# Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Northeast Fisheries Science Center Fisheries and Ecosystem Research > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-11188 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** June 4, 2021 - **Citation:** 86 FR 30080 ## 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 Island [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-11188. Public record. Not legal advice.