scientists (or cruise 
leader, CS) will provide reports to NEFSC leadership and to the Office 
of Protected Resources (OPR) by event, survey leg, and cruise. As a 
result, when marine mammals interact with survey gear, whether killed 
or released alive, a report provided by the CS will fully describe any 
observations of the animals, the context (vessel and conditions), 
decisions made and rationale for decisions made in vessel and gear 
handling. The circumstances of these events are critical in enabling 
the NEFSC and OPR to better evaluate the conditions under which takes 
are most likely occur. We believe in the long term this will allow the 
avoidance of these types of events in the future.
    The NEFSC will submit annual summary reports to OPR including: (1) 
Annual line-kilometers surveyed during which the EK60, ME70, SX90 (or 
equivalent sources) were predominant (see ``Estimated Take by Acoustic 
Harassment'' for further discussion), specific to each region; (2) 
summary information regarding use of all longline (including bottom and 
vertical lines) and trawl (including bottom trawl) gear, including 
number of sets, hook hours, tows, etc., specific to each region and 
gear; (3) accounts of all incidents of marine mammal interactions, 
including circumstances of the event and descriptions of any mitigation 
procedures implemented or not implemented and why; (4) summary 
information related to any disturbance of pinnipeds during the 
Penobscot Bay surveys, including event-specific total counts of animals 
present, counts of reactions according to the three-point scale shown 
in Table 19, and distance of closest approach; and (5) a written 
evaluation of the effectiveness of NEFSC mitigation strategies in 
reducing the number of marine mammal interactions with survey gear, 
including best professional judgment and suggestions for changes to the 
mitigation strategies, if any. The period of reporting will be a 
calendar year and the report must be submitted not less than ninety 
days following the end of a calendar year. Submission of this 
information is in service of an adaptive management framework allowing 
NMFS to make appropriate modifications to mitigation and/or monitoring 
strategies, as necessary, during the proposed five-year period of 
validity for these regulations.
    NMFS has established a formal incidental take reporting system, the 
Protected Species Incidental Take (PSIT) database, requiring that 
incidental takes of protected species be reported within 48 hours of 
the occurrence. The PSIT generates automated messages to NMFS staff, 
alerting them to the event and to the fact that updated information 
describing the circumstances of the event has been entered into the 
database. The PSIT and CS reports represent not only valuable real-time 
reporting and information dissemination tools but also serve as an 
archive of information that may be mined in the future to study why 
takes occur by species, gear, region, etc.
    The NEFSC will also collect and report all necessary data, to the 
extent practicable given the primacy of human safety and the well-being 
of captured or entangled marine mammals, to facilitate serious injury 
(SI) determinations for

[[Page 39600]]

marine mammals that are released alive. NEFSC will require that the CS 
complete data forms (already developed and used by commercial fisheries 
observer programs) and address supplemental questions, both of which 
have been developed to aid in SI determinations. NEFSC understands the 
critical need to provide as much relevant information as possible about 
marine mammal interactions to inform decisions regarding SI 
determinations. In addition, the NEFSC will perform all necessary 
reporting to ensure that any incidental M/SI is incorporated as 
appropriate into relevant SARs.

Adaptive Management

    The final regulations governing the take of marine mammals 
incidental to NEFSC fisheries research survey operations in three 
specified geographical regions would contain an adaptive management 
component. The inclusion of an adaptive management component will be 
both valuable and necessary within the context of five-year regulations 
for activities that have been associated with marine mammal mortality.
    The reporting requirements associated with these proposed rules are 
designed to provide OPR with monitoring data from the previous year to 
allow consideration of whether any changes are appropriate. OPR and the 
NEFSC will meet annually to discuss the monitoring reports and current 
science and whether mitigation or monitoring modifications are 
appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows OPR to consider new 
information from different sources to determine (with input from the 
NEFSC regarding practicability) on an annual or biennial basis if 
mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including 
additions or deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new 
data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable 
likelihood of reducing adverse effects to marine mammals and if the 
measures are practicable.
    The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data 
to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results 
from monitoring reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) 
results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (3) any 
information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a 
manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or 
subsequent LOAs.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by these actions, in any of the three specified geographical regions 
for which we propose rulemakings. Therefore, we have determined that 
the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or 
stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are multiple marine mammal species listed under the ESA with 
confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed specified geographical 
region (see Table 3). In the Northeast Region, research surveys occur 
in two areas that have been designated as critical habitat for the 
North Atlantic right whale (NOAA, 1994). These are the Cape Cod Bay 
(CCB) Critical Habitat Area and the Great South Channel GSC Critical 
Habitat Area. OPR has initiated consultation with NMFS' Greater 
Atlantic Regional Office under section 7 of the ESA on the promulgation 
of five-year regulations and the subsequent issuance of LOAs to the 
NEFSC under section 7 of the ESA. This consultation will be concluded 
prior to issuing any final rule.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The NEFSC has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA; Draft 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries Research Conducted 
and Funded by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center) in accordance 
with NEPA and the regulations published by the Council on Environmental 
Quality. NMFS posted the document on the internet at: 
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. We have 
independently evaluated the Draft EA and are proposing to adopt it. We 
may prepare a separate NEPA analysis and incorporate relevant portions 
of NEFSC's EA by reference. Information in NEFSC's application, EA, the 
2015 addendum to the application, and this notice collectively provide 
the environmental information related to proposed issuance of these 
regulations for public review and comment. We will review all comments 
submitted in response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, 
including a decision of whether to sign a Finding of No Significant 
Impact, prior to a final decision on the incidental take authorization 
request.

Request for Information

    NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, 
and suggestions concerning the NEFSC request and the proposed 
regulations (see ADDRESSES). All comments will be reviewed and 
evaluated as we prepare final rules and make final determinations on 
whether to issue the requested authorization. This notice and 
referenced documents provide all environmental information relating to 
our proposed action for public review.

Classification

    Pursuant to the procedures established to implement Executive Order 
12866, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this 
proposed rule is not significant.
    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This action is being taken in response to a request from NMFS' 
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) for authorization to take 
marine mammals incidental to fisheries research conducted in a 
specified geographical region, over the course of five years from the 
date of issuance. As required by the MMPA, NMFS is proposing 
regulations to govern that take, specific to each geographical region 
and requests comments on the proposed regulations. The NEFSC is the 
sole entity that would be subject to the requirements in these proposed 
regulations. The NEFSC is a federal government entity that does not 
meet the RFA's definition of small entity, which is defined as a small 
governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business. For 
this reason, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Because of this certification, a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been 
prepared.
    This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information 
requirement subject to the provisions of the PRA because the applicant 
is a federal agency. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a 
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject 
to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that 
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control 
number.

[[Page 39601]]

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 219

    Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, 
Transportation.

    Dated: June 30, 2015.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 219 is proposed 
to be added to read as follows:

PART 219--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE 
MAMMALS

Subpart D--Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center Fisheries Research in the Atlantic Coast Region
Sec.
219.31 Specified activity and specified geographical region.
219.32 [Reserved]
219.33 Permissible methods of taking.
219.34 Prohibitions.
219.35 Mitigation requirements.
219.36 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
219.37 Letters of Authorization.
219.38 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.
219.39 [Reserved]
219.40 [Reserved]

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

Subpart D--Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center Fisheries Research in the Atlantic Coast Region


Sec.  219.31  Specified activity and specified geographical region.

    (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the National Marine 
Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) 
and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its 
behalf for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area 
outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to 
research survey program operations.
    (b) The taking of marine mammals by NEFSC may be authorized in a 
Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within the Atlantic 
coast region.


Sec.  219.32  [Reserved]


Sec.  219.33  Permissible methods of taking.

    (a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec.  216.106 and 219.7 of 
this chapter, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter ``NEFSC'') may 
incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the 
area described in Sec.  219.31(b), provided the activity is in 
compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the 
regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.
    (b) The incidental take of marine mammals under the activities 
identified in Sec.  219.31(a) is limited to the indicated number of 
takes on an annual basis (by Level B harassment) or over the five-year 
period of validity of these regulations (by mortality) of the following 
species:
    (1) Level B harassment:
    (i) Cetaceans:
    (A) North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)--21;
    (B) Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)--15;
    (C) Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)--49;
    (D) Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)--26;
    (E) Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)--31;
    (F) Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) -12;
    (G) Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)--29;
    (H) Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale (Kogia spp.)--12;
    (I) Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris)--33;
    (J) Blainville's, Gervais', Sowerby's, or True's beaked whales 
(Mesoplodon spp.)--33;
    (K) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)--685;
    (L) Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata)--20;
    (M) Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis)--26;
    (N) Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris)--20;
    (O) Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)--246;
    (P) Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinis delphis)--1,393;
    (Q) White-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris)--58;
    (R) Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus)--154;
    (S) Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus)--79;
    (T) Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei)--20;
    (U) Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene)--20;
    (V) Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra)--20;
    (W) Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata)--20;
    (X) Long and short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala spp.)--235;
    (Y) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)--113;
    (ii) Pinnipeds:
    (A) Gray seal (Halichoerus grypus)--80,010;
    (B) Harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus)--10;
    (C) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)--21,768.
    (2) Mortality (trawl gear only):
    (i) Cetaceans:
    (A) Minke whale--5;
    (B) Risso's dolphin--2;
    (C) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic offshore stock)--2;
    (D) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic Northern migratory 
stock)--2;
    (E) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic Southern migratory 
stock)--2;
    (F) Atlantic spotted dolphin--2;
    (G) Short-beaked common dolphin--5;
    (H) White-beaked dolphin--2;
    (I) Atlantic white-sided dolphin--2;
    (J) Harbor porpoise--2;
    (K) Unidentified cetacean (Family Delphinidae)--1;
    (ii) Pinnipeds:
    (A) Gray seal--1;
    (B) Harbor seal--1;
    (C) Unidentified pinniped--1.
    (3) Mortality (gillnet gear only):
    (i) Cetaceans:
    (A) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic offshore stock)--5;
    (B) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic Northern migratory 
stock)--5;
    (C) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic Southern migratory 
stock)--5;
    (D) Atlantic spotted dolphin--1;
    (E) Short-beaked common dolphin--1;
    (F) Harbor porpoise--5;
    (G) Unidentified cetacean (Family Delphinidae)--1;
    (ii) Pinnipeds:
    (A) Gray seal--5;
    (B) Harbor seal--5;
    (C) Unidentified pinniped--1.
    (4) Mortality (pelagic longline gear only):
    (A) Risso's dolphin--1;
    (B) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic offshore stock)--1;
    (C) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic Northern migratory 
stock)--1;
    (D) Bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic Southern migratory 
stock)--1;
    (F) Short-beaked common dolphin--1;
    (G) Unidentified cetacean (Family Delphinidae)--1;
    (ii) Pinnipeds:
    (A) Unidentified pinniped--1.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (5) Mortality (fyke net gear only):
    (i) Pinnipeds:
    (A) Gray seal--1;
    (B) Harbor seal--5;
    (C) Unidentified pinniped--1.


Sec.  219.34  Prohibitions.

    Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec.  219.31 and authorized 
by a LOA issued under

[[Page 39602]]

Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  219.7, no person may, in 
connection with the activities described in Sec.  219.31:
    (a) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec.  219.33(b);
    (b) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec.  219.33(b) in any 
manner other than as specified;
    (c) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec.  219.33(b) if NMFS 
determines such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the 
species or stocks of such marine mammal;
    (d) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec.  219.33(b) if NMFS 
determines such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
species or stock of such marine mammal for taking for subsistence uses; 
or
    (e) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and 
requirements of this subpart or a LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of 
this chapter and Sec.  219.37.


Sec.  219.35  Mitigation requirements.

    When conducting the activities identified in Sec.  219.31(a), the 
mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under Sec. Sec.  
216.106 and 219.37 of this chapter must be implemented. These 
mitigation measures shall include but are not limited to:
    (a) General conditions:
    (1) NEFSC shall take all necessary measures to coordinate and 
communicate in advance of each specific survey with the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Marine and 
Aviation Operations (OMAO) or other relevant parties on non-NOAA 
platforms to ensure that all mitigation measures and monitoring 
requirements described herein, as well as the specific manner of 
implementation and relevant event-contingent decision-making processes, 
are clearly understood and agreed upon.
    (2) NEFSC shall coordinate and conduct briefings at the outset of 
each survey and as necessary between ship's crew (Commanding Officer/
master or designee(s), as appropriate) and scientific party in order to 
explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal 
monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
    (3) NEFSC shall coordinate as necessary on a daily basis during 
survey cruises with OMAO personnel or other relevant personnel on non-
NOAA platforms to ensure that requirements, procedures, and decision-
making processes are understood and properly implemented.
    (4) When deploying any type of sampling gear at sea, NEFSC shall at 
all times monitor for any unusual circumstances that may arise at a 
sampling site and use best professional judgment to avoid any potential 
risks to marine mammals during use of all research equipment.
    (5) All vessels must comply with applicable and relevant take 
reduction plans, including any required use of acoustic deterrent 
devices.
    (6) All vessels must comply with applicable speed restrictions.
    (7) NEFSC shall implement handling and/or disentanglement protocols 
as specified in the guidance provided to NEFSC survey personnel 
(``Identification, Handling, and Release of Protected Species'').
    (b) Beam, mid-water, and bottom trawl survey protocols:
    (1) NEFSC shall conduct trawl operations as soon as is practicable 
upon arrival at the sampling station.
    (2) NEFSC shall initiate marine mammal watches (visual observation) 
prior to sampling. Marine mammal watches shall be conducted by scanning 
the surrounding waters with the naked eye and rangefinding binoculars 
(or monocular). During nighttime operations, visual observation shall 
be conducted using the naked eye and available vessel lighting.
    (3) NEFSC shall implement the ``move-on rule.'' If a marine mammal 
is sighted around the vessel before setting the gear, NEFSC may decide 
to move the vessel away from the marine mammal to a different section 
of the sampling area if the animal appears to be at risk of interaction 
with the gear. If, after moving on, marine mammals are still visible 
from the vessel, NEFSC may decide to move again or to skip the station. 
NEFSC may use best professional judgment in making this decision.
    (4) NEFSC shall maintain visual monitoring effort during the entire 
period of time that trawl gear is in the water (i.e., throughout gear 
deployment, fishing, and retrieval). If marine mammals are sighted 
before the gear is fully removed from the water, NEFSC shall take the 
most appropriate action to avoid marine mammal interaction. NEFSC may 
use best professional judgment in making this decision.
    (5) If trawling operations have been suspended because of the 
presence of marine mammals, NEFSC may resume trawl operations when 
practicable only when the animals are believed to have departed the 
area. NEFSC may use best professional judgment in making this 
determination.
    (6) NEFSC shall implement standard survey protocols to minimize 
potential for marine mammal interaction, including maximum tow 
durations at target depth and maximum tow distance, and shall carefully 
empty the trawl as quickly as possible upon retrieval. Trawl nets must 
be cleaned prior to deployment.
    (c) Dredge survey protocols:
    (1) NEFSC shall deploy dredge gear as soon as is practicable upon 
arrival at the sampling station.
    (2) NEFSC shall initiate marine mammal watches (visual observation) 
prior to sampling. Marine mammal watches shall be conducted by scanning 
the surrounding waters with the naked eye and rangefinding binoculars 
(or monocular). During nighttime operations, visual observation shall 
be conducted using the naked eye and available vessel lighting.
    (3) NEFSC shall implement the ``move-on rule.'' If marine mammals 
are sighted around the vessel before setting the gear, the NEFSC may 
decide to move the vessel away from the marine mammal to a different 
section of the sampling area if the animal appears to be at risk of 
interaction with the gear. If, after moving on, marine mammals are 
still visible from the vessel, NEFSC may decide to move again or to 
skip the station. NEFSC may use best professional judgment in making 
this decision but may not elect to conduct dredge survey activity when 
animals remain near the vessel.
    (4) NEFSC shall maintain visual monitoring effort during the entire 
period of time that dredge gear is in the water (i.e., throughout gear 
deployment, fishing, and retrieval). If marine mammals are sighted 
before the gear is fully removed from the water, NEFSC shall take the 
most appropriate action to avoid marine mammal interaction. NEFSC may 
use best professional judgment in making this decision.
    (5) If dredging operations have been suspended because of the 
presence of marine mammals, NEFSC may resume operations when 
practicable only when the animals are believed to have departed the 
area. NEFSC may use best professional judgment in making this 
determination.
    (6) NEFSC shall carefully empty the dredge gear as quickly as 
possible upon retrieval to determine if marine mammals are present in 
the gear.
    (d) Longline survey protocols:
    (1) NEFSC shall deploy longline gear as soon as is practicable upon 
arrival at the sampling station.
    (2) NEFSC shall initiate marine mammal watches (visual observation) 
no less than thirty minutes prior to both deployment and retrieval of 
the longline gear. Marine mammal watches shall be conducted by scanning 
the surrounding waters with the naked eye and rangefinding binoculars 
(or monocular).

[[Page 39603]]

During nighttime operations, visual observation shall be conducted 
using the naked eye and available vessel lighting.
    (3) NEFSC shall implement the ``move-on rule.'' If marine mammals 
are sighted near the vessel 30 minutes before setting the gear, the 
NEFSC may decide to move the vessel away from the marine mammal to a 
different section of the sampling area if the animal appears to be at 
risk of interaction with the gear. If, after moving on, marine mammals 
are still visible from the vessel, NEFSC may decide to move again or to 
skip the station. NEFSC may use best professional judgment in making 
this decision but may not elect to conduct longline survey activity 
when animals remain near the vessel.
    (4) For the Apex Predators Bottom Longline Coastal Shark Survey, if 
one or more marine mammals are observed within 1 nautical mile of the 
planned location in the thirty minutes before gear deployment, NEFSC 
shall transit to a different section of the sampling area to maintain a 
minimum set distance of 1 nm from the observed marine mammals. If, 
after moving on, marine mammals remain within 1 nautical mile, NEFSC 
may decide to move again or to skip the station. NEFSC may use best 
professional judgment in making this decision but may not elect to 
conduct pelagic longline survey activity when animals remain within the 
1-nautical mile zone.
    (5) NEFSC shall maintain visual monitoring effort during the entire 
period of gear deployment or retrieval. If marine mammals are sighted 
before the gear is fully deployed or retrieved, NEFSC shall take the 
most appropriate action to avoid marine mammal interaction. NEFSC may 
use best professional judgment in making this decision.
    (6) If deployment or retrieval operations have been suspended 
because of the presence of marine mammals, NEFSC may resume such 
operations after there are no sightings of marine mammals for at least 
15 minutes within the area or within the 1 nautical mile area for the 
Apex Predators Bottom Longline Coastal Shark Survey. NEFSC may use best 
professional judgment in making this decision.
    (7) NEFSC shall implement standard survey protocols, including 
maximum soak durations and a prohibition on chumming.
    (e) Gillnet survey protocols:
    (1) NEFSC and/or cooperating institutions shall deploy gillnet gear 
as soon as is practicable upon arrival at the sampling station.
    (2) NEFSC and/or cooperating institutions shall initiate marine 
mammal watches (visual observation) prior to both deployment and 
retrieval of the gillnet gear. Marine mammal watches shall be conducted 
during the soak by scanning the surrounding waters with the naked eye 
and rangefinding binoculars (or monocular).
    (3) NEFSC and/or cooperating institutions shall implement the 
``move-on rule.'' If marine mammals are sighted near the vessel before 
setting the gear, the NEFSC, as appropriate may decide to move the 
vessel away from the marine mammal to a different section of the 
sampling area if the animal appears to be at risk of interaction with 
the gear. If, after moving on, marine mammals are still visible from 
the vessel, the NEFSC may decide to move again or to skip the station. 
The NEFSC may use best professional judgment in making this decision 
but may not elect to conduct the gillnet survey activity when animals 
remain near the vessel.
    (4) If marine mammals are sighted near the vessel during the soak 
and are determined to be at risk of interacting with the gear, then the 
NEFSC as appropriate shall carefully retrieve the gear as quickly as 
possible. NEFSC and/or cooperating institutions may use best 
professional judgment in making this decision.
    (5) NEFSC shall implement standard survey protocols, including 
continuously monitoring the gillnet gear during soak time; removing 
debris with each pass as the net is reset into the water to minimize 
bycatch.
    (6) NEFSC shall ensure that surveys deploy acoustic pingers on 
gillnets in areas where required for commercial fisheries. NEFSC must 
ensure that the devices are operating properly before deploying the 
net.
    (7) NEFSC shall ensure that cooperating institutions conducting 
gillnet surveys adhere to monitoring and mitigation requirements and 
shall include required protocols in all survey instructions, contracts, 
and agreements.
    (8) For the COASTSPAN gillnet surveys, the NEFSC will actively 
monitor for potential bottlenose dolphin entanglements by hand-checking 
the gillnet every 20 minutes. In the unexpected case of a bottlenose 
dolphin entanglement, the NEFSC would request and arrange for expedited 
genetic sampling for stock determination. The NEFSC would also 
photograph the dorsal fin and submit the image to the Southeast 
Stranding Coordinator for identification/matching to bottlenose 
dolphins in the Mid-Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin Photo-identification 
Catalog.
    (f) Fyke net gear protocols:
    (1) NEFSC shall conduct fyke net gear deployment as soon as is 
practicable upon arrival at the sampling station.
    (2) NEFSC shall visually survey the area prior to both deployment 
and retrieval of the fyke net gear. NEFSC shall conduct monitoring and 
retrieval of the gear every 12 to 24-hour soak period.
    (3) If marine mammals are in close proximity (approximately 100 
meters) of the setting location, NEFSC shall determine if the set 
location should be moved. NEFSC may use best professional judgment in 
making this decision.
    (4) If marine mammals are observed to interact with the gear during 
the setting, NEFSC shall lift and remove the gear from the water.
    (5) NEFSC must install and use a marine mammal excluder device at 
all times when the 2-meter fyke net is used.
    (g) Beach seine gear protocols:
    (1) NEFSC shall conduct beach seine deployment as soon as is 
practicable upon arrival at the sampling station.
    (2) NEFSC shall visually survey the area prior to both deployment 
and retrieval of the seine net gear.
    (3) If marine mammals are in close proximity of the seining 
location, NEFSC shall lift the net and remove it from the water. NEFSC 
may use best professional judgment in making this decision.
    (h) Rotary screw trap gear protocols:
    (1) NEFSC shall conduct rotary screw trap deployment as soon as is 
practicable upon arrival at the sampling station.
    (2) NEFSC shall visually survey the area prior to both setting and 
retrieval of the rotary screw trap gear. If marine mammals are observed 
in the sampling area, NEFSC shall suspend or delay the sampling. NEFSC 
may use best professional judgment in making this decision.
    (3) NEFSC shall tend to the trap on a daily basis to monitor for 
marine mammal interactions with the gear.
    (4) If the rotary screw trap captures a marine mammal, NEFSC shall 
carefully release the animal as soon as possible.


Sec.  219.36  Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

    (a) Visual monitoring program:
    (1) Marine mammal visual monitoring shall occur: prior to 
deployment of beam, mid-water, and bottom trawl, pelagic longline, 
gillnet, fyke net, beach seine, and rotary screw trap gear; throughout 
deployment of gear and active fishing of all research gears; and 
throughout retrieval of all research gear.
    (2) Marine mammal watches shall be conducted by watch-standers 
(those

[[Page 39604]]

navigating the vessel and/or other crew) at all times when the vessel 
is being operated.
    (3) NEFSC shall monitor any potential disturbance of pinnipeds on 
ledges, paying particular attention to the distance at which different 
species of pinniped are disturbed. Disturbance shall be recorded 
according to a three-point scale representing increasing seal response 
to disturbance.
    (b) Training:
    (1) NEFSC must conduct annual training for all chief scientists and 
other personnel who may be responsible for conducting dedicated marine 
mammal visual observations to explain mitigation measures and 
monitoring and reporting requirements, mitigation and monitoring 
protocols, marine mammal identification, completion of datasheets, and 
use of equipment. NEFSC may determine the agenda for these trainings.
    (2) NEFSC shall also dedicate a portion of training to discussion 
of best professional judgment, including use in any incidents of marine 
mammal interaction and instructive examples where use of best 
professional judgment was determined to be successful or unsuccessful.
    (3) NEFSC shall coordinate with NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science 
Center (SEFSC) regarding surveys conducted in the southern portion of 
the Atlantic coast region, such that training and guidance related to 
handling procedures and data collection is consistent.
    (c) Handling procedures and data collection:
    (1) NEFSC must develop and implement standardized marine mammal 
handling, disentanglement, and data collection procedures. These 
standard procedures will be subject to approval by NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources (OPR).
    (2) When practicable, for any marine mammal interaction involving 
the release of a live animal, NEFSC shall collect necessary data to 
facilitate a serious injury determination.
    (3) NEFSC shall provide its relevant personnel with standard 
guidance and training regarding handling of marine mammals, including 
how to identify different species, bring an individual aboard a vessel, 
assess the level of consciousness, remove fishing gear, return an 
individual to water, and log activities pertaining to the interaction.
    (4) NEFSC shall record such data on standardized forms, which will 
be subject to approval by OPR. NEFSC shall also answer a standard 
series of supplemental questions regarding the details of any marine 
mammal interaction.
    (d) Reporting:
    (1) NEFSC shall report all incidents of marine mammal interaction 
to NMFS' Protected Species Incidental Take database within 48 hours of 
occurrence.
    (2) NEFSC shall provide written reports to OPR following any marine 
mammal interaction (animal captured or entangled in research gear) and/
or survey leg or cruise, summarizing survey effort on the leg or 
cruise. In the event of a marine mammal interaction, these reports 
shall include full descriptions of any observations of the animals, the 
context (vessel and conditions), decisions made and rationale for 
decisions made in vessel and gear handling.
    (3) Annual reporting:
    (i) NEFSC shall submit an annual summary report to OPR not later 
than ninety days following the end of a calendar year, with the 
reporting period being a given calendar year.
    (ii) These reports shall contain, at minimum, the following:
    (A) Annual line-kilometers surveyed during which the EK60, ME70, 
DSM300 (or equivalent sources) were predominant;
    (B) Summary information regarding use of the following: all trawl 
gear, all longline gear, all gillnet gear, all dredge gear, fyke net 
gear, beach seine net gear, and rotary screw trap gear (including 
number of sets, hook hours, tows, and tending frequency specific to 
each gear type);
    (C) Accounts of all incidents of marine mammal interactions, 
including circumstances of the event and descriptions of any mitigation 
procedures implemented or not implemented and why;
    (D) Summary information related to any disturbance of pinnipeds, 
including event-specific total counts of animals present, counts of 
reactions according to a three-point scale of response severity (1 = 
alert; 2 = movement; 3 = flight), and distance of closest approach;
    (E) A written evaluation of the effectiveness of NEFSC mitigation 
strategies in reducing the number of marine mammal interactions with 
survey gear, including best professional judgment and suggestions for 
changes to the mitigation strategies, if any;
    (F) Final outcome of serious injury determinations for all 
incidents of marine mammal interactions where the animal(s) were 
released alive; and
    (e) Reporting of injured or dead marine mammals:
    (1) In the unanticipated event that the activity defined in Sec.  
219.31(a) clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a prohibited 
manner, NEFSC shall immediately cease the specified activities and 
report the incident to OPR and the Greater Atlantic Region Stranding 
Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the following information:
    (i) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
    (ii) Description of the incident;
    (iii) Environmental conditions (including wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
    (iv) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours 
preceding the incident;
    (v) Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
    (vi) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the 
incident;
    (vii) Water depth;
    (viii) Fate of the animal(s); and
    (ix) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
    (2) Activities shall not resume until OPR is able to review the 
circumstances of the prohibited take. OPR shall work with NEFSC to 
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. NEFSC may not 
resume their activities until notified by OPR.
    (3) In the event that NEFSC discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal and determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown 
and the death is relatively recent (for example, in less than a 
moderate state of decomposition), NEFSC shall immediately report the 
incident to OPR and the Greater Atlantic Region Regional Stranding 
Coordinator, NMFS. The report must include the information identified 
in Sec.  219.36(e)(1) of this section. Activities may continue while 
OPR reviews the circumstances of the incident. OPR will work with NEFSC 
to determine whether additional mitigation measures or modifications to 
the activities are appropriate.
    (4) In the event that NEFSC discovers an injured or dead marine 
mammal and determines that the injury or death is not associated with 
or related to the activities defined in Sec.  219.31(a) (for example, 
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, scavenger damage), NEFSC shall report the incident to 
OPR and the Greater Atlantic Region Regional Stranding Coordinator, 
NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. NEFSC shall provide photographs 
or video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting 
to OPR.


Sec.  219.37  Letters of Authorization.

    (a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these 
regulations,

[[Page 39605]]

NEFSC must apply for and obtain an LOA.
    (b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a 
period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.
    (c) If an LOA expires prior to the expiration date of these 
regulations, NEFSC may apply for and obtain a renewal of the LOA.
    (d) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to 
mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, NEFSC must apply 
for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in Sec.  219.38.
    (e) The LOA shall set forth:
    (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;
    (2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., 
mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the 
species for subsistence uses; and
    (3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
    (f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the 
level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total 
taking allowable under these regulations.
    (g) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in 
the Federal Register within thirty days of a determination.


Sec.  219.38  Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

    (a) An LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  
219.37 for the activity identified in Sec.  219.31(a) shall be renewed 
or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that:
    (1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as 
those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes 
made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section), and
    (2) OPR determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 
measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were 
implemented.
    (b) For an LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant 
that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or 
reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management 
provision in in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change 
the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor 
change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by 
species or years), OPR may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the 
Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and 
solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
    (c) An LOA issued under Sec.  216.106 of this chapter and Sec.  
219.37 for the activity identified in Sec.  219.31(a) may be modified 
by OPR under the following circumstances:
    (1) Adaptive Management--OPR may modify (including augment) the 
existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after 
consulting with NEFSC regarding the practicability of the 
modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more 
effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring 
set forth in the preamble for these regulations.
    (i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision 
to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA:
    (A) Results from NEFSC's monitoring from the previous year(s).
    (B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or 
studies.
    (C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken 
in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or 
subsequent LOAs.
    (ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the 
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, OPR will 
publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and solicit 
public comment.
    (2) Emergencies--If OPR determines that an emergency exists that 
poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of 
marine mammals specified in Sec.  219.32(b), an LOA may be modified 
without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be 
published in the Federal Register within thirty days of the action.


Sec.  219.39  [Reserved]


Sec.  219.40  [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2015-16574 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P