Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries and Ecosystem Research
Federal RegisterJun 4, 2021
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
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:
•
Electronic submission:
Submit all public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov,
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
www.regulations.gov
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:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities.
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:
• Training scientists and vessel crew in marine mammal detection and identification, rule compliance, and marine mammal handling.
• Monitoring of the sampling areas to detect the presence of marine mammals before gear deployment and while gear is in the water.
• Implementing standard tow durations to reduce the likelihood of incidental take of marine mammals.
• Implementing the mitigation strategy known as the “move-on rule,” which incorporates best professional judgment, when necessary during fisheries research.
• Removing gear from water if marine mammals are at-risk or interact with gear.
• Complying with applicable vessel speed restrictions and separation distances from marine mammals.
• 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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research.
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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/draft-supplemental-programmatic-environmental-assessment-nefsc-research-now-available.
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
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research.
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
(SE LME) and, rarely, north into the Scotian Shelf LME.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
EP04JN21.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
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 °C in the north and 15-22 °C in the south, while summer temperatures, consistent in the south at approximately 28 °C, range from 15-27 °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
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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/draft-supplemental-programmatic-environmental-assessment-nefsc-research-now-available.
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).
Table 1—Proposed NEFSC Fisheries Research Surveys
Project name
Survey description
Gear
Specific gear
Area of operation
Season
Annual days at sea (DAS)
Potential for take (Y/N)
Long-Term Research
Benthic Habitat Survey
Assess habitat distribution and condition, including disturbance by commercial fishing and changes as the benthic ecosystem recovers 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
Bottom Trawl
Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth (CTD), Van Veen, Plankton trap, Beam Trawl, Dredge, Camera, Sonar
Georges Bank (GB)
Summer or Fall
20
Y
Fish Collection for Laboratory Experiments
Trawling/hook and line collection operations undertake to capture high quality fish for laboratory experiments
Bottom Trawl
Net and twine shrimp trawl, fishing poles
New York Bight, Sandy Hook Bay
April-November
10
Y
Habitat Mapping Survey
Map shallow reef habitats of fisheries resource species, including warm season habitats of black sea bass, and locate sensitive habitats (e.g., shallow temperate coral habitats) for habitat conservation
Bottom Trawl
4-seam, 3 bridle bottom trawl, beam trawl, CTD, Van Veen, Plankton trap, dredge, camera, sonar
Ocean Shelf off MD
Summer
11
Y
Living Marine Resources Survey
Determine the distribution, abundance, and recruitment patterns for multiple species
Bottom Trawl
4-seam, 3 bridle bottom trawl, beam trawl, CTD, Van Veen, sonar
Cape Hatteras to NJ
Spring
11
Y
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Bottom Trawl Surveys
The objective of this project is to track mature animals and determine juvenile abundance
Bottom Trawl
Otter trawl
Territorial waters from RI to NH borders
Spring and Fall
60-72
Y
NEAMAP Near Shore Trawl Program—Northern Segment
This project provides data collection and analysis in support of single and multi-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
Bottom Trawl
Modified GoM shrimp otter trawl
U.S.-Canada to NH-MA border from shore to 300 ft depth
Spring and Fall
30-50
Y
NEAMAP Near Shore Trawl Program—Southern Segment
This project provides data collection and analysis in support of single and 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
Bottom Trawl
4-seam, 3-bridle net bottom trawl cookie sweep
Montauk, NY to Cape Hatteras, NC from 20 to 90 ft depth
Spring and Fall
30-50
Y
NEFOP Observer Bottom Trawl Training Trips
Certification training for new NEFOP Observers
Bottom Trawl
Contracted vessels' trawl gear
Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB) and GB
April-November (as needed), day trips
18
Y
NEFSC Northern Shrimp Survey
The objective of this project is to determine the distribution and abundance of northern shrimp and collect related data
Bottom Trawl
4 seam modified commercial shrimp trawl, positional sensors, mini-log, CTD
GOM
Summer
22
Y
NEFSC Standard Bottom Trawl Surveys (BTS)
This project monitors abundance and distribution of mature and juvenile fish and invertebrates
Bottom Trawl
4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl
Cape Hatteras to Western Scotian Shelf
Spring and Fall
120
Y
NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey Gear Trials
Testing and efficiency evaluation of the standardized 4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl (doors, sweeps, protocols)
Bottom Trawl
4-seam, 3-bridle bottom trawl, twin trawls
Cape Hatteras to Western Scotian Shelf
Fall
14-20
Y
Atlantic Herring Survey
This operation collects fisheries-independent herring spawning biomass data and also includes survey equipment calibration and performance tests
Pelagic Trawl
4-seam, 3-bridle net bottom trawl, midwater rope trawl, acoustics
GOM and Northern GB
Fall
34
Y
Atlantic Salmon Trawl Survey
This is a targeted research effort to evaluate the marine ecology of Atlantic salmon
Pelagic Trawl
Modified mid-water trawl that fishes at the surface via pair trawling
Inshore and offshore GOM
Spring
21
Y
Deepwater Biodiversity
This project collects fish, cephalopod and crustacean specimens from 500 to 2,000 m for tissue samples, specimen photos, and documentation of systematic characterization
Pelagic Trawl
Deep-Sea acoustic/optic/oceanographic/eDNA system, trawl camera system
Western North Atlantic
Summer or Fall
16
Y
Penobscot Estuarine Fish Community and Ecosystem Survey
The objective of this project is fish and invertebrate sampling for biometric and population analysis of estuarine and coastal species
Pelagic Trawl
Mamou shrimp trawl modified to fish at surface
Penobscot Estuary and Bay, ME
Spring Summer and Fall
12
Y
Northeast Integrated Pelagic Survey
The objective of this project is to assess the pelagic components of the ecosystem including water currents, water properties, phytoplankton, micro-zooplankton, mesozooplankton, pelagic fish and invertebrates, sea turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds
Pelagic Trawl
Mid-water trawls, bong nets, CTD, Acoustic Doppler Profiler (ADCP), acoustics
Cape Hatteras to Western Scotian Shelf
Summer and Fall
80
Y
NEFOP Observer Mid-Water Trawl Training Trip
This program provides certification training for NEFOP Observers
Pelagic Trawl
Various commercial nets
MAB and GB
April-November as needed (day trips)
5
Y
Apex Predators Pelagic Longline Shark Survey
The objectives of this survey are to: (1) Monitor the species composition, distribution, and abundance of pelagic 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
Longline
Yankee and current commercial pelagic longline gear. Configured according to NMFS HMS Regulations
MD to Canada
Spring
30
Y
Apex Predators Bottom Longline Coastal Shark Survey
The objectives of this survey are to: (1) 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
Longline
Florida style bottom longline
RI to FL within 40 fathoms
Spring
47
Y
Apex Predators Pelagic Nursery Grounds Study
This project uses opportunistic sampling on board a commercial swordfish longline vessel to: (1) Monitor the species composition and distribution of 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
Longline
Standard commercial pelagic longline gear. Configured according to NMFS Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Regulations
GB to Grand Banks off Newfoundland, Canada
Fall
21-55
Y
Cooperative Atlantic States Shark Pupping and Nursery (COASTSPAN) Longline and Gillnet Surveys
This project determines the location of shark nurseries, species composition, relative abundance, distribution, and migration patterns. It is used to identify and refine essential fish habitat and provides standardized indices of abundance by species used in multiple species specific stock assessments. 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
Longline and Gillnet
Bottom Longline Gear, Anchored Sinking Gillnet
FL to RI
Summer
25 or 40
Y
Cooperative Research Gulf of Maine Longline Project
The objective of this project is to conduct commercial cooperative bottom longline sets to characterize demersal species of the Western Gulf of Maine traditionally difficult to capture with traditional or research trawl gear due to the bottom topography
COOP Western-Central Gulf of Maine hard bottom longline survey
Longline
Western GOM focused on sea mounts
Spring and Fall
60 stations/year eastern Maine, 90 stations/year western-central GOM
Y
NEFOP Observer Bottom Longline Training Trips
This program provides certification training for NEFOP observers
Longline
Commercial bottom longline gear
MAB and GB
April-November as needed (day trips)
5
Y
Annual Assessments of Sea Scallop Abundance and Distribution
These Atlantic Sea Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) rotational area surveys endeavor to monitor scallop 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
Dredge
Scallop dredges, drop cameras, Other Habitat Camera (HabCam) Versions
GPM, Georges Bank, Mid-Atlantic
Dredge surveys Apr-Sept, Camera surveys June-Sept
50-100
N
NEFOP Observer Scallop Dredge Training Trips
This program provides certification training for NEFOP observers
Dredge
Turtle deflector dredge
MAB and GB
April-November as needed (day trips)
6
N
Annual Standardized Sea Scallop Survey
The objective of this project is to 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
Dredge
New Bedford dredge, HabCam V4
NC to GB
Summer
36
N
Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Dredge Survey
The objective of this project is to determine distribution and abundance of Surfclam/ocean quahog and collect related data
Dredge
Hydraulic-jet dredge
Southern VA to GB
Summer
15
N
Coastal Maine Telemetry Network
The objective of this project is to monitor tagged animals entering the Penobscot Bay System and exiting the system into the Gulf of Maine
Other
Fixed position acoustic telemetry array receivers on moorings spaced 250-400 m apart
Penobscot River estuary and bay, GOM
Year round in GOM and Apr.-Nov. in nearshore areas
10
Y
Deep-sea Coral Survey
The objective of this program is to determine the species diversity, community composition, distribution and extent of deep sea coral and sponge habitats
Other
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs), CTD, towed cameras, ADCP, acoustics
Continental shelf margin, slope, and submarine canyons and deep basins: GOM to Virginia
Summer
16
Y
Diving Operations
The objective of this project is to collect growth data on hard clams, oysters and bay scallops
Other
Wire mesh cages, lantern nets
Long Island Sound
Year round
20
N
Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System Mooring Cruise
This project services oceanographic moorings operated by the University of Maine
Other
ADCP on vessel and moorings
GOM and Northern GB
Summer
12
N
Hydroacoustics Surveys
This project consists of mobile transects conducted throughout the estuary and bay to study fish biomass and distribution
Acoustic only
Split-beam and DIDSON
Penobscot Bay and estuary
Spring
25
Y
Marine Estuaries Diadromous Survey
This project is a fish community survey at fixed locations
Other
1 m and 2 m fyke nets
Penobscot Bay and estuary
April-November
100
N
NEFOP Observer Gillnet Training Trips
This program provides certification training for NEFOP Observers
Other
gill net gear
MAB and GB
April-November as needed (day trips)
10
N
Nutrients and Frontal Boundaries
The objective of this project is to characterize nutrient patterns associated with distinct water masses and their boundaries off of coastal New Jersey and Long Island in association with biological sampling
Other
ADP, CTD, Hydroacoustics
MAB
Feb., May-June, Aug, and Nov
10
N
Ocean Acidification
The objective of this project is to develop baseline pH measurements in the Hudson River water
Other
CTD, YSI, multinutrient analyzer, Kemmerer bottle
Hudson River Coastal waters
Spring
10
N
AUV Pilot Studies
This program provides gear and platform testing
Other
AUV
MA state waters, GB
June
5
N
Rotary Screw Trap (RSTs) Survey
This project is designed to collect abundance estimates of Migrating Atlantic salmon smolts and other anadromous species
Other
RST
Estuaries on coastal Maine rivers
April 15-June 15
60
N
Trawling to Support Finfish Aquaculture Research
The objective of this project is to collect broodstock for laboratory spawning and rearing and experimental studies
Other
Combination bottom trawl, shrimp trawl, gillnet
Long Island Sound
Summer
30
Y
DelMarVa Habitat Characterization
The objective of this project is to characterize and determine key hard bottom habitats in coastal ocean off the DelMarVa Peninsula as an adjunct to the DelMarVa Reef Survey
Other
ADCP, CTD, YSI, Plankton net, video sled, Ponar grab, Kemmerer bottle, sonar
Coastal waters off DE, MD and VA
August
5
N
DelMarVa Reefs Survey
The objective of this project is determination of extent and distribution of rock outcrops and coral habitats and their use by black sea bass and other reef fishes
Other
HABCAM, CTD
Coastal waters off DE, MD and VA
August
5
N
Miscellaneous Fish Collections and Experimental Survey Gear Trials
The James J. Howard Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory occasionally supports short-term research 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
Other
Bottom trawl, lobster and fish pots, beam trawl, seine net, trammel nets
New York Bight estuary waters
Spring and Fall
not stated
Y
Opportunistic Hydrographic Sampling
This program consists of opportunistic plankton and hydrographic sampling during ship transit
Other
Plankton net, expendable bathythermograph
Southeast LME depths <300 m
Early Summer
not stated
N
Monkfish RSA
Monkfish Research Set-Aside (RSA) surveys endeavor to monitor Monkfish biomass and derive estimates of Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for annual Monkfish catch specifications. Additionally, the surveys monitor recruitment, growth, and other biological parameters
Other
Commercial gillnets of various sizes, short durations for sets
Mid-Atlantic and Georges Bank
April-December (end of fishing year)
100-200 sets/year. Sets left for 2-3 days
Y
Short-Term Cooperative Projects
Survey Projects
Cooperative Industry based surveys to enhance data for flatfish utilizing cookie sweep gear on commercial platforms
Trawl
Bottom Trawl
GOM, GB, SNE, MAB
Summer and Fall
550 tows/year
Y
Survey Projects
Cooperative Industry based catchability studies for Monkfish, Longfin squid, other
Trawl
Pelagic Trawl
GOM, GB, SNE, MAB
Summer and Fall Summer and Fall
30 tows/year
Y
Trawl Comparison Research
Twin trawl and paired vessel comparisons of Standardized Bigelow Trawl to test rockhopper and cookie sweeps and varying trawl doors performance on commercial platforms
Twin Bottom Trawl
Trawl nets with two types of sweeps or doors
GB, SNE, MAB
Summer and Fall
100 DAS
Y
Survey Projects
Pot and trap catchability studies for Scup and Black Sea bass
Pot survey
Pots and Traps
SNE, Rhode Island Bight, Nantucket Sound, MAB waters from shore to shelf edge
Spring and fall for black sea bass. Year round for scup
2,650 pot sets/year
Y
Conservation Engineering Projects
Gear and net conservation Cooperative work
Trawl
Bottom Trawl
GOM, GB, SNE, MAB
Spring, Summer and Fall
~500 tows per year total for all bottom trawl conservation projects
Y
Conservation Engineering Projects
Varied gear and efficiency testing of fisheries applications
Trawl
Bottom Trawl
GOM, GB, SNE, MAB
Spring, Summer and Fall
Y
Conservation Engineering Projects
Cooperative Squid Trawls and studies for squid catchability and selectivity
Trawl
Bottom Trawl & Beam trawl
GOM, GB, SNE, MAB
Spring, Summer and Fall
Y
Conservation Engineering Projects
Commercial scallop dredge finfish and turtle excluder research. Scallop dredge finfish and turtle excluder research
Dredge
Dredge
GB, SNE, MAB
April-December (end of fishing year)
> 1,700 dredge tows/year for all dredge conservation projects
N
Conservation Engineering Projects
Commercial hydrodynamic turtle deflector dredge testing
Dredge
Hydrodynamic dredge
GB, SNE, MAB
April-December (end of fishing year)
N
Tagging Projects
Winter Flounder tagging projects. Winter flounder migration patterns
Trawl
Bottom Trawl & Otter trawl
Coastal waters in GOM New Hampshire to Stonington/Mt. Desert Island, ME
Spring and Summer
up to 650 trawls/year
Y
Tagging Projects
Spiny dogfish tagging projects. Spiny dogfish tagging north and south of Cape Cod, and Cusk & NE multi-species tagging
Hook & Line; Gillnet
Hook & Line and Gillnet
GOM and GB waters adjacent to Cape Cod, MA
Spring, Summer and Fall
Long line: 5 sets/trip, 15 total. Gillnet: 5 sets/trip, 15 total
Y
Tagging Projects
Monkfish tagging projects
Gillnet
Gillnet
GOM, SNE, MAB
September-December
18-20 DAS, 10 short-duration sets/day, 180-200 sets total
Y
Ropeless Lobster Trap Research
Research to develop ropeless gear/devices to mitigate/eliminate interactions with protected species (whales and turtles) by utilizing commercial lobster gear
Lobster Pots/Traps
Acoustic/mechanical releases for ropeless lobster gear and float lines
GOM, SNE, MAB (Inshore and Offshore)
Summer and Fall
50-100 DAS, 500 sets, singles and up to 40 pots per set
N
Rod and Reel Tagging of Atlantic Salmon
Use of rod and reel to capture, tag, release Atlantic salmon in international and US waters
Rod and Reel
Acoustic tags
ME, Greenland
Summer and Fall
200-500 tags applied total
N
Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) Transect Surveys: GOM
A towed continuous plankton recording device is deployed from vessels of opportunity in the Gulf of Maine, monthly
Towed array
CPR
ME to Nova Scotia
Summer and Fall
24 DAS
N
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° (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
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° variable for tilt angles from 0 to 45° from horizontal). At the 30-kHz operating frequency, the vertical beamwidth is less than 7° and can be electronically tilted from +10 to −80°, which results in differential transmitting beam patterns. The cylindrical multi-element transducer allows the omnidirectional sonar beam to be electronically tilted down to -60°, 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
Active acoustic system
Operating frequencies
Maximum source level
Single ping duration (ms) and repetition rate (Hz)
Orientation/directionality
Nominal beamwidth
(degrees)
Simrad EK500 and EK60 narrow beam echosounders
18
, 38, 70, 120, 200,
333 kHz; primary frequencies italicized
224 dB
Variable; most common settings are 1 ms and 0.5 Hz
Downward looking
7° at 38 kHz, 11° at 18 kHz.
Simrad ME70 multibeam echosounder
70-120 kHz
205 dB
0.06-5 ms; 1-4 Hz
Primarily downward looking
140°.
Simrad SX90 narrow beam sonar
20-30 kHz
219 dB
Variable
Omnidirectional
4-5° (variable for tilt angles from 0-45° from horizontal).
Teledyne RD Instruments ADCP, Ocean Surveyor
75 kHz
224 dB
0.2 Hz
Downward looking
30°.
Simrad ITI Catch Monitoring System
27-33 kHz
214 dB
0.05-0.5 Hz
Downward looking
40°.
Raymarine SS260 transducer for DSM300 (surrogate for FCV-292)
50, 200 kHz
217 dB
Unknown
Downward looking
19° at 50 kHz, 6° at 200 kHz.
Simrad EQ50
50, 200 kHz
210 dB
Variable
Downward looking
16° at 50 kHz, 7° at 200 kHz.
NetMind
30, 200 kHz
190 dB
Unknown
Downward looking
50°.
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
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 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research
) and, where updates are necessary, NMFS 2019 draft supplemental programmatic EA (available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-northeast-fisheries-science-center-fisheries-and
). Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments
) and more general information about these species (
e.g.,
physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website (
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species
).
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:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports
).
Table 3—Marine Mammal Present Within the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N)
1
Stock abundance
(CV, N
min
, most recent
abundance survey)
2
PBR
3
Total
annual
M/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, 1980-2008)
0.8
0
Minke whale
Balaenoptera acutorostrata acutorostrata
Canadian East Coast
-; N
21,968 (0.31, 17,002, 2016)
170
7 8
10.6
Sei whale
B. borealis borealis
Nova Scotia
E/D; Y
6,292 (1.02, 3,098, 2016)
6.2
9
1.2
Fin whale
B. physalus physalus
Western North Atlantic
E/D; Y
6,802 (0.24, 5,573, 2016)
11
10
2.35
Humpback whale
Megaptera novaeangliae novaeangliae
Gulf of Maine
E/D; Y
1,393 (0.15, 1,375, 2016)
22
11
58
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, 2016)
3.9
0
Family Kogiidae:
Pygmy sperm whale
Kogia breviceps
Western North Atlantic
-; N
7,750 (0.38, 5,689, 2016)
46
0
Dwarf sperm whale
K. sima
Western North Atlantic
-; N
7,750 (0.38, 5,689, 2016)
46
0
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, 2016)
12
81
0.2
Sowerby's beaked whale
M. bidens
Western North Atlantic
-; N
10,107 (0.27, 8,085, 2016)
12
81
0
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, 2016)
43
0.2
Family Delphinidae:
Short-beaked common dolphin
Delphinus delphis delphis
Western North Atlantic
-; N
172,825 (0.55, 112,531, 2007)
1,125
8
289
Pygmy killer whale
Feresa attenuata
Western North Atlantic
-; N
Unk
Unk
Unk
Short-finned pilot whale
Globicephala macrorhynchus
Western North Atlantic
-; N
28,924 (0.24, 23,637, 2016)
236
160
Long-finned pilot whale
G. melas
Western North Atlantic
-; N
39,215 (0.30, 30,627, 2016)
306
21
Risso's dolphin
Grampus griseus
Western North Atlantic
-; N
35,493 (0.19, 30,289, 2016)
303
54.3
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, 2016)
544
26
White-beaked dolphin
L. albirostris
Western North Atlantic
-; N
536,016 (0.31, 415,344, 2016)
4,153
0
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, 2016)
44
0
Clymene dolphin
S. clymene
Western North Atlantic
-; N
4,237 (1.03, 2,071, 2016
21
0
Striped dolphin
S. coeruleoalba
Western North Atlantic
-; N
67,036 (0.29, 52,939, 2016)
529
0
Atlantic spotted dolphin
S. frontalis
Western North Atlantic
-; N
39,921 (0.27, 32,032, 2016)
320
0
Spinner dolphin
S. longirostris
Western North Atlantic
-; N
4,102 (0.99, 2,045, 2016)
20
0
Rough-toothed dolphin
Steno bredanensis
Western North Atlantic
-; N
136 (1.0, 67, 2016)
0.7
0
Bottlenose dolphin
Tursiops truncatus truncatus
Western North Atlantic (WNA) Offshore
-; N
62,851 (0.23, 51,914, 2016)
519
28
WNA Northern Migratory Coastal
-/D; Y
6,639 (0.41, 4,759, 2016)
48
13
1.2-21.5
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise
Phocoena phocoena phocoena
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy Stock
-; N
95,543 (0.31, 74,034, 2016)
851
8
217
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Gray seal
Halichoerus grypus grypus
Western North Atlantic
-; N
27,131 (0.19, 23,158, 2016)
1,389
8
4,729
Harbor seal
Phoca vitulina vitulina
Western North Atlantic
-; N
75,834 (0.15, 66,884, 2012)
2,006
8
350
1
Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. NMFS automatically designates any species or stock listed under the ESA as depleted and as a strategic stock under the MMPA.
2
NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.
CV is coefficient of variation; N
min
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
gear type but may include the use of weak links, and gear marking and configuration specifications. Detailed requirements may be found in the regional guides to gillnet and pot/trap gear fisheries available at:
http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/whaletrp/.
Of the species/stocks of concern 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:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/bdtrp.htm.
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:
http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/porptrp/.
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:
http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/mmp/atgtrp/.
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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event.
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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.
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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.
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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along.
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
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 George's Bank
Minke whale
Feeding
March-Nov
54,341
Eastern Atlantic
NARW
Migration
North: March-April; South: Nov-Dec
269,448
East of Montauk Point
Fin whale
Feeding
March-Oct
2,933
Great South Channel and George's Bank Shelf
NARW
Feeding
April-June
12,247
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/Great South Channel
Humpback whale
Feeding
March-Dec
47,701
Gulf of Maine
NARW
Reproduction
Nov-Jan
8,214
Central Gulf of Main—Parker Ridge and Cashes Ledge
Minke whale
Feeding
March-Nov
2,256
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 whales)
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales)
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises,
Kogia,
river dolphins, cephalorhynchid,
Lagenorhynchus cruciger
&
L. australis
)
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals)
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals)
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
* 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 (Hemilä
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,
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 × 10
−
6
; 95% CI = 0-5.5 × 10
−
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
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
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
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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-noaa-fisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystem-research.
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
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
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
Gear
Survey
Date
Species
Number killed
Number released alive
Total
Gourock high speed midwater rope trawl
Atlantic Herring Survey
10/8/2004
Short-beaked common dolphin (Western NA stock)
2
0
2
Bottom trawl (4-seam, 3 bridle)
NEFSC Standard Bottom Trawl Survey
11/11/2007
Short-beaked common dolphin (Western NA stock)
1
0
1
Gourock high speed midwater rope trawl
Atlantic Herring Survey
10/11/2009
Minke whale
0
1
1
1
Bottom trawl (4-seam, 3 bridle)
Spring Bottom Trawl Survey
4/4/15
Gray seal
2
1
0
1
Bottom trawl (4-seam, 3 bridle)
Cooperative NTAP
9/24/19
Short-beaked common dolphin (Western NA stock)
1
0
1
Total individuals captured (total number of interactions given in parentheses)
Short-beaked common dolphin (4)
4
0
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.
Table 7—Historical Interactions With Gillnet Gear
Gear
Survey
Date
Species
Number
killed
Number
released
alive
Total
Gillnet
COASTSPAN
11/29/2008
Common Bottlenose dolphin (Northern South Carolina Estuarine System stock)
1
1
0
1
Gillnet
NEFOP Observer Gillnet Training Trips
5/4/2009
Gray seal
1
0
1
Gillnet
NEFOP Observer Gillnet Training Trips
5/4/2009
Harbor porpoise
1
0
1
Total individuals captured (total number of interactions given in parentheses)
Bottlenose dolphin (1)
1
0
1
Gray seal (1)
1
0
1
Harbor porpoise (1)
1
0
1
1
In 2008, the COASTSPAN gillnet survey caught and killed one common bottlenose dolphin in 2008 while a cooperating institution was conducting the survey in South Carolina. This was the only occurrence of incidental take in these surveys. Although no genetic information is available from this dolphin, based on the location of the event, NMFS retrospectively assigned this mortality to the Northern South Carolina Estuarine System stock in 2015 from the previous classification as the western North Atlantic stock (Waring
et al.,
2014).
Table 8—Historical Interactions With Fyke Net Gear
Gear
Survey
Date
Species
Number
killed
Number
released
alive
Total
Fyke Net
Maine Estuaries Diadromous Survey
10/25/2010
Harbor seal
1
0
1
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
Gear
Species
Average rate
per year
(2004-2020)
Trawl
Short-beaked common dolphin
0.27
Minke whale
0.06
Gray seal
0.06
Gillnet
Common bottlenose dolphin
0.06
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
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,
animal behavior, prior history of NEFSC interactions with longline gear,
etc.
). Therefore, there are several species that have been shown to interact with commercial longline fisheries but for which the NEFSC is not requesting take. For example, the NEFSC is not requesting take of large whales, long-finned pilot whales, and short-finned pilot whales in longline gear. Although these species could become entangled in longline gear, the probability of interaction with NEFSC longline gear is extremely low considering a low level of survey effort relative to that of commercial fisheries, the short length of the mainline, and low numbers of hooks used. Based on the amount of fish caught by commercial fisheries versus NEFSC fisheries research, the “footprint” of research effort compared to commercial fisheries is very small. For example, NEFSC uses a shorter mainline length and lower number of hooks relative to that of commercial fisheries. The NEFSC considered previously caught species in analogous commercial fisheries to have a higher probability of take; however, all were not included for potential take by the NEFSC. Additionally, marine mammals have never been caught or entangled in NEFSC longline gear; if interactions occur marine mammals depredate caught fish from the gear but leave the hooks attached and unaltered. They have never been hooked nor had hooks taken off gear during depredation. However, such gear could be considered analogous to potential commercial longline surveys that may be conducted elsewhere (
e.g.,
Garrison, 2007; Roche
et al.
2007; Straley
et al.,
2014). Given that the NEFSC experienced a single interaction of a common dolphin during the effective period of the current LOA to date, the proposed issuance of this amount of take, by species, is reasonably conservative.
The estimated take, by M/SI, is identical to that proposed and authorized to the NEFSC for the 2016-2020 LOA except for take pertaining to the southern migratory coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins. The 2016-2021 LOA authorizes 8 takes from this stock. According to the SAR, during the warm water months of July-August, the stock is presumed to occupy coastal waters north of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to Assateague, Virginia. North of Cape Hatteras during summer months, there is strong separation between the coastal and offshore morphotypes (Kenney 1990; Garrison et al. 2017a), and the coastal morphotype is nearly completely absent in waters >20 m. However, the NEFSC has determined that because research effort is low in the habitat range of this stock and NEFSC has no documented takes of dolphins belonging to the southern migratory coastal stock, they are not requesting, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take.
Table 10—Total Estimated M/SI Due to Gear Interaction in the Atlantic Coast Region
Species
5-Year total,
trawl
1
5-Year total,
gillnet
1
5-Year total,
longline
1
5-Year total,
fyke net
1
5-Yr total,
all gears
Minke whale
5
0
0
0
5
Risso's dolphin
2
0
1
0
3
Atlantic white-sided dolphin
2
1
0
0
3
White-beaked dolphin
2
0
0
0
2
Short-beaked common dolphin
5
1
1
0
7
Atlantic spotted dolphin
2
0
0
0
2
Common bottlenose dolphin (WNA offshore stock)
1
2
5
1
0
8
Common bottlenose dolphin (WNA N. Migratory stock)
1
2
5
1
0
8
Harbor porpoise
2
5
0
0
7
Harbor seal
5
5
0
5
15
Gray seal
5
5
0
5
15
1
The NEFSC re-evaluated sampling locations and effort after submission of their LOA application and is not requesting takes for the southern migratory stock of bottlenose dolphins as fishing effort is very low.
Estimated Take From Scientific Sonar
As described previously, we believe it unlikely that NEFSC use of active acoustic sources is realistically likely to cause Level B harassment of marine mammals. However, per NEFSC request, we conservatively assume that, at worst, Level B harassment may result from exposure to noise from these sources, and we carry forward the analytical approach developed in support of the 2015 rule. At that time, in order to quantify the potential for Level B harassment to occur, NMFS developed an analytical framework considering characteristics of the active acoustic systems, their expected patterns of use, and characteristics of the marine mammal species that may interact with them. The framework incorporated a number of deliberately precautionary, simplifying assumptions, and the resulting exposure estimates, which are presumed here to equate to take by Level B harassment (as defined by the MMPA), may be seen as an overestimate of the potential for such effects to occur as a result of the operation of these systems.
Regarding the potential for Level A harassment in the form of permanent threshold shift to occur, the very short duration sounds emitted by these sources reduces the likely level of accumulated energy an animal is exposed to. An individual would have to remain exceptionally close to a sound source for unrealistic lengths of time, suggesting the likelihood of injury occurring is exceedingly small. Potential Level A harassment is therefore not considered further in this analysis.
Authorized takes from the use of active acoustic scientific sonar sources (
e.g.,
echosounders) would be by Level B harassment only, in the form of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals resulting from exposure to the use of active acoustic sources. Based on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes
available (
e.g.,
previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). As described in detail for NEFSC and other science centers in previously issued
Federal Register
notices (
e.g.,
85 FR 53606, August 28, 2020; 88 FR 27028, May 6, 2020), the use of the sources used by NMFS Science Centers, including NEFSC, do not have the potential to cause Level A harassment; therefore, our discussion is limited to behavioral harassment (Level B harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources
—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (
e.g.,
frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (
e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall
et al.,
2007, Ellison
et al.,
2012). Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for continuous (
e.g.,
vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) for intermittent (
e.g.,
scientific sonar) sources. NEFSC surveys include the use of non-impulsive, intermittent sources and therefore the 160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) threshold is applicable.
The operating frequencies of active acoustic systems used by the NEFSC range from 30-333 kHz (see Table 2). Examination of these sources considers operational patterns of use relative to each other, and which sources would have the largest potential impact zone when used simultaneously. NEFSC determined that the EK60, ME70, and DSM 300 sources comprise the total effective exposures relative to line-kilometers surveyed (see Section 6.5 of the Application). Acoustic disturbance takes are calculated for these three dominant sources. Of these dominant acoustic sources, only the EK60 can use a frequency within the hearing range of baleen whales (18k Hz). Therefore, for North Atlantic right whales and all other baleen whales, Level B harassment is only expected for exposure to the EK60. The other two dominant sources are outside of their hearing range. The ADCP Ocean Surveyor operates at 75 kHz, which is outside of baleen whale hearing capabilities. Therefore, we would not expect any exposures to these signals to
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.