Proposed Rule2021-11188
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries and Ecosystem Research
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 4, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) has received a request from the NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to fisheries and ecosystem research conducted in the Atlantic Ocean, over the course of five years. This would be the second set of regulations and 5-year LOA issued to the NEFSC. The proposed regulations would be effective September 10, 2021 through September 9, 2026. As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take, and requests comments on the proposed regulations. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final announcement of our decision.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30080-30129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11188]
[[Page 30079]]
Vol. 86
Friday,
No. 106
June 4, 2021
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 219
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Fisheries and Ecosystem Research; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 30080]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 219
[Docket No. 210519-0110]
RIN 0648-BK39
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Fisheries and Ecosystem 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 (OPR) has received a
request from the NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) for
authorization to take marine mammals incidental to fisheries and
ecosystem research conducted in the Atlantic Ocean, over the course of
five years. This would be the second set of regulations and 5-year LOA
issued to the NEFSC. The proposed regulations would be effective
September 10, 2021 through September 9, 2026.
As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
proposing regulations to govern that take, and requests comments on the
proposed regulations. NMFS will consider public comments prior to
making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA
authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final
announcement of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 6,
2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2021-0053, by the following method:
<bullet> Electronic submission: Submit all public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, enter 0648-BK39
in the ``Search'' box, click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the
required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of NEFSC's application and any supporting documents, as well
as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained
online at: <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities</a>. In case
of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed
above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) 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 incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization to incidentally take marine mammals must be granted
if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the
species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence
uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible
methods of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks
for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
Purpose and Need for This Regulatory Action
This proposed rule would establish a framework under the authority
of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow for the authorization of
take of marine mammals incidental to the NEFSC's fisheries research
activities in the Atlantic Ocean.
We received an application from the NEFSC requesting regulations
and a 5-year LOA to take multiple species of marine mammals incidental
to fisheries and ecosystem research in the Atlantic Ocean. Take by
mortality or serious injury could occur incidental to the use of
fisheries research gear. Take by Level B harassment could occur
incidental to the use of active acoustic devices in the Atlantic coast
region.
Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) 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 for up to five years
if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings
and issues regulations that set forth permissible methods of taking
pursuant to that activity and other means of effecting the ``least
practicable adverse impact'' on the affected species or stocks and
their habitat (see the discussion below in the ``Proposed Mitigation''
section), as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. 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 this proposed
rule containing 5-year regulations, and for any subsequent LOAs. As
directed by this legal authority, this proposed rule contains
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Regulations
The following provides a summary the major provisions within this
proposed rulemaking for the NEFSC fisheries research activities in the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean. They include, but are not limited to:
<bullet> Training scientists and vessel crew in marine mammal
detection and identification, rule compliance, and marine mammal
handling.
<bullet> Monitoring of the sampling areas to detect the presence of
marine mammals before gear deployment and while gear is in the water.
[[Page 30081]]
<bullet> Implementing standard tow durations to reduce the
likelihood of incidental take of marine mammals.
<bullet> Implementing the mitigation strategy known as the ``move-
on rule,'' which incorporates best professional judgment, when
necessary during fisheries research.
<bullet> Removing gear from water if marine mammals are at-risk or
interact with gear.
<bullet> Complying with applicable vessel speed restrictions and
separation distances from marine mammals.
<bullet> Complying with applicable and relevant take reduction
plans for marine mammals.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
In July 2016, the NEFSC published a Final Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Fisheries Research Conducted and
Funded by the NEFSC (NMFS 2016a) to consider the direct, indirect and
cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from NEFSC's
activities as well as OPR's issuance of the regulations and subsequent
incidental take authorization. NMFS made the PEA available to the
public for review and comment, in relation specifically to its
suitability for assessment of the impacts of our action under the MMPA.
OPR signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on August 3,
2016. These documents are available at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research</a>.
On September 18, 2020, NMFS announced the availability of a Draft
Supplemental PEA for Fisheries Research Conducted and Funded by the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center for review and comment (85 FR
58339). The purpose of the Draft SPEA is to evaluate potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of unforeseen changes in research that
were not analyzed in the 2016 PEA, or new research activities along the
U.S. East Coast. Where necessary, updates to certain information on
species, stock status or other components of the affected environment
that may result in different conclusions from the 2016 PEA are
presented in this analysis. The supplemental PEA is available at
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/draft-supplemental-programmatic-environmental-assessment-nefsc-research-now-available">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/draft-supplemental-programmatic-environmental-assessment-nefsc-research-now-available</a>.
Information in the PEA, SPEA, NEFSC's application, and this notice
collectively provide the environmental information related to proposed
issuance of these regulations and subsequent incidental take
authorization for public review and comment. We will review all
comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our
NEPA process and making a final decision on NEFSC's request.
Summary of Request
On September 2, 2020, NMFS received an application from NEFSC
requesting promulgation of regulations and issuance of a 5-year LOA to
take marine mammals incidental to fisheries and ecosystem research in
the Atlantic Ocean. NEFSC subsequently submitted revised applications
on October 29, 2020; November 19, 2020; and December 3, 2020. The
December application was deemed adequate and complete on December 9,
2020. In accordance with the MMPA, we published a notice of receipt
(NOR) of the NEFSC's application in the Federal Register, requesting
comments and information related to the NEFSC request for thirty days
(85 FR 83901, December 23, 2020). We did not receive comments on the
NOR.
The NEFSC's request is for take of a small number of 10 species of
marine mammals by mortality or serious injury incidental to gear
interaction and 32 species or stocks by Level B harassment incidental
to use of active acoustic devices during fisheries and ecosystem
research. NMFS previously issued a LOA to NEFSC for similar work (81 FR
64442, September 20, 2016); that LOA expires September 9, 2021. To
date, NEFSC has complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting) of the current LOA and did not exceed
authorized take for a species. NEFSC annual monitoring reports can be
found at <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research</a>.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
The NEFSC is the research arm of NMFS in the Greater Atlantic
Region (Maine to Virginia). The NEFSC plans, develops, and manages a
multidisciplinary program of basic and applied research to generate the
information necessary for the conservation and management of the
region's living marine resources, including the region's marine and
anadromous fish and invertebrate populations to ensure they remain at
sustainable and healthy levels. The NEFSC collects a wide array of
information necessary to evaluate the status of exploited fishery
resources and the marine environment from fishery independent (i.e.,
non-commercial or recreational fishing) platforms. Surveys are
conducted from NOAA-owned and operated vessels, NOAA chartered vessels,
or research partner-owned or chartered vessels in the state and Federal
waters of the Atlantic Ocean from Maine to Florida.
The NEFSC plans to administer, fund, or conduct 59 fisheries and
ecosystem research survey programs over the 5-year period the proposed
regulations would be effective (Table 1). Of the 59 surveys, only 42
involve gear and equipment with the potential to take marine mammals.
Gear types include towed trawl nets fished at various levels in the
water column, dredges, gillnets, traps, longline and other hook and
line gear. Surveys using any type of seine net (e.g., gillnets), trawl
net, or hook and line (e.g., longlines) have the potential for marine
mammal interaction (e.g., entanglement, hooking) resulting in M/SI
harassment. In addition, the NEFSC conducts hydrographic,
oceanographic, and meteorological sampling concurrent with many of
these surveys which requires the use of active acoustic devices (e.g.,
side-scan sonar, echosounders). These active sonars result in elevated
sound levels in the water column, potentially causing behavioral
disturbance rising to the level of harassment (Level B).
Dates and Duration
NEFSC would conduct research year-round; however, certain surveys
would occur seasonally (Table 1). The proposed regulations and
associated LOA would be valid September 10, 2021 through September 9,
2026.
Specified Geographical Region
The NEFSC would conduct fisheries research activities off of the
U.S. Atlantic coast within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large
Marine Ecosystem (NE LME), an area defined as the 200 miles off the
shoreline and reaching from the U.S.-Canada border to Cape Hatteras
(Figure 1). The NE LME is divided into four areas: The Gulf of Maine
(GOM), Georges Bank (GB), Southern New England (SNE), and the Mid-
Atlantic Bight (MAB). A small number of NEFSC surveys into the
Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
[[Page 30082]]
(SE LME) and, rarely, north into the Scotian Shelf LME.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN21.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 30083]]
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 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 an elongated 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
[[Page 30084]]
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 Specific Activity
The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to protect living
marine resources in waters of the U.S., also referred to as Federal
waters. These waters generally lie 3 to 200 nautical miles (nmi) from
the shoreline. Those waters 3-12 nmi offshore comprise Federal
territorial waters and those 12-to-200 nmi offshore comprise the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), except where other nations have adjacent
territorial claims. NOAA also conducts research to foster resource
protection in state waters (i.e., estuaries and oceanic waters within 3
nmi of shore). 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 waters outside of the U.S. EEZ
(i.e., the high seas). To carry out its responsibilities over Federal
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. Specifically, NEFSC
develops the scientific information required for fishery resource
conservation, fishery development and utilization, habitat
conservation, and protection of marine mammals and endangered marine
species. Research is pursued to address specific needs in population
dynamics, fishery biology and economics, engineering and gear
development, and protected species biology. Specifically, research
includes monitoring fish stock recruitment, abundance, survival and
biological rates, geographic distribution of species and stocks,
ecosystem process changes, and marine ecological research.
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 research
onboard non-NOAA vessels. The NEFSC proposes to administer and conduct
59 survey programs over the 5-year period. Forty-two of the 59 total
surveys/projects involve gear and equipment with the potential to take
marine mammals (by mortality or serious injury (M/SI) or Level B
harassment). We note the need for additional surveys could arise during
the time period this proposed rule is effective, or some of the
identified surveys could be eliminated or reduced in effort. Research
activities associated with the requested LOA are not necessarily
limited to the specific surveys shown in Table 1; however, any other
surveys conducted by NEFSC would not be significantly different from
the research analyzed herein or result in a change in the take request.
The gear types used by NEFSC to conduct fisheries research include:
Pelagic trawl gear used at various levels in the water column, pelagic
and demersal longlines, bottom-contact trawls, anchored sinking
gillnets, and other gear such as dredges and traps. The use of pelagic
and bottom trawl nets, gillnets, fyke nets, and longline/hook and line
gear have to potential to result in interaction (e.g., entanglement,
hooking) with marine mammals. These gears and the methods of fishing
are identical or similar to those described in the initial NEFSC
proposed rule (80 FR 35942, July 9, 2015). Complete gear descriptions
can also be found in Appendix B of the NMFS 2020 Draft Supplemental
Programmatic Environmental Assessment available at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/draft-supplemental-programmatic-environmental-assessment-nefsc-research-now-available">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/draft-supplemental-programmatic-environmental-assessment-nefsc-research-now-available</a>. Please refer to
those documents for more information related to fishing gear.
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.
A complete description of the long-term research surveys conducted
by NEFSC can be found in section 1.4 of the LOA application. A complete
description of the short-term cooperative research projects can be
found in section 1.5 of the LOA application. Below we provide a summary
table with information relevant to this proposed rule (Table 1).
[[Page 30085]]
Table 1--Proposed NEFSC Fisheries Research Surveys
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual days at sea Potential for
Project name Survey description Gear Specific gear Area of operation Season (DAS) take (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Research
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benthic Habitat Survey.......... Assess habitat Bottom Trawl........................ Conductivity, Georges Bank (GB). Summer or Fall.... 20................ Y
distribution and Temperature, and
condition, including Depth (CTD), Van
disturbance by Veen, Plankton
commercial fishing and trap, Beam Trawl,
changes as the benthic Dredge, Camera,
ecosystem recovers Sonar.
from chronic fishing
impacts. Also serves
to collect data on
seasonal migration of
benthic species,
collect bottom data
for mapping, and
provide indications of
climate change through
species shifts.
Fish Collection for Laboratory Trawling/hook and line Bottom Trawl........................ Net and twine New York Bight, April-November.... 10................ Y
Experiments. collection operations shrimp trawl, Sandy Hook Bay.
undertake to capture fishing poles.
high quality fish for
laboratory experiments.
Habitat Mapping Survey.......... Map shallow reef Bottom Trawl........................ 4-seam, 3 bridle Ocean Shelf off MD Summer............ 11................ Y
habitats of fisheries bottom trawl,
resource species, beam trawl, CTD,
including warm season Van Veen,
habitats of black sea Plankton trap,
bass, and locate dredge, camera,
sensitive habitats sonar.
(e.g., shallow
temperate coral
habitats) for habitat
conservation.
Living Marine Resources Survey.. Determine the Bottom Trawl........................ 4-seam, 3 bridle Cape Hatteras to Spring............ 11................ Y
distribution, bottom trawl, NJ.
abundance, and beam trawl, CTD,
recruitment patterns Van Veen, sonar.
for multiple species.
Massachusetts Division of Marine The objective of this Bottom Trawl........................ Otter trawl....... Territorial waters Spring and Fall... 60-72............. Y
Fisheries Bottom Trawl Surveys. project is to track from RI to NH
mature animals and borders.
determine juvenile
abundance.
NEAMAP Near Shore Trawl Program-- This project provides Bottom Trawl........................ Modified GoM U.S.-Canada to NH- Spring and Fall... 30-50............. Y
Northern Segment. data collection and shrimp otter MA border from
analysis in support of trawl. shore to 300 ft
single and multi- depth.
species stock
assessments Gulf of
Maine. It includes the
Maine/New Hampshire
inshore trawl program,
conducted by Maine
Department of Marine
Resources (MDMR) in
the northern segment.
NEAMAP Near Shore Trawl Program-- This project provides Bottom Trawl........................ 4-seam, 3-bridle Montauk, NY to Spring and Fall... 30-50............. Y
Southern Segment. data collection and net bottom trawl Cape Hatteras, NC
analysis in support of cookie sweep. from 20 to 90 ft
single and depth.
multispecies stock
assessments in the Mid-
Atlantic. It includes
the inshore trawl
program NEAMAP Mid-
Atlantic to Southern
New England survey,
conducted by Virginia
Institute of Marine
Science, College of
William and Mary
(VIMS) in the southern
segment.
NEFOP Observer Bottom Trawl Certification training Bottom Trawl........................ Contracted Mid-Atlantic Bight April-November (as 18................ Y
Training Trips. for new NEFOP vessels' trawl (MAB) and GB. needed), day
Observers. gear. trips.
NEFSC Northern Shrimp Survey.... The objective of this Bottom Trawl........................ 4 seam modified GOM............... Summer............ 22................ Y
project is to commercial shrimp
determine the trawl, positional
distribution and sensors, mini-
abundance of northern log, CTD.
shrimp and collect
related data.
NEFSC Standard Bottom Trawl This project monitors Bottom Trawl........................ 4-seam, 3-bridle Cape Hatteras to Spring and Fall... 120............... Y
Surveys (BTS). abundance and bottom trawl. Western Scotian
distribution of mature Shelf.
and juvenile fish and
invertebrates.
NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey Gear Testing and efficiency Bottom Trawl........................ 4-seam, 3-bridle Cape Hatteras to Fall.............. 14-20............. Y
Trials. evaluation of the bottom trawl, Western Scotian
standardized 4-seam, 3- twin trawls. Shelf.
bridle bottom trawl
(doors, sweeps,
protocols).
[[Page 30086]]
Atlantic Herring Survey......... This operation collects Pelagic Trawl....................... 4-seam, 3-bridle GOM and Northern Fall.............. 34................ Y
fisheries-independent net bottom trawl, GB.
herring spawning midwater rope
biomass data and also trawl, acoustics.
includes survey
equipment calibration
and performance tests.
Atlantic Salmon Trawl Survey.... This is a targeted Pelagic Trawl....................... Modified mid-water Inshore and Spring............ 21................ Y
research effort to trawl that fishes offshore GOM.
evaluate the marine at the surface
ecology of Atlantic via pair trawling.
salmon.
Deepwater Biodiversity.......... This project collects Pelagic Trawl....................... Deep-Sea acoustic/ Western North Summer or Fall.... 16................ Y
fish, cephalopod and optic/ Atlantic.
crustacean specimens oceanographic/
from 500 to 2,000 m eDNA system,
for tissue samples, trawl camera
specimen photos, and system.
documentation of
systematic
characterization.
Penobscot Estuarine Fish The objective of this Pelagic Trawl....................... Mamou shrimp trawl Penobscot Estuary Spring Summer and 12................ Y
Community and Ecosystem Survey. project is fish and modified to fish and Bay, ME. Fall.
invertebrate sampling at surface.
for biometric and
population analysis of
estuarine and coastal
species.
Northeast Integrated Pelagic The objective of this Pelagic Trawl....................... Mid-water trawls, Cape Hatteras to Summer and Fall... 80................ Y
Survey. project is to assess bong nets, CTD, Western Scotian
the pelagic components Acoustic Doppler Shelf.
of the ecosystem Profiler (ADCP),
including water acoustics.
currents, water
properties,
phytoplankton, micro-
zooplankton,
mesozooplankton,
pelagic fish and
invertebrates, sea
turtles, marine
mammals, and sea birds.
NEFOP Observer Mid-Water Trawl This program provides Pelagic Trawl....................... Various commercial MAB and GB........ April-November as 5................. Y
Training Trip. certification training nets. needed (day
for NEFOP Observers. trips).
Apex Predators Pelagic Longline The objectives of this Longline............................ Yankee and current MD to Canada...... Spring............ 30................ Y
Shark Survey. survey are to: (1) commercial
Monitor the species pelagic longline
composition, gear. Configured
distribution, and according to NMFS
abundance of pelagic HMS Regulations.
sharks in the U.S.
Atlantic from Maryland
to Canada; (2) tag
sharks for migration
and age validation
studies; (3) collect
morphological data and
biological samples for
age and growth,
feeding ecology, and
reproductive studies;
and (4) provide time-
series of abundance
from this survey for
use in Atlantic
pelagic shark
assessments.
Apex Predators Bottom Longline The objectives of this Longline............................ Florida style RI to FL within 40 Spring............ 47................ Y
Coastal Shark Survey. survey are to: (1) bottom longline. fathoms.
Monitor the species
composition,
distribution, and
abundance of sharks in
coastal Atlantic
waters from Florida to
Delaware; (2) tag
sharks for migration
and age validation
studies; (3) collect
morphometric data and
biological samples for
age and growth,
feeding ecology, and
reproductive studies;
and (4) provide time-
series of abundance
from this survey for
use in Atlantic
coastal shark
assessments.
[[Page 30087]]
Apex Predators Pelagic Nursery This project uses Longline............................ Standard GB to Grand Banks Fall.............. 21-55............. Y
Grounds Study. opportunistic sampling commercial off Newfoundland,
on board a commercial pelagic longline Canada.
swordfish longline gear. Configured
vessel to: (1) Monitor according to NMFS
the species Highly Migratory
composition and Species (HMS)
distribution of Regulations.
juvenile pelagic
sharks on the Grand
Banks; (2) tag sharks
for migration and age
validation studies;
and (3) collect
morphometric data and
biological samples for
age and growth,
feeding ecology, and
reproductive studies.
Data from this survey
helps determine the
location of pelagic
shark nurseries for
use in updating
essential fish habitat
designations.
Cooperative Atlantic States This project determines Longline and Gillnet................ Bottom Longline FL to RI.......... Summer............ 25 or 40.......... Y
Shark Pupping and Nursery the location of shark Gear, Anchored
(COASTSPAN) Longline and nurseries, species Sinking Gillnet.
Gillnet Surveys. 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. NEFSC
conducts surveys in
Delaware, New Jersey,
and Rhode Island
estuarine and coastal
waters. Other areas
are surveyed by
cooperating
institutions and
agencies. In the NE
Large Marine Ecosystem
(LME), the Virginia
Institute of Marine
Science (VIMS) is a
cooperating partner.
South of Cape Hatteras
the South Carolina
Department of Natural
Resources (SCDNR),
University of North
Florida (UNF), and
Florida Atlantic
University (FAU) are
partners.
Cooperative Research Gulf of The objective of this COOP Western-Central Gulf of Maine Longline.......... Western GOM Spring and Fall... 60 stations/year Y
Maine Longline Project. project is to conduct hard bottom longline survey. focused on sea eastern Maine, 90
commercial cooperative mounts. stations/year
bottom longline sets western-central
to characterize GOM.
demersal species of
the Western Gulf of
Maine traditionally
difficult to capture
with traditional or
research trawl gear
due to the bottom
topography.
NEFOP Observer Bottom Longline This program provides Longline............................ Commercial bottom MAB and GB........ April-November as 5................. Y
Training Trips. certification training longline gear. needed (day
for NEFOP observers. trips).
Annual Assessments of Sea These Atlantic Sea Dredge.............................. Scallop dredges, GPM, Georges Bank, Dredge surveys Apr- 50-100............ N
Scallop Abundance and Scallop Research Set- drop cameras, Mid-Atlantic. Sept, Camera
Distribution. Aside (RSA) rotational Other Habitat surveys June-Sept.
area surveys endeavor Camera (HabCam)
to monitor scallop Versions.
biomass and 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.
NEFOP Observer Scallop Dredge This program provides Dredge.............................. Turtle deflector MAB and GB........ April-November as 6................. N
Training Trips. certification training dredge. needed (day
for NEFOP observers. trips).
Annual Standardized Sea Scallop The objective of this Dredge.............................. New Bedford NC to GB.......... Summer............ 36................ N
Survey. project is to dredge, HabCam V4.
determine distribution
and abundance of sea
scallops and collect
related data for
Ecosystem Management
from concurrent stereo-
optic images. It is
conducted by the NEFSC.
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Dredge The objective of this Dredge.............................. Hydraulic-jet Southern VA to GB. Summer............ 15................ N
Survey. project is to dredge.
determine distribution
and abundance of
Surfclam/ocean quahog
and collect related
data.
[[Page 30088]]
Coastal Maine Telemetry Network. The objective of this Other............................... Fixed position Penobscot River Year round in GOM 10................ Y
project is to monitor acoustic estuary and bay, and Apr.-Nov. in
tagged animals telemetry array GOM. nearshore areas.
entering the Penobscot receivers on
Bay System and exiting moorings spaced
the system into the 250-400 m apart.
Gulf of Maine.
Deep-sea Coral Survey........... The objective of this Other............................... Remotely Operated Continental shelf Summer............ 16................ Y
program is to Vehicles (ROVs), margin, slope,
determine the species CTD, towed and submarine
diversity, community cameras, ADCP, canyons and deep
composition, acoustics. basins: GOM to
distribution and Virginia.
extent of deep sea
coral and sponge
habitats.
Diving Operations............... The objective of this Other............................... Wire mesh cages, Long Island Sound. Year round........ 20................ N
project is to collect lantern nets.
growth data on hard
clams, oysters and bay
scallops.
Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing This project services Other............................... ADCP on vessel and GOM and Northern Summer............ 12................ N
System Mooring Cruise. oceanographic moorings moorings. GB.
operated by the
University of Maine.
Hydroacoustics Surveys.......... This project consists Acoustic only....................... Split-beam and Penobscot Bay and Spring............ 25................ Y
of mobile transects DIDSON. estuary.
conducted throughout
the estuary and bay to
study fish biomass and
distribution.
Marine Estuaries Diadromous This project is a fish Other............................... 1 m and 2 m fyke Penobscot Bay and April-November.... 100............... N
Survey. community survey at nets. estuary.
fixed locations.
NEFOP Observer Gillnet Training This program provides Other............................... gill net gear..... MAB and GB........ April-November as 10................ N
Trips. certification training needed (day
for NEFOP Observers. trips).
Nutrients and Frontal Boundaries The objective of this Other............................... ADP, CTD, MAB............... Feb., May-June, 10................ N
project is to Hydroacoustics. Aug, and Nov.
characterize nutrient
patterns associated
with distinct water
masses and their
boundaries off of
coastal New Jersey and
Long Island in
association with
biological sampling.
Ocean Acidification............. The objective of this Other............................... CTD, YSI, Hudson River Spring............ 10................ N
project is to develop multinutrient Coastal waters.
baseline pH analyzer,
measurements in the Kemmerer bottle.
Hudson River water.
AUV Pilot Studies............... This program provides Other............................... AUV............... MA state waters, June.............. 5................. N
gear and platform GB.
testing.
Rotary Screw Trap (RSTs) Survey. This project is Other............................... RST............... Estuaries on April 15-June 15.. 60................ N
designed to collect coastal Maine
abundance estimates of rivers.
Migrating Atlantic
salmon smolts and
other anadromous
species.
Trawling to Support Finfish The objective of this Other............................... Combination bottom Long Island Sound. Summer............ 30................ Y
Aquaculture Research. project is to collect trawl, shrimp
broodstock for trawl, gillnet.
laboratory spawning
and rearing and
experimental studies.
DelMarVa Habitat The objective of this Other............................... ADCP, CTD, YSI, Coastal waters off August............ 5................. N
Characterization. project is to Plankton net, DE, MD and VA.
characterize and video sled, Ponar
determine key hard grab, Kemmerer
bottom habitats in bottle, sonar.
coastal ocean off the
DelMarVa Peninsula as
an adjunct to the
DelMarVa Reef Survey.
DelMarVa Reefs Survey........... The objective of this Other............................... HABCAM, CTD....... Coastal waters off August............ 5................. N
project is DE, MD and VA.
determination of
extent and
distribution of rock
outcrops and coral
habitats and their use
by black sea bass and
other reef fishes.
[[Page 30089]]
Miscellaneous Fish Collections The James J. Howard Other............................... Bottom trawl, New York Bight Spring and Fall... not stated........ Y
and Experimental Survey Gear Sandy Hook Marine lobster and fish estuary waters.
Trials. Laboratory pots, beam trawl,
occasionally supports seine net,
short-term research trammel nets.
projects requiring
small samples of fish
for various purposes
or to test alterations
of survey gear. These
small and sometimes
opportunistic sampling
efforts have used a
variety of gear types
other than those
listed under Status
Quo projects. The
gears and effort
levels listed here are
representative of
potential requests for
future research
support.
Opportunistic Hydrographic This program consists Other............................... Plankton net, Southeast LME Early Summer...... not stated........ N
Sampling. of opportunistic expendable depths <300 m.
plankton and bathythermograph.
hydrographic sampling
during ship transit.
Monkfish RSA.................... Monkfish Research Set- Other............................... Commercial Mid-Atlantic and April-December 100-200 sets/year. Y
Aside (RSA) surveys gillnets of Georges Bank. (end of fishing Sets left for 2-3
endeavor to monitor various sizes, year). days.
Monkfish biomass and short durations
derive estimates of for sets.
Total Allowable Catch
(TAC) for annual
Monkfish catch
specifications.
Additionally, the
surveys monitor
recruitment, growth,
and other biological
parameters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-Term Cooperative Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey Projects................. Cooperative Industry Trawl............................... Bottom Trawl...... GOM, GB, SNE, MAB. Summer and Fall... 550 tows/year..... Y
based surveys to
enhance data for
flatfish utilizing
cookie sweep gear on
commercial platforms.
Survey Projects................. Cooperative Industry Trawl............................... Pelagic Trawl..... GOM, GB, SNE, MAB. Summer and Fall 30 tows/year...... Y
based catchability Summer and Fall.
studies for Monkfish,
Longfin squid, other.
Trawl Comparison Research....... Twin trawl and paired Twin Bottom Trawl................... Trawl nets with GB, SNE, MAB...... Summer and Fall... 100 DAS........... Y
vessel comparisons of two types of
Standardized Bigelow sweeps or doors.
Trawl to test
rockhopper and cookie
sweeps and varying
trawl doors
performance on
commercial platforms.
Survey Projects................. Pot and trap Pot survey.......................... Pots and Traps.... SNE, Rhode Island Spring and fall 2,650 pot sets/ Y
catchability studies Bight, Nantucket for black sea year.
for Scup and Black Sea Sound, MAB waters bass. Year round
bass. from shore to for scup.
shelf edge.
Conservation Engineering Gear and net Trawl............................... Bottom Trawl...... GOM, GB, SNE, MAB. Spring, Summer and ~500 tows per year Y
Projects. conservation Fall. total for all
Cooperative work. bottom trawl
conservation
projects.
Conservation Engineering Varied gear and Trawl............................... Bottom Trawl...... GOM, GB, SNE, MAB. Spring, Summer and .................. Y
Projects. efficiency testing of Fall.
fisheries applications.
Conservation Engineering Cooperative Squid Trawl............................... Bottom Trawl & GOM, GB, SNE, MAB. Spring, Summer and .................. Y
Projects. Trawls and studies for Beam trawl. Fall.
squid catchability and
selectivity.
Conservation Engineering Commercial scallop Dredge.............................. Dredge............ GB, SNE, MAB...... April-December > 1,700 dredge N
Projects. dredge finfish and (end of fishing tows/year for all
turtle excluder year). dredge
research. Scallop conservation
dredge finfish and projects.
turtle excluder
research.
Conservation Engineering Commercial hydrodynamic Dredge.............................. Hydrodynamic GB, SNE, MAB...... April-December .................. N
Projects. turtle deflector dredge. (end of fishing
dredge testing. year).
Tagging Projects................ Winter Flounder tagging Trawl............................... Bottom Trawl & Coastal waters in Spring and Summer. up to 650 trawls/ Y
projects. Winter Otter trawl. GOM New Hampshire year.
flounder migration to Stonington/Mt.
patterns. Desert Island, ME.
Tagging Projects................ Spiny dogfish tagging Hook & Line; Gillnet................ Hook & Line and GOM and GB waters Spring, Summer and Long line: 5 sets/ Y
projects. Spiny Gillnet. adjacent to Cape Fall. trip, 15 total.
dogfish tagging north Cod, MA. Gillnet: 5 sets/
and south of Cape Cod, trip, 15 total.
and Cusk & NE multi-
species tagging.
[[Page 30090]]
Tagging Projects................ Monkfish tagging Gillnet............................. Gillnet........... GOM, SNE, MAB..... September-December 18-20 DAS, 10 Y
projects. short-duration
sets/day, 180-200
sets total.
Ropeless Lobster Trap Research.. Research to develop Lobster Pots/Traps.................. Acoustic/ GOM, SNE, MAB Summer and Fall... 50-100 DAS, 500 N
ropeless gear/devices mechanical (Inshore and sets, singles and
to mitigate/eliminate releases for Offshore). up to 40 pots per
interactions with ropeless lobster set.
protected species gear and float
(whales and turtles) lines.
by utilizing
commercial lobster
gear.
Rod and Reel Tagging of Atlantic Use of rod and reel to Rod and Reel........................ Acoustic tags..... ME, Greenland..... Summer and Fall... 200-500 tags N
Salmon. capture, tag, release applied total.
Atlantic salmon in
international and US
waters.
Continuous Plankton Recorder A towed continuous Towed array......................... CPR............... ME to Nova Scotia. Summer and Fall... 24 DAS............ N
(CPR) Transect Surveys: GOM. plankton recording
device is deployed
from vessels of
opportunity in the
Gulf of Maine, monthly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30091]]
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). The sources are characterized as non-impulsive,
intermittent sources.
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.
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.
The types of active sources employed in fisheries acoustic research
and monitoring, based largely on their relatively high operating
frequencies and other output characteristics (e.g., signal duration,
directivity), should be considered to have very low potential to cause
effects to marine mammals that would rise to the level of a ``take,''
as defined by the MMPA. Acoustic sources operating at high output
frequencies (>180 kHz) that are outside the known functional hearing
capability of any marine mammal are unlikely to be detected by marine
mammals. Although it is possible that these systems may produce
subharmonics at lower frequencies, this component of acoustic output
would also be at significantly lower SPLs. While the production of
subharmonics can occur during actual operations, the phenomenon may be
the result of issues with the system or its installation on a vessel
rather than an issue that is inherent to the output of the system. Many
of these sources also generally have short duration signals and highly
directional beam patterns, meaning that any individual marine mammal
would be unlikely to even receive a signal that would likely be
inaudible.
Acoustic sources 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
that certain marine mammals may detect (e.g., 10-180 kHz). However,
while likely potentially audible to certain species, these sources also
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.
The acoustic system used during a particular NEFSC 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 below and 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 EK500 and EK60 systems, which
[[Page 30092]]
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 4-5[deg] variable for tilt
angles from 0 to 45[deg] from horizontal). 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 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 duration (ms) Orientation/ Nominal
Active acoustic system frequencies source level and repetition directionality beamwidth
rate (Hz) (degrees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simrad EK500 and EK60 narrow 18, 38, 70, 120, 224 dB...... Variable; most Downward 7[deg] at 38
beam echosounders. 200, 333 kHz; common looking. kHz, 11[deg]
primary settings are 1 at 18 kHz.
frequencies ms and 0.5 Hz.
italicized.
Simrad ME70 multibeam 70-120 kHz...... 205 dB...... 0.06-5 ms; 1-4 Primarily 140[deg].
echosounder. Hz. downward
looking.
Simrad SX90 narrow beam sonar 20-30 kHz....... 219 dB...... Variable....... Omnidirectional 4-5[deg]
(variable for
tilt angles
from 0-45[deg]
from
horizontal).
Teledyne RD Instruments ADCP, 75 kHz.......... 224 dB...... 0.2 Hz......... Downward 30[deg].
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, 6[deg] at
FCV-292). 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, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of NEFSC's LOA application summarize available
[[Page 30093]]
information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat
preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected
species. Species and stock information is also provided in NMFS' 2015
proposed rule associated with the current LOA (80 FR 39542; July 9,
2015), NMFS's 2016 Final Programmatic EA (available at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research</a>) and, where updates
are necessary, NMFS 2019 draft supplemental programmatic EA (available
at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-northeast-fisheries-science-center-fisheries-and">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-northeast-fisheries-science-center-fisheries-and</a>). Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and
more general information about these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this action, and summarizes information
related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under
the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological
removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on
Taxonomy (2020). PBR is 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 (as described in NMFS's SARs). PBR and
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and
other threats.
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 or survey area.
NMFS's 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. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs (e.g., Hayes et al.,
2020). All values presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at
the time of publication and are available in the draft 2020 SARs
(available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>).
Table 3--Marine Mammal Present Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/ MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV, Total
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR \3\ annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae (right whales):
North Atlantic right whale...... Eubalaena glacialis.... Western Atlantic....... E/D; Y 368 (0, 356, 2020) \4\ 0.8 \5\ 18.6
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Blue whale \5\.................. Balaenoptera musculus.. Western North Atlantic. E/D; Y Unk (n/a, 402, 1980- 0.8 0
2008).
Minke whale..................... Balaenoptera Canadian East Coast.... -; N 21,968 (0.31, 17,002, 170 7 8 10.6
acutorostrata 2016).
acutorostrata.
Sei whale....................... B. borealis borealis... Nova Scotia............ E/D; Y 6,292 (1.02, 3,098, 6.2 \9\ 1.2
2016).
Fin whale....................... B. physalus physalus... Western North Atlantic. E/D; Y 6,802 (0.24, 5,573, 11 \10\ 2.35
2016).
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae Gulf of Maine.......... E/D; Y 1,393 (0.15, 1,375, 22 \11\ 58
novaeangliae. 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale..................... Physeter macrocephalus. Western North Atlantic. E/D; Y 4,349 (0.28, 3,451, 3.9 0
2016).
Family Kogiidae:
Pygmy sperm whale............... Kogia breviceps........ Western North Atlantic. -; N 7,750 (0.38, 5,689, 46 0
2016).
Dwarf sperm whale............... K. sima................ Western North Atlantic. -; N 7,750 (0.38, 5,689, 46 0
2016).
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):
Northern bottlenose whale....... Hyperoodon ampullatus.. Western North Atlantic. -; N Unk................... Unk 0
Blainville's beaked whale....... Mesplodon densirostris. Western North Atlantic. -; N 10,107 (0.27, 8,085, 81 0.2
2016) \12\.
Sowerby's beaked whale.......... M. bidens.............. Western North Atlantic. -; N 10,107 (0.27, 8,085, 81 0
2016) \12\.
Gervais' beaked whale........... M. europaeus...........
True's beaked whale............. M. mirus...............
Cuvier's beaked whale........... Ziphius cavirostris.... Western North Atlantic. -; N 5,744 (0.36, 4,282, 43 0.2
2016).
Family Delphinidae:
Short-beaked common dolphin..... Delphinus delphis Western North Atlantic. -; N 172,825 (0.55, 1,125 \8\ 289
delphis. 112,531, 2007).
Pygmy killer whale.............. Feresa attenuata....... Western North Atlantic. -; N Unk................... Unk Unk
Short-finned pilot whale........ Globicephala Western North Atlantic. -; N 28,924 (0.24, 23,637, 236 160
macrorhynchus. 2016).
Long-finned pilot whale......... G. melas............... Western North Atlantic. -; N 39,215 (0.30, 30,627, 306 21
2016).
Risso's dolphin................. Grampus griseus........ Western North Atlantic. -; N 35,493 (0.19, 30,289, 303 54.3
2016).
Fraser's dolphin................ Lagenodelphis hosei.... Western North Atlantic. -; N Unk................... Unk 0
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.... Lagenorhynchus acutus.. Western North Atlantic. -; N 93,233 (0.71, 54,443, 544 26
2016).
White-beaked dolphin............ L. albirostris......... Western North Atlantic. -; N 536,016 (0.31, 4,153 0
415,344, 2016).
Killer whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Western North Atlantic. -; N Unk................... Unk 0
Melon-headed whale.............. Peponocephala electra.. Western North Atlantic. -; N Unk................... Unk 0
Pantropical spotted dolphin..... Stenella attenuata..... Western North Atlantic. -; N 6,593 (0.52, 4,367, 44 0
2016).
Clymene dolphin................. S. clymene............. Western North Atlantic. -; N 4,237 (1.03, 2,071, 21 0
2016.
Striped dolphin................. S. coeruleoalba........ Western North Atlantic. -; N 67,036 (0.29, 52,939, 529 0
2016).
Atlantic spotted dolphin........ S. frontalis........... Western North Atlantic. -; N 39,921 (0.27, 32,032, 320 0
2016).
[[Page 30094]]
Spinner dolphin................. S. longirostris........ Western North Atlantic. -; N 4,102 (0.99, 2,045, 20 0
2016).
Rough-toothed dolphin........... Steno bredanensis...... Western North Atlantic. -; N 136 (1.0, 67, 2016)... 0.7 0
Bottlenose dolphin.............. Tursiops truncatus Western North Atlantic -; N 62,851 (0.23, 51,914, 519 28
truncatus. (WNA) Offshore. 2016).
WNA Northern Migratory -/D; Y 6,639 (0.41, 4,759, 48 \13\ 1.2-
Coastal. 2016). 21.5
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena Gulf of Maine/Bay of -; N 95,543 (0.31, 74,034, 851 \8\ 217
phocoena. Fundy Stock. 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Gray seal....................... Halichoerus grypus Western North Atlantic. -; N 27,131 (0.19, 23,158, 1,389 \8\ 4,729
grypus. 2016).
Harbor seal..................... Phoca vitulina vitulina Western North Atlantic. -; N 75,834 (0.15, 66,884, 2,006 \8\ 350
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: <a href="http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/">www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/</a>. 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\ Abundance estimate taken from Pace et al., 2021.
\5\ Total M/SI of 18.6 for this species is model-derived and not broken down by cause. The fishery contribution of 6.85 is observed interactions only.
\6\ 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).
\7\ The total estimated human-caused mortality and serious injury to the Canadian East Coast minke whale stock is estimated as 10.6 per year (9.15
attributable to fisheries).
\8\ The NEFSC has historically taken this species in NEFSC research surveys (2004-2015) (see Tables 6-8).
\9\ The total estimated human-caused mortality and serious injury to the Nova Scotia sei whale stock is estimated as 1.2 per year (0.4 attributable to
fisheries).
\10\ The total estimated human-caused mortality and serious injury to the Western North Atlantic fin whale stock is estimated as 2.35 per year (1.55
attributable to fisheiries).
\11\ Total M/SI of 58 for this species is model-derived and not broken down by cause. The fishery contribution of 9.5 is observed interactions obly.
\12\ 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).
\13\ The Northern migratory stock of common bottlenose dolphins may interact with unobserved fisheries. Therefore, a range of human-caused mortality and
serious injury for this stock is presented.
As indicated above, all 35 number species (comprising 37 managed
stocks) in Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the surveys
provided in Table 1 to the degree that take is reasonably likely to
occur, and we have proposed authorizing it. While beluga
(Delphinapterus leucas), Bryde's (Balaenoptera edeni), false killer
(Pseudorca crassidens) whales, harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandica) and
hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) have been documented in the area,
these occurrence records are rare and are considered beyond the normal
range of the species.
In addition, the manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) may be
found in the MAB and SE LME. However, manatee are managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this
document.
A full description of the biology, ecology, and threats to marine
mammals listed in Table 3 can be found in NMFS proposed rule for the
initial LOA (80 FR 39542; July 9, 2015), NEFSC's application, and NMFS'
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (NMFS, 2016). Please refer to
those documents for those descriptions. Table 3 updates information
regarding abundance and human interaction and below we update on take
reduction planning, unusual mortality events, and biologically
important areas.
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
[[Page 30095]]
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:
<a href="http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/whaletrp/">http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/whaletrp/</a>.
Of the species/stocks of concern in the ALWTRP, the NEFSC has
requested the authorization of incidental M/SI 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: <a href="http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/bdtrp.htm">http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/bdtrp.htm</a>.
Of the species/stocks of concern in the take reduction plan, the
NEFSC has requested the authorization of incidental M/SI for two stocks
of bottlenose dolphins, one of which belongs to a coastal stock covered
in the take reduction plan (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: <a href="http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/porptrp/">http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/porptrp/</a>.
The NEFSC has requested the authorization of incidental M/SI
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: <a href="http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/mmp/atgtrp/">http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/mmp/atgtrp/</a>.
Of the species/stocks of concern in the take reduction plan, the
NEFSC has requested the authorization of incidental M/SI harassment for
Risso's, common, Atlantic spotted dolphin, 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. Four
of those 22 UME are currently open and involve the following species:
North Atlantic right whales (NARWs), humpback whales, minke whales, and
harbor and gray seals.
NARW UME--Beginning in 2017, elevated mortalities in NARWs have
been documented, primarily in Canada but some in the U.S. and were
collectively declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME). In 2017, there
were a total of 17 confirmed dead stranded whales (12 in Canada; 5 in
the United States) and in 2018, three confirmed dead stranded whales in
the United States. In 2019, nine dead whales stranded in Canada, and
one dead whale stranded in the United States. In 2020, two mortalities
were documented. To date in 2021, two mortalities has been documented.
The current total confirmed mortalities for the UME are 34 dead
stranded whales (21 in Canada; 13 in the United States), and the
leading category for the cause of death for this UME is ``human
interaction,'' specifically from entanglements or vessel strikes.
Additionally, since 2017, 15 live free-swimming non-stranded whales
have been documented with serious injuries from entanglements or vessel
strikes. More information on this UME can be found at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event</a>.
Atlantic Humpback Whale UME--Since January 2016, elevated humpback
whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine
through Florida. In total, 147 whales have stranded along the eastern
seaboard. The majority of strandings have occurred from the Outer
Banks, NC to Massachusetts. Partial or full necropsy examinations were
conducted on approximately half of the whales. Of the whales examined,
about 50 percent had evidence of human interaction, either ship strike
or entanglement. More information on this UME can be found at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast</a>.
Atlantic Minke Whale UME--Since January 2017, elevated minke whale
mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through
South Carolina. In total 105 whales have stranded, the majority along
the New England coast. More information on this UME can be found at
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast</a>.
Northeast Pinniped UME--Since July 2018, elevated numbers of harbor
seal and gray seal mortalities have occurred across Maine, New
Hampshire and Massachusetts. Additionally, seals showing clinical signs
have stranded as far south as Virginia, although not in elevated
numbers, therefore the UME investigation now encompasses all seal
strandings from Maine to Virginia. In total, 3,152 seals have stranded
along the mid-Atlantic and New England coast. Full or partial necropsy
examinations have been conducted on some of the seals and samples have
been collected for testing. Based on tests conducted so far, the main
pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus. More
information about this UME can be found at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along</a>.
Of these species involved in active UMEs, the NEFSC has requested,
and we propose to authorize, the incidental take, by mortality or
serious injury, of minke whales, and harbor and gray seals. The NEFSC
has also requested, and we are proposing to authorize, take by Level B
harassment for each of these species incidental to the use of active
acoustic equipment during fisheries and ecosystem research. See
``Estimated Take'' later in this document for more
[[Page 30096]]
information regarding the proposed take.
Biologically Important Areas
In 2015, NOAA's Cetacean Density and Distribution Mapping Working
Group identified Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for 24 cetacean
species, stocks, or populations in seven regions (US East Coast, Gulf
of Mexico, West Coast, Hawaiian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands and Bering Sea, and Arctic) within U.S. waters through an
expert elicitation process. BIAs are reproductive areas, feeding areas,
migratory corridors, and areas in which small and resident populations
are concentrated. BIAs are region-, species-, and time-specific. A
description of the types of BIAs found within NEFSC fishery research
areas follows:
Reproductive Areas: Areas and months within which a particular
species or population selectively mates, gives birth, or is found with
neonates or other sensitive age classes.
Feeding Areas: Areas and months within which a particular species
or population selectively feeds. These may either be found consistently
in space and time, or may be associated with ephemeral features that
are less predictable but can be delineated and are generally located
within a larger identifiable area.
Migratory Corridors: Areas and months within which a substantial
portion of a species or population is known to migrate; the corridor is
typically delimited on one or both sides by land or ice.
Small and Resident Population: Areas and months within which small
and resident populations occupying a limited geographic extent exist.
The delineation of BIAs does not have direct or immediate
regulatory consequences. Rather, the BIA assessment is intended to
provide the best available science to help inform analyses and planning
for applicants, and to support regulatory and management decisions
under existing authorities, and to support the reduction of
anthropogenic impacts on cetaceans and to achieve conservation and
protection goals. In addition, the BIAs and associated information may
be used to identify information gaps and prioritize future research and
modeling efforts to better understand cetaceans, their habitat, and
ecosystems. Table 4 provides a list of BIAs found within NEFSC
fisheries research areas.
Table 4--Biologically Important Areas Within NEFSC Research Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA name Species BIA type Time of year Size (km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Gulf of Maine and Minke whale........ Feeding............ March-Nov.......... 54,341
George's Bank.
Eastern Atlantic................. NARW............... Migration.......... North: March-April; 269,448
South: Nov-Dec.
East of Montauk Point............ Fin whale.......... Feeding............ March-Oct.......... 2,933
Great South Channel and George's NARW............... Feeding............ April-June......... 12,247
Bank Shelf.
Cape Cod Bay and MA Bay.......... NARW............... Feeding............ Feb-April.......... 3,149
Southern Gulf of Maine........... Fin whale.......... Feeding............ Year-round......... 18,015
Jeffreys Ledge................... NARW............... Feeding............ June-July; Oct-Dec. 702
Gulf of Maine/Stellwagon Bank/ Humpback whale..... Feeding............ March-Dec.......... 47,701
Great South Channel.
Gulf of Maine.................... NARW............... Reproduction....... Nov-Jan............ 8,214
Central Gulf of Main--Parker Minke whale........ Feeding............ March-Nov.......... 2,256
Ridge and Cashes Ledge.
Gulf of Maine.................... Harbor porpoise.... Small and resident. July-Sept.......... 12,211
Gulf of Maine.................... Sei whale.......... Feeding............ May-Nov............ 56,609
Northern Gulf of Maine........... Fin whale.......... Feeding............ June-Oct........... 6,146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Generalized hearing ranges were
chosen based on the approximately 65 dB threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the exception for lower limits for low-
frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained.
Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are
provided in Table 5.
Table 5--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
toothed whales, beaked whales,
bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
seals).
[[Page 30097]]
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
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
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Thirty-eight marine mammal species (33 cetacean and 2 pinniped (2
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
proposed survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the cetacean
species that may be present, 6 are classified as low-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 25 are classified as mid-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species and the
sperm whale), and 3 are classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e.,
harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take section later in this document
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
and Determination section considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take section, and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and how those
impacts on individuals are likely to impact marine mammal species or
stocks.
We note that the potential effects from NEFSC fisheries and
ecosystem research (i.e., gear interaction and acoustic impacts) remain
the same as those described in the Federal Register notices associated
with the issuance of the NEFSC's current LOA. Effects to marine mammals
are also described in NMFS' 2020 Draft Supplemental EA. We reiterate
that information here and, where appropriate, we updated the
information to reflect data contained within the NEFSC's annual
monitoring reports received pursuant to the 2016-2021 LOA.
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
nautical mile per hour (kts), and exceeded ninety percent at 17 kts.
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 kts
to approximately twenty percent at 8.6 kts. At speeds below 11.8 kts,
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 NARW, 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,
[[Page 30098]]
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<SUP>-</SUP>\6\; 95% CI = 0-5.5 x 10<SUP>-</SUP>\6\; NMFS,
2013). In addition, a non-NEFSC 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. NEFSC has not documented any ship strikes or
near-misses in their monitoring reports pursuant to the current LOA. In
addition, 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 right whale ship strike reduction
rule states that all vessels 19.8 m in overall length or greater must
slow to speeds of 10 kts or less in seasonal management areas.
Northeast U.S. Seasonal Management Areas include: Cape Cod Bay (1 Jan-
15 May), off Race Point (1 Mar-30 Apr) and GSC (1 Apr-31 July). Mid-
Atlantic Seasonal Management Areas include several port or bay
entrances from 1 November to 30 April. When operating in these 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 kts. The purpose of this mandatory regulation
is to reduce the likelihood of deaths and serious injuries to these
endangered whales that result from collisions with a vessel (78 FR
73726, December 9, 2013). Further, because vessels of all sizes can
strike a whale, NEFSC research vessels will also reduce speed and
change course in the vicinity of resting groups of large whales. 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., NARWs).
Finally, the Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (RWSAS) is a NMFS
program designed to reduce collisions between ships and the critically
endangered NARW by alerting mariners to the presence of the right
whales. All NOAA research vessels operating in NARW 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.
Fishing Gear Interactions
Marine mammals are known to regularly remove catch or bait (i.e.,
depredate) from commercial fisheries' lines or nets, and some species
(primarily pinnipeds) take fish from mariculture pens. Depredation has
been documented in over 30 species of marine mammals and from various
types of gear (e.g., Read 2008; Reeves et al., 2013; Werner et al.,
2015). For example, some individuals in populations of sperm, killer,
false killer, and pilot whales around the world have become adept at
removing a variety of fish species from longline hooks, a behavior also
exhibited by other toothed whales and dolphins in a wide range of
fisheries. Other species have learned to take catch from trawl or gill
nets (e.g., Kovaks et al., 2017).
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
[[Page 30099]]
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 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. For example, in most cases, research gear employs
smaller nets and shorter longlines than commercial gear. Similarly, net
soak times for research are often shorter than commercial fisheries
and, in many cases, are monitored.
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
[[Page 30100]]
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 four
programs: The Apex Predators Bottom Longline Coastal Shark, Apex
Predators Pelagic Nursery Grounds Shark, Apex Predator Pelagic Longline
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. NEFSC uses a shorter mainline
length and lower number of hooks relative to that of commercial
fisheries.
Gillnets--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 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
2013-2017, the total human caused mortality and serious injury to
harbor seals is estimated to be 350 per year (338 from fisheries and 12
from non-fishery-related interaction stranding mortalities) (Hayes,
Josephson et al. 2020). The average annual estimated human-caused
mortality and serious injury to gray seals in the U.S. and Canada was
5,410 per year for the period 2013-2017 (946 U.S./4,464 Canada). This
average is based on: 940 from U.S. observed fisheries; 5.6 from non-
fishery human interaction stranding and shooting mortalities in the
U.S.; 0.8 from U.S. research mortalities; 672 Canadian commercial
harvest; 55 from the DFO scientific collections; and 3,737 removals of
nuisance animals in Canada (DFO 2017, Mike Hammill pers. comm; as cited
in Hayes, Josephson et al. 2020).
Fyke Nets
Fyke nets are bag-shaped nets which are held open by frames or
hoops. The fyke nets used in NEFSC survey activities are constructed 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). Each net has two throats tapering to a semi-rigid opening. The
final compartment of the net is configured with a rigid framed live box
(2 x 2 x 3 meters) at the surface for removal of catch directly from
above without having to retrieve the entire net. Fyke nets are normally
set inshore by small boat crews. It is unknown whether fyke nets have
been responsible for marine mammal mortality or serious injury (NMFS
2021).
In commercial fisheries, fyke nets fall into Category III on the
List of Fisheries. 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); however, it is unknown whether fyke nets have been
responsible for marine mammal mortality or serious injury (NMFS 2021).
Other Research Gear--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. Specifically,
these include 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.
NEFSC Gear Interactions
From 2004 through 2015, NEFSC documented ten individual marine
mammals that were killed from interactions with NEFSC's gear: Six were
killed due to capture in gillnets, a harbor seal suffered mortality in
fyke nets, and one minke whale was caught in trawl gear and released
alive. No interactions with NEFSC survey gear were observed in 2016,
2017 or 2018.
On September 24, 2019, during a Cooperative Research NTAP cruise
sponsored by the NEFSC, a small common dolphin (Length = 231 cm approx.
150 lbs) was found dead from entanglement in fishing gear upon
inspection of the catch. The gear was a 4 seam 3 bridle Bigelow trawl
net with a spread restrictor cable. The take occurred during reduced
visibility (at night/early morning conditions), so visually scanning
for marine mammals
[[Page 30101]]
was difficult. Deployment of the net took place within fifteen minutes
of arrival on station during which time no marine mammals were present
or sighted during the approach or at the sampling site. Vessel
personnel maintained watch for marine mammals during trawling
operations. None were sighted, so the station was completed. The tows
were short in duration (20 minutes) and the vessel maintained a
consistent tow speed of 3 knots. During fishing, there was no
indication there was a marine mammal in the net nor were any marine
mammals observed. Upon completion of the trawl, the nets (twin trawl)
were recovered and each catch was dumped immediately into a checker. It
was at this time, the marine mammal was detected (fresh dead). No other
marine mammals were observed in the net or in the water. More details
on this interaction can be found the NEFSC 2019 Annual Monitoring
available at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research</a>. In
2020, no interactions with marine mammals occurred.
Acoustic Effects
Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of NEFSC's use of
acoustic sources are provided in other Federal Register notice for the
original incidental take regulations issued to the NEFSC (80 FR 39542;
January 9, 2015) and, more recently, other NMFS Science Centers (e.g.,
the ``Acoustic Effects'' section of the proposed rule for the taking of
marine mammals incidental to NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center
fisheries research (83 FR 37660; August 1, 2018), and the ``Potential
Effects of Underwater Sound'' section of the proposed rule for the
taking of marine mammals incidental to NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science
Center research (84 FR 6603; February 27, 2019). No significant new
information is available, and those discussions provide the necessary
adequate and relevant information regarding the potential effects of
NEFSC's specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat.
Therefore, we refer the reader to those documents rather than repeating
the information here.
Exposure to sound through the use of active acoustic systems for
research purposes may result in Level B harassment. However, as
detailed in the previously referenced discussions, Level A harassment
in the form of permanent threshold shift (PTS) is extremely unlikely to
occur, and we consider such effects discountable. With specific
reference to Level B harassment that may occur as a result of acoustic
exposure, we note that the analytical methods described in the
incidental take regulations for other NMFS Science Centers are retained
here. However, the state of science with regard to our understanding of
the likely potential effects of the use of systems like those used by
NEFSC has advanced in recent years, as have readily available
approaches to estimating the acoustic footprints of such sources, with
the result that we view this analysis as highly conservative. Although
more recent literature provides documentation of marine mammal
responses to the use of these and similar acoustic systems (e.g.,
Cholewiak et al., 2017; Quick et al., 2017; Varghese et al., 2020), the
described responses do not generally comport with the degree of
severity that should be associated with Level B harassment, as defined
by the MMPA. We retain the analytical approach described in the
incidental take regulations for other NMFS Science Centers for
consistency with existing analyses and for purposes of efficiency here,
and consider this acceptable because the approach provides a
conservative estimate of potential incidents of Level B harassment (see
``Estimated Take'' section of this notice). In summary, while we
propose to authorize the amount of take by Level B harassment indicated
in the ``Estimated Take'' section, and consider these potential takings
at face value in our negligible impact analysis, it is uncertain
whether use of these acoustic systems are likely to cause take at all,
much less at the estimated levels.
Potential Effects of Visual Disturbance
The NEFSC anticipates that some trawl and fyke net surveys may
disturb a small number of pinnipeds during the conduct of these
activities in upper Penobscot Bay above Fort Point Ledge, ME.
Specifically, two surveys have the potential to harass pinnipeds from
visual disturbance: The Penobscot Estuarine Fish Community and
Ecosystem Survey (trawls) and the Marine Estuaries Diadromous Survey
(fyke nets). 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.
In areas where disturbance of haulouts due to periodic human
activity (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
haulout 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 haulout 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 haulout 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
[[Page 30102]]
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.
Further, neither survey with potential for harassment from visual
disturbance overlaps with the gray seal pupping period.
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. The Penobscot Estuarine Fish
Community and Ecosystem Survey uses shrimp trawls and occurs over 12
days per year split between spring, summer and fall seasons. The Marine
Estuaries Diadromous Survey uses fyke nets and takes place over 100
days from April to November. 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
marine mammals, is not well documented. NEFSC fisheries research
removals of species commonly utilized by marine mammals are relatively
low. Prey of sei whales and blue whales are primarily zooplankton,
which are targeted by NEFSC fisheries research with collection only on
the order of liters, so the likelihood of research activities changing
prey availability is low and impact negligible to none. Prey species
biomass removed during NEFSC surveys is very small relative to their
overall biomass in the area and is a very small percentage of the
Allowable Biological Catch (ABC). For example, NEFSC fisheries research
activities may affect sperm whale prey (squid), but this is expected to
be minor due to the insignificant amount of squid removed through
fisheries research (i.e., 4 tons in 2017). However, here the removal by
NEFSC fisheries research, regardless of season and location is minor
relative to that taken through commercial fisheries. For example,
commercial fisheries catches for most pelagic species typically range
from the hundreds to thousands of metric tons, whereas the catch in
similar fisheries research activities would only occasionally range as
high as hundreds to thousands of pounds in any particular year (see
Table 9-1 of the NEFSC Application for more information on fish catch
during research surveys and commercial harvest). In addition to the
small amount of biomass removed, the size classes of fish targeted in
research surveys are juvenile individuals, some of which are only
centimeters long; these small size classes are not known to be prey of
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. The overall effect of research catches on marine mammals
through competition for prey may therefore be considered insignificant
for all species.
Physical Habitat--NEFSC conducts some bottom trawling, which may
physically damage seafloor habitat. In addition, NEFSC fishery research
activities use bottom contact fishing gear, including otter trawls, sea
scallop dredges, and hydraulic surfclam dredges. Other fishing gear
that contacts the seafloor, such as pots and traps, can cause physical
damage but the impacts are localized and minimal as this type of gear
is fixed in position. The ropeless lobster traps planned for ongoing
use would have minimal effect of seafloor habitat. Physical damage may
include furrowing and smoothing of the seafloor as well as the
displacement of rocks and boulders, and such damage can increase with
multiple contacts in the same area (Schwinghamer et al., 1998; Kaiser
et al., 2002; Malik and Mayer, 2007; NRC, 2002). The effects of bottom
contact gear differ in each type of benthic environment. In sandy
habitats with strong currents, the furrows created by mobile bottom
contact gear quickly begin to erode because lighter weight sand at the
edges of furrows can be easily moved by water back towards the center
of the furrow (NRC, 2002). Duration of effects in these environments
therefore tend to be very short because the terrain and associated
organisms are accustomed to natural disturbance. By contrast, the
physical features of more stable hard bottom habitats are less
susceptible to disturbance, but once damaged or removed by fishing
gear, the organisms that grow on gravel, cobbles, and boulders can take
years to recover, especially in deeper water where there is less
natural disturbance (NRC, 2002). However, the area of benthic habitat
affected by NEFSC research each year would be a very small fraction of
total area of benthic habitat in the research areas.
Damage to seafloor habitat may also harm infauna and epifauna
(i.e., animals that live in or on the seafloor or on structures on the
seafloor), including corals (Schwinghamer et al., 1998; Collie et al.,
2000; Stevenson et al., 2004). In general, recovery from biological
damage varies based on the type of fishing gear used, the type of
seafloor surface (i.e., mud, sand, gravel, mixed substrate), and the
level of repeated disturbances. Recovery timelines of 1-18 months are
expected. However, repeated disturbance of an area can prolong the
recovery time (Stevenson et al., 2004), and recovery of corals may take
significantly longer than 18 months.
Organisms such as cold water corals create structure on the
seafloor that not only contain a high diversity of corals but also
provide an important habitat for other infauna (Stevenson, Chiarella et
al. 2004). Cold water corals are generally slow growing, fragile and
long lived that makes them particularly vulnerable to damage. Fishing
gear that contacts coral can break or disrupt corals reducing
structural complexity and reducing species diversity of the corals and
other animals that utilize this habitat (Freiwald, Fossa et al. 2004).
The extent of overlap between cold water corals and NEFSC survey
vessels is expected to be limited given the small number and small
areal extent of NEFSC surveys and funded fishery research using bottom
trawl and dredging equipment. In addition, only two surveys occur
outside of the LME, the Deepwater Biodiversity Survey and the Deep-sea
Corals Survey. Neither of these surveys use bottom contacting gear.
Although fisheries research effects on corals may be long-term, the
magnitude of this potential effect is negligible.
Fishing gear that contacts the seafloor can increase the turbidity
of the water by suspending fine sediments and benthic algae. Suspension
of fine sediments and turnover of sediment can
[[Page 30103]]
also alter the geochemistry of the seafloor and the water column, but
impacts of alteration of turbidity and geochemistry in the water column
are not very well understood (Stevenson, Chiarella et al. 2004). These
types of effects from fisheries research activities would be periodic,
temporary, and localized and are considered negligible.
As described in the preceding, the potential for NEFSC research to
affect the availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully
impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be
insignificant for all species. Effects to marine mammal habitat will
not be discussed further in this document.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here,
section 3(18) of 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).
Take of marine mammals incidental to NEFSC research activities
could occur as a result of (1) injury or mortality due to gear
interaction (Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality); (2)
behavioral disturbance resulting from the use of active acoustic
sources (Level B harassment only); or (3) behavioral disturbance of
pinnipeds resulting from incidental approach of researchers and
research vessels (Level B harassment only). Below we describe how the
potential take is estimated.
Estimated Take Due to Gear Interaction
To estimate the number of potential takes that could occur by M/SI
and Level A through gear interaction, consideration of past
interactions between gear (i.e., trawl, gillnet, and fyke gear) used by
NEFSC and specific marine mammal species provides important context. We
also considered other species that have not been taken by NEFSC but are
similar enough in nature and behavioral patterns as to consider them
having the potential to be entangled. As described in the ``Potential
Effects of Marine Mammals and their Habitat'' section, NEFSC has a
history of taking marine mammals in fishing gear, albeit a very small
amount compared to the amount of fishing effort. From 2004-2015, eight
marine mammals were killed in interactions with trawl gear (common
dolphin, gray seal), six were killed due to capture in gillnets (Common
bottlenose, Northern South Carolina estuarine stock, gray seal, harbor
porpoise and bottlenose dolphin), and one suffered mortality in a fyke
net (harbor seal). Also over that time period, one minke whale was
caught in trawl gear and released alive. We note these interactions
occurred prior to implementation of the existing regulations which
heightened mitigation and monitoring efforts. From 2016-2018, no marine
mammals were taken incidental to fishing. A lethal take of a common
dolphin during a Cooperative Research NTAP cruise sponsored by the
Center occurred in late September 2019. The gear was a 4 seam 3 bridle
Bigelow net with a spread restrictor cable. In 2020, no takes occurred.
Historical Interactions--In order to estimate the number of
potential incidents of take that could occur by M/SI 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 6, 7, and 8.
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 up through 2020.
Table 6--Historical Interactions With Trawl Gear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Gear Survey Date Species Number released Total
killed alive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourock high speed midwater Atlantic 10/8/2004 Short-beaked 2 0 2
rope trawl. Herring Survey. common dolphin
(Western NA
stock).
Bottom trawl (4-seam, 3 NEFSC Standard 11/11/2007 Short-beaked 1 0 1
bridle). Bottom Trawl common dolphin
Survey. (Western NA
stock).
Gourock high speed midwater Atlantic 10/11/2009 Minke whale.... 0 \1\ 1 1
rope trawl. Herring Survey.
Bottom trawl (4-seam, 3 Spring Bottom 4/4/15 Gray seal...... \2\ 1 0 1
bridle). Trawl Survey.
Bottom trawl (4-seam, 3 Cooperative 9/24/19 Short-beaked 1 0 1
bridle). NTAP. common dolphin
(Western NA
stock).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total individuals captured (total number of interactions Short-beaked 4 0 4
given in parentheses). common dolphin
(4).
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.
[[Page 30104]]
Table 7--Historical Interactions With Gillnet Gear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Gear Survey Date Species Number released Total
killed alive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillnet...................... COASTSPAN...... 11/29/2008 Common 1 0 1
Bottlenose
dolphin
(Northern
South Carolina
Estuarine
System stock)
\1\.
Gillnet...................... NEFOP Observer 5/4/2009 Gray seal...... 1 0 1
Gillnet
Training Trips.
Gillnet...................... NEFOP Observer 5/4/2009 Harbor porpoise 1 0 1
Gillnet
Training Trips.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total individuals captured (total number of interactions Bottlenose 1 0 1
given in parentheses). dolphin (1).
Gray seal (1).. 1 0 1
Harbor porpoise 1 0 1
(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 8--Historical Interactions With Fyke Net Gear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Gear Survey Date Species Number released Total
killed alive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
In order to estimate the potential number of incidents of M/SI take
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 the rule would be effective (2021-
2026), 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 9 shows the average annual captures rate of these six species
and the projected five-year totals for this proposed rule, for trawl,
gillnet, and fyke net gear. Below we describe how these data were used
to estimate future take for these and proxy species which also have the
potential to be taken.
Table 9--Average Rate of Animal Gear Interaction From 2004-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average rate
Gear Species per year
(2004-2020)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl.......................... Short-beaked common 0.27
dolphin.
Minke whale............ 0.06
Gray seal.............. 0.06
Gillnet........................ Common bottlenose 0.06
dolphin.
Harbor porpoise........ 0.06
Gray seal.............. 0.06
Fyke net....................... Harbor seal............ 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 30105]]
vulnerability, the request is for the same number per year as the
reference 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 2004-2019.
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. Short-beaked common dolphins were taken in
2004 (two individuals in one trawl set) and in 2019 (one dolphin during
a bottom trawl). The NEFSC therefore estimates one take of a short-
beaked common dolphin per year over the 5-year period to be
precautionary (i.e., five total). On the basis of similar vulnerability
of other dolphin species, 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
northern coastal migratory stock), 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 of two
individuals over the five-year timespan (Table 10).
In light of the low level of interaction and the mitigation
measures to specifically reduce interactions with dolphins during
COASTSPAN surveys such as hand-checking the gill net every 20 minutes,
no takes are requested from the Southern Migratory, Coastal or
Estuarine stocks of common bottlenose dolphin. 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 and
therefore is not requesting, nor it NMFS proposing to authorize, take
for the following species: Pantropical spotted dolphin, striped
dolphin, Fraser's dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, Clymene dolphin, and
spinner dolphin.
In 2015, one gray seal was killed during a trawl survey. Similar to
other gear, the NEFSC believes that harbor seals have a similar
vulnerability for incidental take as gray seals in this type of gear.
To be conservative, for the period of this authorization, the NEFSC has
requested one take by trawl for harbor seals each year over the five-
year authorization period. Thus, for harbor and gray seals, we propose
to authorize a total taking by M/SI of five individuals over the five-
year timespan for trawl gear (Table 10).
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 of five individuals over
the five-year timespan (see Table 10).
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 these species, we propose to authorize a
total taking by M/SI of one individual (per species) over the five-year
timespan (Table 10).
In 2008, a cooperating institution conducting the COASTSPAN gillnet
survey in South Carolina caught and killed one bottlenose dolphin.
Despite years of effort since that time, this was the only occurrence
of incidental take in these surveys. The survey now imposes strict
monitoring and mitigation measures (see sections below on Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting). With regard to
common bottlenose dolphins, M/SI takes are only requested for offshore
and Northern migratory stocks (10 total over the 5-year period). Given
the lack of recent take and the implementation of additional monitoring
and mitigation measures, the NEFSC is not requesting, and NMFS is not
proposing to authorize, take of bottlenose dolphins belonging to the
Southern Coastal Migratory or Estuarine stocks as the NEFSC considers
there to be a remote chance of incidentally taking a bottlenose dolphin
from the estuarine stocks. 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 OPR and the Atlantic Bottlenose
Dolphin Take Reduction Team.
In 2009, one gray seal was killed during a gillnet survey. Similar
to other gear, the NEFSC believes that harbor seals have a similar
vulnerability for incidental take as gray seals in this type of gear.
To be conservative, for the period of this authorization, the NEFSC has
requested one take by gillnet for harbor seals each year over the five-
year authorization period. Thus, for harbor and gray seals, we propose
to authorize a total taking by M/SI of five individual over the five-
year timespan (Table 10).
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.
However, to be conservative, for the period of this authorization, the
NEFSC has requested one take by fyke net for gray seals each year over
the five-year authorization period. Thus, for gray seals, we propose to
authorize a total taking by M/SI of five individual over the five-year
timespan (Table 10).
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 2020 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,
[[Page 30106]]
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
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on June 4, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.