37638 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 219 

[Docket No. 170127128–8546–01] 

RIN 0648–BG64 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center Fisheries Research 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS’s Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR) has received a request 

from NMFS’s Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center (AFSC) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to fisheries 

research conducted in multiple 

specified geographical regions, over the 

course of five years from the date of 

issuance. As required by the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS 

is proposing regulations to govern that 

take, 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 notice of our 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than August 31, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2018–0070, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;

D=NOAA-NMFS-2018-0070, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Instructions: 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). Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of AFSC’s application and any 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/research.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Purpose and Need for 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 AFSC’s 

fisheries research activities in the Gulf 

of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean. 

AFSC’s request also includes fisheries 

research activities of the International 

Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), 

which occur in the Bering Sea, Gulf of 

Alaska, and off of the U.S. west coast. 

We received an application from the 

AFSC requesting five-year regulations 

and authorization to take multiple 

species of marine mammals. Take 

would occur by Level B harassment 

incidental to the use of active acoustic 

devices, as well as by visual disturbance 

of pinnipeds, and by Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

incidental to the use of fisheries 

research gear. Please see ‘‘Background’’ 

below for definitions of harassment. 

Legal Authority for the Proposed 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 five-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 Rule 

Following is a summary of the major 

provisions of this proposed rule 

regarding AFSC fisheries research 

activities. These measures include: 

• Required monitoring of the 

sampling areas to detect the presence of 

marine mammals before deployment of 

certain research gear. 

• Required implementation of the 

mitigation strategy known as the ‘‘moveon rule mitigation protocol’’ which 

incorporates best professional judgment, 

when necessary during certain research 

fishing operations. 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs 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, regulations are 

issued, and notice is provided to the 

public. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘unmitigable 

adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37639 

an impact resulting from the specified 

activity: 

(1) That is likely to reduce the 

availability of the species to a level 

insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and 

(2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

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 evaluate our 

proposed action (i.e., the promulgation 

of regulations and subsequent issuance 

of incidental take authorization) and 

alternatives with respect to potential 

impacts on the human environment. 

Accordingly, NMFS has prepared a 

draft Environmental Assessment (EA; 

Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment for Fisheries and Ecosystem 

Research Conducted and Funded by the 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center) to 

consider the environmental impacts 

associated with the AFSC’s proposed 

activities as well as the issuance of the 

regulations and subsequent incidental 

take authorization. The EA is posted 

online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

permits/incidental/research.htm. 

Information in the EA, AFSC’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 

or making a final decision on the 

request for incidental take 

authorization. 

Summary of Request 

On June 28, 2016, we received an 

adequate and complete request from 

AFSC for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to fisheries 

research activities. On October 18, 2016 

(81 FR 71709), we published a notice of 

receipt of AFSC’s application in the 

Federal Register, requesting comments 

and information related to the AFSC 

request for thirty days. We received 

comments jointly from The Humane 

Society of the United States and Whale 

and Dolphin Conservation (HSUS/ 

WDC). Subsequently, AFSC presented 

substantive revisions to the application, 

including revisions to the take 

authorization request as well as 

incorporation of the IPHC fisheries 

research activities. We received this 

revised application, which was 

determined to be adequate and 

complete, on September 6, 2017. We 

then published a notice of its receipt in 

the Federal Register, requesting 

comments and information for thirty 

days, on September 14, 2017 (82 FR 

43223). We received no comments in 

response to this second review period. 

The original comments received from 

HSUS/WDC were considered in 

development of this proposed rule and 

are available online at: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ 

incidental/research.htm. 

AFSC proposes to conduct fisheries 

research using trawl gear used at various 

levels in the water column, hook-andline gear (including longlines with 

multiple hooks), gillnets, and other gear. 

If a marine mammal interacts with gear 

deployed by AFSC, the outcome could 

potentially be Level A harassment, 

serious injury (i.e., any injury that will 

likely result in mortality), or mortality. 

Although any given gear interaction 

could result in an outcome less severe 

than mortality or serious injury, we do 

not have sufficient information to allow 

parsing these potential outcomes. 

Therefore, AFSC presents a pooled 

estimate of the number of potential 

incidents of gear interaction and, for 

analytical purposes we assume that gear 

interactions would result in serious 

injury or mortality. AFSC also uses 

various active acoustic devices in the 

conduct of fisheries research, and use of 

these devices has the potential to result 

in Level B harassment of marine 

mammals. Level B harassment of 

pinnipeds hauled out may also occur, as 

a result of visual disturbance from 

vessels conducting AFSC research. 

AFSC requests authorization to take 

individuals of 19 species by Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

(hereafter referred to as M/SI) and of 25 

species by Level B harassment. The 

proposed regulations would be valid for 

five years from the date of issuance. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The AFSC collects a wide array of 

information necessary to evaluate the 

status of exploited fishery resources and 

the marine environment. AFSC 

scientists conduct fishery-independent 

research onboard NOAA-owned and 

operated vessels or on chartered vessels. 

Such research may also be conducted by 

cooperating scientists on non-NOAA 

vessels when the AFSC helps fund the 

research. The AFSC proposes to 

administer and conduct approximately 

58 survey programs over the five-year 

period, within three separate research 

areas (some survey programs are 

conducted across more than one 

research area). The gear types used fall 

into several categories: Towed nets 

fished at various levels in the water 

column, longline gear, gillnets and seine 

nets, traps, and other gear. Only use of 

trawl nets, longlines, and gillnets are 

likely to result in interaction with 

marine mammals. Many of these 

surveys also use active acoustic devices. 

The Federal government has a 

responsibility to conserve and protect 

living marine resources in U.S. waters 

and has also entered into a number of 

international agreements and treaties 

related to the management of living 

marine resources in international waters 

outside the United States. NOAA has 

the primary responsibility for managing 

marine finfish and shellfish species and 

their habitats, with that responsibility 

delegated within NOAA to NMFS. 

In order to direct and coordinate the 

collection of scientific information 

needed to make informed fishery 

management decisions, Congress 

created six regional fisheries science 

centers, each a distinct organizational 

entity and the scientific focal point 

within NMFS for region-based Federal 

fisheries-related research. This research 

is aimed at monitoring fish stock 

recruitment, abundance, survival and 

biological rates, geographic distribution 

of species and stocks, ecosystem process 

changes, and marine ecological 

research. The AFSC is the research arm 

of NMFS in the Alaska region of the 

United States. The AFSC conducts 

research and provides scientific advice 

to manage fisheries and conserve 

protected species in the geographic 

research area described below and 

provides scientific information to 

support the North Pacific Fishery 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37640 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Management Council and other 

domestic and international fisheries 

management organizations. 

The IPHC, established by a 

convention between the governments of 

Canada and the United States, is an 

international fisheries organization 

mandated to conduct research on and 

management of the stocks of Pacific 

halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) within 

the Convention waters of both nations. 

The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 

1982 (16 U.S.C. 773), which amended 

the earlier Northern Pacific Halibut Act 

of 1937, is the enabling legislation that 

gives effect to the Convention in the 

United States. Although operating in 

U.S. waters (and, therefore, subject to 

the MMPA prohibition on ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals), the IPHC is not 

appropriately considered to be a U.S. 

citizen (as defined by the MMPA) and 

cannot be issued an incidental take 

authorization. For purposes of MMPA 

compliance, the AFSC sponsors the 

IPHC research activities occurring in 

U.S. waters, with applicable mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

conveyed to the IPHC via Letters of 

Acknowledgement issued by the AFSC 

pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA). 

Fishery-independent data necessary 

to the management of halibut stocks is 

collected using longline gear aboard 

chartered commercial vessels within 

multiple IPHC regulatory areas, 

including within U.S. waters of the 

Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and off the 

U.S. west coast. The IPHC proposes to 

conduct two survey programs over the 

five-year period. IPHC activity and 

requested take authorization is 

described in Appendix C of AFSC’s 

application. 

Dates and Duration 

The specified activity may occur at 

any time during the five-year period of 

validity of the proposed regulations. 

Dates and duration of individual 

surveys are inherently uncertain, based 

on congressional funding levels for the 

AFSC, weather conditions, or ship 

contingencies. In addition, cooperative 

research is designed to provide 

flexibility on a yearly basis in order to 

address issues as they arise. Some 

cooperative research projects last 

multiple years or may continue with 

modifications. Other projects only last 

one year and are not continued. Most 

cooperative research projects go through 

an annual competitive selection process 

to determine which projects should be 

funded based on proposals developed 

by many independent researchers and 

fishing industry participants. 

Specified Geographical Region 

The AFSC conducts research in 

Alaska within three research areas 

considered to be distinct specified 

geographical regions: the Gulf of Alaska 

Research Area (GOARA), the Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands Research Area 

(BSAIRA), and the Chukchi Sea and 

Beaufort Sea Research Area (CSBSRA). 

Please see Figures 2–1 through 2–3 in 

the AFSC application for maps of the 

three research areas. We note here that, 

while the specified geographical regions 

within which the AFSC operates may 

extend outside of the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ), i.e., into the 

Canadian EEZ (but not including 

Canadian territorial waters), the 

MMPA’s authority does not extend into 

foreign territorial waters. For further 

information about the specified 

geographical regions, please see the 

descriptions found in Sherman and 

Hempel (2009) and Wilkinson et al. 

(2009). As referred to here, productivity 

refers to fixated carbon (i.e., g C/m2/yr) 

and can be related to the carrying 

capacity of an ecosystem. 

The GOARA includes marine waters 

offshore from Canada north to Alaska 

and west to longitude 170° W, including 

marine waters in the archipelagos of 

southeast Alaska, Prince William 

Sound, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, and the 

Alaska Peninsula. The region 

encompasses fjord-dominated regions 

out to the Alaska Panhandle as well as 

the North Pacific slope and basin and is 

characterized by numerous islands, 

deep fjords, and sheltered straits, as 

well as significant freshwater runoff 

from numerous rivers. The major 

oceanographic influence on the region is 

the Alaska Current, and sea ice is 

generally absent from the region. 

Average sea surface temperatures (SST) 

are 1–9 °C (winter) and 10–16 °C 

(summer), and the region is considered 

to be of moderately high productivity. 

The BSAIRA includes marine waters 

west of longitude 170° W along the 

Aleutian Islands chain and north to the 

Bering Strait, primarily east of the 

international date line but also 

including an area west of the date line 

south of the Gulf of Anadyr. The Bering 

Sea, noted for its high productivity, is 

the world’s third-largest semi-enclosed 

water body. This region includes the 

extremely wide, gradually sloping shelf 

of the Eastern Bering Sea, the narrow 

shelf and deep passes along the 

Aleutian chain, the deep Aleutian 

Basin, Kamchatka Basin and Bowers 

Ridge. The continental slope is incised 

with many canyons before dropping to 

a generally flat abyssal plain. The 

annual formation and retreat of sea ice 

through the Bering Strait and out over 

the northeast shelf is a major 

determinant of species distribution. 

Annual SST in the Bering Sea ranges 

from less than 2 °C (winter) to 6–14 °C 

(summer); in the Aleutian Islands 

annual SST ranges from 1–10 °C. Areas 

of note within the region include the 

Pribilof Islands and Bristol Bay. 

The Aleutian Islands archipelago 

includes approximately 150 islands 

extending about 2,260 km westward 

from the Alaska Peninsula to the 

Kamchatka Peninsula that create a 

partial geographic barrier to the 

exchange of northern Pacific marine 

waters with Eastern Bering Sea waters; 

net circulation flow is from the Bering 

Sea to the Chukchi Sea through the 

Bering Strait. The Aleutian Islands 

continental shelf is narrow, ranging in 

width on the north and south sides of 

the islands from about 4 to 46 km, 

compared with the Eastern Bering Sea 

shelf, which ranges from 600–800 km 

from the shore to the shelf edge. The 

archipelago is adjacent to the Aleutian 

Trench, a subduction zone characterized 

by volcanic activity and earthquake 

zones. Numerous straits and passes 

connect the temperate North Pacific to 

the subpolar Bering Sea; the unique 

combination of rish nutrients and 

underwater volcanoes has created 

diverse and abundant coral habitat. 

The CSBSRA includes waters of the 

Chukchi Sea east of the International 

Date Line and the Beaufort Sea west of 

the U.S.-Canada border within the U.S. 

EEZ. The region is a relatively shallow 

marginal sea with an extensive 

continental shelf and is characterized by 

the annual formation and deformation 

of sea ice. The Chukchi Sea portion is 

shallow (water depths to approximately 

100 m), while the Beaufort Sea portion 

consists of narrow, shallow shelf 

descending to the Arctic Ocean slope 

and plains of the deep Canada Basin. 

SST is less than 12 °C in summer and 

averages 8 °C in the southwest and 

along the Beaufort coast. The area is 

considered to be of moderately high 

productivity in the summer during ice 

melt; however, the region is considered 

to be heterogeneous, with the Chukchi 

more productive than the Beaufort. The 

ice-free zone of the summer is generally 

about 150–200 km wide. However, the 

Arctic climate is changing significantly, 

and one result of the change is a 

reduction in the sea ice extent in at least 

some regions of the Arctic (e.g., Doney 

et al., 2012; Melillo et al., 2014). 

Kotzebue Sound is a major coastal 

region here. 

IPHC research activities are carried 

out within the BSAIRA and GOARA but 

also within a fourth specified 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37641 

geographical region, i.e., off the U.S. 

west coast (see Figure C–3 of the AFSC 

application). The IPHC operates from 

36°40′ N (approximately Monterey Bay, 

California) at the southernmost 

extension northward to the Canadian 

border, including U.S. waters within 

Puget Sound. The California Current 

Large Marine Ecosystem (off the U.S. 

west coast) is considered to be of 

moderately high productivity. SST is 

fairly consistent, ranging from 9–14 °C 

in winter and 13–15 °C in summer. Cape 

Mendocino represents a major 

biogeographic break, and the region 

includes major estuaries such Puget 

Sound. The shelf is generally narrow in 

the region, and shelf-break topography 

(e.g., underwater canyons) creates 

localized upwelling conditions that 

concentrate nutrients into areas of high 

topographic relief. The California 

Current determines the general 

hydrography off the coast of California. 

The current moves south along the 

western coast of North America, with 

extensive seasonal upwelling of colder, 

nutrient-rich subsurface waters 

predominant in the area south of Cape 

Mendocino. Significant interannual 

variation in productivity results from 

the effects of this coastal upwelling as 

well as from the El Nin ̃o-Southern 

Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation. Both oscillations involve 

transitions from cooler, more productive 

conditions to warmer, less productive 

conditions but over different timescales. 

IPHC conducts research within Puget 

Sound, which is affected by high 

amounts of runoff from the Fraser River. 

The river plume stimulates primary 

productivity, carrying nutrients 

northwards past Vancouver Island yearround. Puget Sound is one of the largest 

estuaries in the United States and is a 

place of great physical and ecological 

complexity and productivity. The 

average surface water temperature is 

12.8 °C in summer and 7.2 °C in winter 

(Staubitz et al., 1997), but surface waters 

frequently exceed 20 °C in the summer 

and fall. With nearly six million people 

(doubled since the 1960s), Puget Sound 

is also heavily influenced by human 

activity. 

Detailed Description of Activities 

The Federal government has a trust 

responsibility to protect living marine 

resources in waters of the United States. 

These waters extend to 200 nm from the 

shoreline and include the EEZ. The U.S. 

government has also entered into a 

number of international agreements and 

treaties related to the management of 

living marine resources in international 

waters outside of the EEZ (i.e., the high 

seas). To carry out its responsibilities 

over U.S. and international waters, 

Congress has enacted several statutes 

authorizing certain Federal agencies to 

administer programs to manage and 

protect living marine resources. Among 

these Federal agencies, NOAA has the 

primary responsibility for protecting 

marine finfish and shellfish species and 

their habitats. Within NOAA, NMFS has 

been delegated primary responsibility 

for the science-based management, 

conservation, and protection of living 

marine resources under statutes 

including the MSA, MMPA, and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). As 

noted above, the IPHC conducts 

research in support of halibut 

management under the terms of a 

convention between the United States 

and Canada, originally ratified in 1924 

and amended most recently in 1979. 

Within NMFS, six regional fisheries 

science centers direct and coordinate 

the collection of scientific information 

needed to inform fisheries management 

decisions. Each science center is a 

distinct entity and is the scientific focal 

point for a particular region. AFSC 

conducts research and provides 

scientific advice to manage fisheries and 

conserve protected species in Alaska. 

AFSC provides scientific information to 

support the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council and other 

domestic and international fisheries 

management organizations. 

The AFSC collects a wide array of 

information necessary to evaluate the 

status of exploited fishery resources and 

the marine environment. AFSC 

scientists conduct fishery-independent 

research onboard NOAA-owned and 

operated vessels or on chartered vessels, 

and some AFSC-funded research is 

conducted by cooperative scientists. 

The AFSC proposes to administer and 

conduct approximately 58 survey 

programs over the five-year period, with 

an additional two survey programs 

conducted by the IPHC. 

The gear types used fall into several 

categories: Towed nets fished at various 

levels in the water column, longline 

gear, gillnets and seine nets, traps, and 

other gear. Only use of trawl nets, 

longlines, and gillnets are likely to 

result in interaction with marine 

mammals. Many of these surveys also 

use active acoustic devices. These 

surveys may be conducted aboard 

NOAA-operated research vessels (R/V), 

including the Oscar Dyson and 

Fairweather, the Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game-operated Resolution, and 

assorted other small vessels owned by 

AFSC, aboard vessels owned and 

operated by cooperating agencies and 

institutions, or aboard charter vessels. 

In the following discussion, we 

summarily describe various gear types 

used by AFSC, with reference to specific 

fisheries and ecosystem research 

activities conducted by the AFSC. This 

is not an exhaustive list of gear and/or 

devices that may be utilized by AFSC 

but is representative of gear categories 

and is complete with regard to all gears 

with potential for interaction with 

marine mammals. Additionally, relevant 

active acoustic devices, which are 

commonly used in AFSC survey 

activities, are described separately in a 

subsequent section. Please see 

Appendix A of AFSC’s application for 

further description, pictures, and 

diagrams of research gear and vessels. 

Full details regarding planned research 

activities are provided in Tables 1–1 

and C–1 of AFSC’s application, with 

specific gear used in association with 

each research project and full detail 

regarding gear characteristics and usage 

provided. Full detail is not repeated 

here. 

Trawl nets—A trawl is a funnelshaped net towed behind a boat to 

capture fish. The codend (or bag) is the 

fine-meshed portion of the net most 

distant from the towing vessel where 

fish and other organisms larger than the 

mesh size are retained. In contrast to 

commercial fishery operations, which 

generally use larger mesh to capture 

marketable fish, research trawls often 

use smaller mesh to enable estimates of 

the size and age distributions of fish in 

a particular area. The body of a trawl net 

is generally constructed of relatively 

coarse mesh that functions to gather 

schooling fish so that they can be 

collected in the codend. The opening of 

the net, called the mouth, is extended 

horizontally by large panels of wide 

mesh called wings. The mouth of the 

net is held open by hydrodynamic force 

exerted on the trawl doors attached to 

the wings of the net. As the net is towed 

through the water, the force of the water 

spreads the trawl doors horizontally 

apart. The top of a net is called the 

headrope, and the bottom is called the 

footrope. Bottom trawls may use 

bobbins or roller gear to protect the 

footrope as the net is dragged along the 

seabed. 

The trawl net is usually deployed 

over the stern of the vessel and attached 

with two cables (or warps) to winches 

on the deck of the vessel. The cables are 

played out until the net reaches the 

fishing depth. Trawl vessels typically 

travel at speeds of 2–5 kn while towing 

the net for time periods up to several 

hours. The duration of the tow depends 

on the purpose of the trawl, the catch 

rate, and the target species. At the end 

of the tow the net is retrieved and the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37642 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

contents of the codend are emptied onto 

the deck. For research purposes, the 

speed and duration of the tow and the 

characteristics of the net are typically 

standardized to allow meaningful 

comparisons of data collected at 

different times and locations. Active 

acoustic devices (described later) 

incorporated into the research vessel 

and the trawl gear monitor the position 

and status of the net, speed of the tow, 

and other variables important to the 

research design. 

AFSC research trawling activities 

utilize pelagic (or midwater) and surface 

trawls, which are designed to operate at 

various depths within the water column 

but not to contact the seafloor, as well 

as bottom trawls. Some research efforts 

use various commercial trawl nets 

(commercial midwater trawls may be 

75–136 m in width with opening height 

of 10–20 m, while commercial bottom 

trawls may be 18–24 m in width with 

4–8 m opening height), while others use 

specific trawls. Examples of the latter 

include the Poly Nor’eastern bottom 

trawl, which has a 27.2-m headrope, 

24.9-m footrope, and 5.8-m vertical 

opening; otter bottom trawl with 6-m 

headrope; the 83–112 Eastern bottom 

trawl, with 25-m headrope and 34-m 

footrope; Kodiak bottom trawl (3 m x 4 

m x 8 m); the 20 m x 20 m Nordic 264 

midwater trawl; 12 m x 12 m midwater 

anchovy trawl (midwater); Cantrawl 

surface trawl, with 55-m width and 25- 

m depth; and Aleutian wing pelagic 

trawl, with 82.3-m footrope/headrope 

and a 27.4-m vertical opening. Tow 

durations are typically 10–30 min 

(though some experimental trawls may 

be conducted for much longer, i.e., a 

period of hours), with tow depths 

dependent on the purpose of the survey. 

AFSC also uses beam trawls, a type of 

bottom trawl in which the horizontal 

opening of the net is provided by a 

heavy beam mounted at each end on 

guides or skids that travel along the 

seabed. AFSC beam trawls are 1 m x 1m. 

On sandy or muddy bottoms, a series of 

‘‘tickler’’ chains are strung between the 

skids ahead of the net to stir up the fish 

from the seabed and chase them into the 

net. On rocky grounds, these ticklers 

may be replaced with chain matting. 

Several trawls may be towed, one on 

each side of the vessel. The trawls are 

towed along the seafloor at speeds of 1 

to 2 kn. In some shallow, nearshore 

locations, push trawls may be used, i.e., 

vessels push nets. 

Longline—Longline vessels fish with 

baited hooks attached to a mainline (or 

groundline). The length of the longline 

and the number of hooks depend on the 

species targeted, the size of the vessel, 

and the purpose of the fishing activity. 

Hooks are attached to the mainline by 

another thinner line called a gangion. 

The length of the gangion and the 

distance between gangions depends on 

the purpose of the fishing activity. 

Depending on the fishery, longline gear 

can be deployed on the seafloor (bottom 

longline), in which case weights are 

attached to the mainline, or near the 

surface of the water (pelagic longline), 

in which case buoys are attached to the 

mainline to provide flotation and keep 

the baited hooks suspended in the 

water. Radar reflectors, radio 

transmitters, and light sources are often 

used to help fishers determine the 

location of the longline gear prior to 

retrieval. Segments of bottom longline 

gear, which are connected to form a 

single continuous mainline, are often 

referred to as skates. 

A commercial longline can be miles 

long and have thousands of hooks 

attached, although longlines used for 

research surveys are often shorter. 

However, the longline gear used for 

AFSC research surveys is typically 

similar in scale to commercial gear, with 

16-km mainlines and 7,200 hooks. IPHC 

gear consists of 1,800-ft (549-m) skates, 

with 100 hooks per skate. Three to ten 

skates may be fished at each sampling 

station. There are no internationallyrecognized standard measurements for 

hook size, and a given size may be 

inconsistent between manufacturers. 

Larger hooks, as are used in longlining, 

are referenced by increasing whole 

numbers followed by a slash and a zero 

as size increases (e.g., 1/0 up to 20/0). 

The numbers represent relative sizes, 

normally associated with the gap (the 

distance from the point tip to the 

shank). 

The time period between deployment 

and retrieval of the longline gear is the 

soak time. Soak time is an important 

parameter for calculating fishing effort. 

For commercial fisheries the goal is to 

optimize the soak time in order to 

maximize catch of the target species 

while minimizing the bycatch rate and 

minimizing damage to target species 

that may result from predation by sharks 

or other predators. AFSC soak times 

range from 2–3 hours, while IPHC soak 

times are typically 5 hours. AFSC also 

uses hook-and-line, i.e., rod-and-reel, 

for some survey efforts, totaling 

approximately 240 rod-hrs per year over 

5 days. 

Other nets—AFSC surveys utilize 

various small, fine-mesh, towed nets 

designed to sample small fish and 

pelagic invertebrates. These nets can be 

broadly categorized as small trawls 

(which are separated from large trawl 

nets due to small trawls’ discountable 

potential for interaction with marine 

mammals; see ‘‘Potential Effects of the 

Specified Activity on Marine Mammals 

and their Habitat’’) and plankton nets. 

1. The Tucker trawl is a mediumsized single-warp net used to study 

pelagic fish and zooplankton. The 

Tucker trawl consists of a series of nets 

that can be opened and closed 

sequentially via stepping motor without 

retrieving the net from the fishing 

depth. It is designed for deep oblique 

tows where up to three replicate nets 

can be sequentially operated by a 

double release mechanism and is 

typically equipped with a full suite of 

instruments, including inside and 

outside flow meters; conductivity, 

temperature, and depth profilers (CTD); 

and pitch sensor. 

2. The Multiple Opening/Closing Net 

and Environmental Sensing System 

(MOCNESS) uses a stepping motor to 

sequentially control the opening and 

closing of the net. The MOCNESS uses 

underwater and shipboard electronics to 

control the device. The electronics 

system continuously monitors the 

functioning of the nets, frame angle, 

horizontal velocity, vertical velocity, 

volume filtered, and selected 

environmental parameters, such as 

salinity and temperature. The 

MOCNESS is used for specialized 

zooplankton surveys. 

3. AFSC also uses various neuston 

nets, which are frame trawls towed 

horizontally at the top of the water 

column in order to capture neuston (i.e., 

organisms that inhabit the water’s 

surface). 

4. An epibenthic tow sled is an 

instrument designed to collect 

organisms that live on bottom 

sediments. It consists of a fine mesh net, 

typically 1 m x 1 m opening, attached 

to a rigid frame with runners to help it 

move along the substrate. 

The remainder of nets described here 

are plankton nets, which usually consist 

of fine mesh attached to a weighted 

frame which spreads the mouth of the 

net to cover a known surface area in 

order to sample plankton and fish eggs 

from various parts of the water column. 

5. Ring nets are used to capture 

plankton with vertical tows. These nets 

consist of a circular frame and a coneshaped net with a collection jar at the 

codend. The net, attached to a labeled 

dropline, is lowered into the water 

while maintaining the net’s vertical 

position. When the desired depth is 

reached, the net is pulled straight up 

through the water column to collect the 

sample. 

6. Bongo nets are towed through the 

water at an oblique angle to sample 

plankton over a range of depths. Similar 

to ring nets, these nets typically have a 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37643 

cylindrical section coupled to a conical 

portion that tapers to a detachable 

codend constructed of nylon mesh. 

During each plankton tow, the bongo 

nets are deployed to depth and are then 

retrieved at a controlled rate so that the 

volume of water sampled is uniform 

across the range of depths. A collecting 

bucket, attached to the codend of the 

net, is used to contain the plankton 

sample. Some bongo nets can be opened 

and closed using remote control to 

enable the collection of samples from 

particular depth ranges. A group of 

depth-specific bongo net samples can be 

used to establish the vertical 

distribution of zooplankton species in 

the water column at a site. Bongo nets 

are generally used to collect 

zooplankton for research purposes and 

are not used for commercial harvest. 

Gillnets—Gillnets consist of vertical 

netting held in place by floats and 

weights to selectively target fish of 

uniform size depending on the netting 

size. Typical gillnets consist of 

monofilament, multi-monofilament, or 

multifilament nylon constructed of 

single, double, or triple netting/paneling 

of varying mesh sizes, depending on 

their use and target species. A specific 

mesh size will catch a target species of 

a limited size range, allowing this gear 

type to be very selective. Some AFSC 

survey activities use small gillnets (10 m 

x 2 m) with 30-minute set durations; 

however, gillnet survey activities at 

Little Port Walter Marine Station in 

southeast Alaska use larger nets (150 ft 

x 15 ft (46 m x 5 m)) with longer soak 

times (2–4 hours). 

Seine nets—Seine nets typically hang 

vertically in the water with the bottom 

edge held down by weights and the top 

edge buoyed by floats. Seine nets can be 

deployed from the shore as a beach 

seine or from a boat and are actively 

fished, in comparison with gillnets 

which may be similar but fish passively. 

AFSC uses beach seines, which are 

deployed from shore to surround all fish 

in the nearshore area, and typically have 

one end fastened to the shore while the 

other end is set out in a wide arc and 

brought back to the beach. This may be 

done by hand or with a small boat. 

AFSC research uses some larger beach 

seines (61 m x 5 m) as well as smaller 

nets (5 m x 2.5 m). A pole seine is a type 

of beach seine deployed by hand. The 

net is pulled along the bottom by hand 

as two or more people hold the poles 

and walk through the water. Fish and 

other organisms are captured by walking 

the net towards shore or tilting the poles 

backwards and lifting the net out of the 

water. 

Traps and pots—Traps and pots are 

submerged, three-dimensional devices, 

often baited, that permit organisms to 

enter the enclosure but make escape 

extremely difficult or impossible. Most 

traps are attached by a rope to a buoy 

on the surface of the water and may be 

deployed in series. The trap entrance 

can be regulated to control the 

maximum size of animal that can enter, 

and the size of the mesh in the body of 

the trap can regulate the minimum size 

that is retained. In general, the species 

caught depends on the type and 

characteristics of the pot or trap used. 

AFSC uses fyke traps and crab pots of 

various sizes. 

Fyke traps are bag-shaped nets held 

open by frames or hoops, often outfitted 

with wings and/or leaders to guide fish 

towards the entrance of the actual trap. 

Fyke trap wings can be set up to form 

a barrier across a channel, trapping fish 

that attempt to proceed through the 

channel. As the tide ebbs, fish 

eventually seek to leave the wetland 

channel and are then trapped. AFSC 

sets fyke traps that are approximately 40 

m wide; however, these are only used in 

freshwater. AFSC also uses net pens, 

hoop nets, and weirs for some research. 

Dredge—A typical dredge consists of 

a mouth frame with an attached 

collection bag. Fishers drag a dredge 

across the sea floor, either scraping or 

penetrating the bottom. Scraping 

dredges collect target species (e.g., 

oysters, scallops, clams, and mussels) in 

the top layer of seafloor sediment with 

rakes or teeth that scoop up the 

substrate. AFSC uses a six foot wide 

Virginia crab style dredge, which 

consists of a heavy metal rectangular 

form bearing a toothed drag bar and a 

mesh bag to collect specimens. 

Conductivity, temperature, and depth 

profilers—A CTD profiler is the primary 

research tool for determining chemical 

and physical properties of seawater. A 

shipboard CTD is made up of a set of 

small probes attached to a large (1–2 m 

diameter) metal rosette wheel. The 

rosette is lowered through the water 

column on a cable, and CTD data are 

observed in real time via a conducting 

cable connecting the CTD to a computer 

on the ship. The rosette also holds a 

series of sampling bottles that can be 

triggered to close at different depths in 

order to collect a suite of water samples 

that can be used to determine additional 

properties of the water over the depth of 

the CTD cast. A standard CTD cast, 

depending on water depth, requires two 

to five hours to complete. The data from 

a suite of samples collected at different 

depths are often called a depth profile. 

Depth profiles for different variables can 

be compared in order to glean 

information about physical, chemical, 

and biological processes occurring in 

the water column. Salinity, temperature, 

and depth data measured by the CTD 

instrument are essential for 

characterization of seawater properties. 

Tables 1–1 and C–1 of the AFSC’s 

application provide detailed 

information of all surveys planned by 

AFSC and IPHC; full detail is not 

repeated here. We note here that IPHC 

survey activities do not use active 

acoustic systems for data acquisition 

purposes. Therefore, we do not consider 

the potential for Level B harassment that 

may result from use of such systems 

other than for AFSC research programs 

in the GOARA, BSAIRA, and CSBSRA. 

Many of these surveys also use small 

trawls, plankton nets, and/or other gear; 

however, only gear with likely potential 

for marine mammal interaction is 

described. Here we provide a summary 

of projected annual survey effort in the 

different research areas for those gears 

that we believe present the potential for 

marine mammal interaction (Table 1). 

This summary is intended only to 

provide a sense of the level of effort, and 

actual level of effort may vary from year 

to year. Gear specifications vary; please 

see Tables 1–1 and C–1 of AFSC’s 

application. 

TABLE 1—PROJECTED ANNUAL AFSC SURVEY EFFORT BY RESEARCH AREA AND GEAR TYPE

Survey type Gear type Tows/sets Duration per tow/set 

GOARA 

Bottom trawl ........................................ Poly Nor-Eastern (PNE) .................... 59 ....................................................... 10 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ Eastern otter ...................................... 380 ..................................................... 10–25 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ Various (commercial) ......................... 20–40 ................................................. 45 min to 6.5 hr. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ To be determined .............................. 50 ....................................................... 20 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ PNE ................................................... 820 ..................................................... 15 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ PNE ................................................... 70 ....................................................... 15–30 min. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37644 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—PROJECTED ANNUAL AFSC SURVEY EFFORT BY RESEARCH AREA AND GEAR TYPE—Continued 

Survey type Gear type Tows/sets Duration per tow/set 

Bottom trawl ........................................ PNE ................................................... 20 ....................................................... 10–20 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ PNE ................................................... 20 ....................................................... variable. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ Various (commercial) ......................... 4–8 ..................................................... 5–10 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ Various (commercial) ......................... 6–8 ..................................................... 5–45 min. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Various (commercial) ......................... 20–40 ................................................. 45 min to 3 hr. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Anchovy ............................................. 50–75 ................................................. Up to 1 hr. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Otter ................................................... 20 ....................................................... 20 min. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Nordic 264 ......................................... 96 ....................................................... 20 min. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Cantrawl ............................................. 80 ....................................................... 30 min. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Aleutian wing (AWT) .......................... 140 ..................................................... 10 min to 1 hr. 

Gillnet .................................................. 10 m × 2 m ........................................ 10 ....................................................... 30 min. 

Gillnet .................................................. 46 m × 5 m ........................................ 50 ....................................................... 2–4 hr. 

Bottom longline ................................... 7,200 hooks (13/0) ............................ 95 ....................................................... 3 hr. 

Bottom longline ................................... < 300 hooks (13/0) ............................ 7 ......................................................... 2 hr. 

BSAIRA 

Bottom trawl ........................................ PNE ................................................... 420 ..................................................... 15 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ PNE ................................................... 70 ....................................................... 15–30 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ Bering Sea Combo 101/130 .............. Variable (average 88) ........................ 10–90 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ 83–112 Eastern otter ......................... 536 ..................................................... 30 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ 83–112 Eastern otter ......................... 15 ....................................................... variable. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ Various (commercial) ......................... 40–90 ................................................. 45 min to 6.5 hr 

Bottom trawl ........................................ PNE ................................................... 10 ....................................................... variable. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ PNE ................................................... 200 ..................................................... 30 min. 

Bottom trawl ........................................ To be determined .............................. 50 ....................................................... 20 min. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Marinovich ......................................... 35 ....................................................... 15–60 min. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Cantrawl ............................................. 185 ..................................................... 30 min. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Various (commercial) ......................... 40–90 ................................................. 45 min to 3 hr. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Anchovy ............................................. 100–125 ............................................. variable. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... AWT ................................................... 110 ..................................................... 10 min to 1 hr. 

Bottom longline ................................... 7,200 hooks (13/0) ............................ 75 ....................................................... 3 hr. 

CSBSRA 

Bottom trawl ........................................ 83–112 Eastern otter ......................... 143 ..................................................... 15 min. 

Midwater trawl ..................................... Cantrawl ............................................. 70 ....................................................... 30 min. 

Please note that Table 1 does not 

include projected survey effort by IPHC. 

IPHC uses bottom longline gear to 

sample between an estimated 1,100 and 

1,300 survey stations in U.S. waters per 

year. Although the number of survey 

stations is estimated, IPHC states that 

the maximum number of stations would 

not exceed 1,500. At each station, IPHC 

fishes 3–10 skates of longline gear, each 

with 100 hooks (16/0), for a soak time 

of 5 hours at each station. Hooks are 

spaced at 18-ft (5.5-m) intervals on 24- 

to 48-in (0.6- to 1.2-m) gangions. Survey 

stations are located in water depths 

from 18–732 m in shelf waters. Please 

see Figures C–3 through C–5 for 

depictions of IPHC’s survey station 

distribution. 

IPHC also conducts survey effort in 

order to collect specimens of halibut 

gonads on a monthly basis. Gear is not 

standardized for these surveys and 

would be that which is typically used 

by the commercial halibut and sablefish 

fleet. Gear differences are not expected 

to differentially affect marine mammals, 

which interact similarly with all of 

these commercial gears. IPHC requires 

collection of 50 male and 50 female 

specimens per month and estimates that 

this requires approximately 50 total 

annual days at sea. 

Description of Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources—This section contains a brief 

technical background on sound, the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal 

inasmuch as the information is relevant 

to AFSC’s specified activity and to a 

discussion of the potential effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

found later in this document. We also 

describe the active acoustic devices 

used by AFSC. As noted previously, 

IPHC does not use active acoustic 

devices for data acquisition purposes. 

For general information on sound and 

its interaction with the marine 

environment, please see, e.g., Au and 

Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Urick (1983). 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in Hz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the dB. A 

sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is 

described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal (mPa)) and is a 

logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude; therefore, a 

relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. The source level (SL) 

represents the SPL referenced at a 

distance of 1 m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa), while the received 

level is the SPL at the listener’s position 

(referenced to 1 mPa). 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37645 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so that they 

may be accounted for in the summation 

of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents 

the total energy in a stated frequency 

band over a stated time interval or 

event, and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. The per-pulse SEL 

is calculated over the time window 

containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 

percent of the acoustic energy). SEL is 

a cumulative metric; it can be 

accumulated over a single pulse, or 

calculated over periods containing 

multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL 

represents the total energy accumulated 

by a receiver over a defined time 

window or during an event. 

Peak sound pressure (also referred to 

as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-pk) 

is the maximum instantaneous sound 

pressure measurable in the water at a 

specified distance from the source and 

is represented in the same units as the 

rms sound pressure. Another common 

metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure 

(pk-pk), which is the algebraic 

difference between the peak positive 

and peak negative sound pressures. 

Peak-to-peak pressure is typically 

approximately 6 dB higher than peak 

pressure (Southall et al., 2007). 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be either directed in a beam or 

beams (as for the sources considered 

here) or may radiate in all directions 

(omnidirectional sources). The 

compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound, which is defined as 

environmental background sound levels 

lacking a single source or point 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The sound 

level of a region is defined by the total 

acoustical energy being generated by 

known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. A number of 

sources contribute to ambient sound, 

including wind and waves, which are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

200 hertz (Hz) and 50 kilohertz (kHz) 

(Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient 

sound levels tend to increase with 

increasing wind speed and wave height. 

Precipitation can become an important 

component of total sound at frequencies 

above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 

Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals 

can contribute significantly to ambient 

sound levels, as can some fish and 

snapping shrimp. The frequency band 

for biological contributions is from 

approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. 

Sources of ambient sound related to 

human activity include transportation 

(surface vessels), dredging and 

construction, oil and gas drilling and 

production, geophysical surveys, sonar, 

and explosions. Vessel noise typically 

dominates the total ambient sound for 

frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In 

general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz; 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources that 

comprise ambient sound at any given 

location and time depends not only on 

the source levels (as determined by 

current weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 decibels (dB) from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. Details of source types are 

described in the following text. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. The 

distinction between these two sound 

types is not always obvious, as certain 

signals share properties of both pulsed 

and non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a 

source could be categorized as a pulse; 

but, due to propagation effects as it 

moves farther from the source, the 

signal duration becomes longer (e.g., 

Greene and Richardson, 1988). 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995; 

NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems. 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

We use generic sound exposure 

thresholds of 160 dB rms SPL and 120 

dB rms SPL to determine when an 

activity that produces impulsive or 

continuous sound, respectively, might 

result in impacts to a marine mammal 

such that a take by Level B harassment 

might occur. These thresholds should be 

considered guidelines for estimating 

when harassment may occur (i.e., when 

an animal is exposed to levels equal to 

or exceeding the relevant criterion) in 

specific contexts; however, useful 

contextual information that may inform 

our assessment of effects is typically 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37646 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

lacking and we consider these 

thresholds as step functions. 

As noted above, continuous sounds 

are those whose sound pressure level 

remains above that of the ambient 

sound, with negligibly small 

fluctuations in level, while intermittent 

sounds are defined as sounds with 

interrupted levels of low or no sound. 

Thus, echosounder signals are not 

continuous sounds but rather 

intermittent sounds. Intermittent sounds 

can further be defined as either 

impulsive or non-impulsive. Similar to 

impulsive sounds, echosounder signals 

have durations that are typically very 

brief (< 1 sec) and have temporal 

characteristics that more closely 

resemble those of impulsive sounds 

than non-impulsive sounds, which 

typically have more gradual rise times 

and longer decays. With regard to 

behavioral thresholds, we consider the 

temporal and spectral characteristics of 

echosounder signals to more closely 

resemble those of an impulse sound 

than a continuous sound. Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that the 160-dB 

threshold for impulsive sources is most 

appropriate for use in considering the 

potential effects of the AFSC’s activities. 

A wide range of active acoustic 

devices are used in AFSC fisheries 

surveys 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. AFSC also uses passive 

listening sensors (i.e., remotely and 

passively detecting sound rather than 

producing it), which do not have the 

potential to impact marine mammals. 

AFSC 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., current 

profilers). 

Mid- and high-frequency underwater 

acoustic sources typically used for 

scientific purposes operate by creating 

an oscillatory overpressure through 

rapid vibration of a surface, using either 

electromagnetic forces or the 

piezoelectric effect of some materials. A 

vibratory source based on the 

piezoelectric effect is commonly 

referred to as a transducer. Transducers 

are usually designed to excite an 

acoustic wave of a specific frequency, 

often in a highly directive beam, with 

the directional capability increasing 

with operating frequency. The main 

parameter characterizing directivity is 

the beam width, defined as the angle 

subtended by diametrically opposite 

‘‘half power’’ (¥3 dB) points of the 

main lobe. For different transducers at 

a single operating frequency the beam 

width can vary from 180° (almost 

omnidirectional) to only a few degrees. 

Transducers are usually produced with 

either circular or rectangular active 

surfaces. For circular transducers, the 

beam width in the horizontal plane 

(assuming a downward pointing main 

beam) is equal in all directions, whereas 

rectangular transducers produce more 

complex beam patterns with variable 

beam width in the horizontal plane. 

Please see Zykov and Carr (2014) for 

further discussion of electromechanical 

sound sources. 

The types of active sources employed 

in fisheries acoustic research and 

monitoring may be considered in two 

broad categories here (Category 1 and 

Category 2), based largely on their 

respective operating frequency (e.g., 

within or outside the known audible 

range of marine species) and other 

output characteristics (e.g., signal 

duration, directivity). As described 

below, these operating characteristics 

result in differing potential for acoustic 

impacts on marine mammals. 

Category 1 active fisheries acoustic 

sources include those with high output 

frequencies (>180 kHz) that are outside 

the known functional hearing capability 

of any marine mammal. Sounds that are 

above the functional hearing range of 

marine animals may be audible if 

sufficiently loud (e.g., M<hl, 1968). 

However, the relative output levels of 

these sources mean that they would 

potentially be detectable to marine 

mammals at maximum distances of only 

a few meters, and are highly unlikely to 

be of sufficient intensity to result in 

behavioral harassment. These sources 

also generally have short duration 

signals and highly directional beam 

patterns, meaning that any individual 

marine mammal would be unlikely to 

even receive a signal that would almost 

certainly be inaudible. 

We are aware of two studies (Deng et 

al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2014) 

demonstrating some behavioral reaction 

by marine mammals to acoustic systems 

operating at user-selected frequencies 

above 200 kHz. These studies generally 

indicate only that sub-harmonics could 

be detectable by certain species at 

distances up to several hundred meters. 

However, this detectability is in 

reference to ambient noise, not to 

NMFS’s established 160-dB threshold 

for assessing the potential for incidental 

take for these sources. Source levels of 

the secondary peaks considered in these 

studies—those within the hearing range 

of some marine mammals—range from 

135–166 dB, meaning that these subharmonics would either be below levels 

likely to result in Level B harassment or 

would attenuate to such a level within 

a few meters. Beyond these important 

study details, these high-frequency (i.e., 

Category 1) sources and any energy they 

may produce below the primary 

frequency that could be audible to 

marine mammals would be dominated 

by a few primary sources that are 

operated near-continuously, and the 

potential range above threshold would 

be so small as to essentially discount 

them. Therefore, Category 1 sources are 

not expected to have any effect on 

marine mammals. Further, recent sound 

source verification testing of these and 

other similar systems did not observe 

any sub-harmonics in any of the systems 

tested under controlled conditions 

(Crocker and Fratantonio, 2016). While 

this 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. 

Category 1 sources are not considered 

further in this document. 

Category 2 acoustic sources, which 

are present on most AFSC fishery 

research vessels, include a variety of 

single, dual, and multi-beam 

echosounders (many with a variety of 

modes), sources used to determine the 

orientation of trawl nets, and several 

current profilers with lower output 

frequencies than Category 1 sources. 

Category 2 active acoustic sources have 

moderate to high output frequencies (10 

to 180 kHz) that are generally within the 

functional hearing range of marine 

mammals and therefore have the 

potential to cause behavioral 

harassment. However, while likely 

potentially audible to certain species, 

these sources have generally short ping 

durations and are typically focused 

(highly directional) to serve their 

intended purpose of mapping specific 

objects, depths, or environmental 

features. These characteristics reduce 

the likelihood of an animal receiving or 

perceiving the signal. A number of these 

sources, particularly those with 

relatively lower output frequencies 

coupled with higher output levels can 

be operated in different output modes 

(e.g., energy can be distributed among 

multiple output beams) that may lessen 

the likelihood of perception by and 

potential impact on marine mammals. 

We now describe specific acoustic 

sources used by AFSC. The acoustic 

system used during a particular survey 

is optimized for surveying under 

specific environmental conditions (e.g., 

depth and bottom type). Lower 

frequencies of sound travel further in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37647 

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. Primary source 

categories are described below, and 

characteristics of representative 

predominant sources are summarized in 

Table 2. Predominant sources are those 

that, when operated, would be louder 

than and/or have a larger acoustic 

footprint than other concurrently 

operated sources, at relevant 

frequencies. 

(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. Multifrequency split-beam sensors are 

deployed from AFSC 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 frequencydependent acoustic backscattering 

between species. 

(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. 

(3) Single-Frequency Omnidirectional 

Sonar—These sources provide 

omnidirectional imaging around the 

source with different vertical 

beamwidths available, which results in 

differential transmitting beam patterns. 

The cylindrical multi-element 

transducer allows the omnidirectional 

sonar beam to be electronically tilted 

down to ¥90°, allowing automatic 

tracking of schools of fish within the 

entire water volume around the vessel. 

(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. Vesselmounted 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. 

TABLE 2—OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF REPRESENTATIVE PREDOMINANT AFSC ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES

Active acoustic system Operating frequencies 

Maximum 

source 

level 

Single ping duration 

(ms) and 

repetition rate 

(Hz) 

Orientation/directionality Nominal 

beamwidth 

Simrad EK60 narrow beam 

echosounder.

18, 38, 70, 120, 200 kHz ....... 226.7 dB .. 1 ms at 1 Hz .. Downward looking ................. 11° 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37648 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF REPRESENTATIVE PREDOMINANT AFSC ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES— 

Continued 

Active acoustic system Operating frequencies 

Maximum 

source 

level 

Single ping duration 

(ms) and 

repetition rate 

(Hz) 

Orientation/directionality Nominal 

beamwidth 

Simrad ME70 narrow beam 

echosounder.

70 kHz .................................... 226.7 dB .. 1 ms at 1 Hz .. Downward looking ................. 11° 

Simrad ES60 multibeam 

echosounder.

38 and 120 kHz ..................... 226.6 dB .. 1 ms at 1 Hz .. Downward looking ................. 7° 

Reson 7111 multibeam 

echosounder.

38, 50, 100, 180, 300 kHz ..... 230 dB ..... not provided ... Downward looking ................. 150° 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

We have reviewed AFSC’s species 

descriptions—which summarize 

available information regarding status 

and trends, distribution and habitat 

preferences, behavior and life history, 

and auditory capabilities of the 

potentially affected species—for 

accuracy and completeness and refer the 

reader to Sections 3 and 4 of AFSC’s 

application (and Sections 3 and 4 of 

Appendix C, which specifically 

addresses the IPHC activities), instead of 

reprinting the information here. 

Additional information regarding 

population trends and threats may be 

found in NMFS’s Stock Assessment 

Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

sars/) and more general information 

about these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’s website 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

mammals/). 

Table 3 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the specified 

geographical regions where AFSC and 

IPHC propose to conduct the specified 

activities and summarizes information 

related to the population or stock, 

including regulatory status under the 

MMPA and ESA and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2017). PBR, defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population, is 

discussed in greater detail later in this 

document (see ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’). 

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 the specified geographical 

regions are assessed in either NMFS’s 

U.S. Alaska SARs or U.S. Pacific SARs. 

All values presented in Table 3 are the 

most recent available at the time of 

writing and are available in the 2016 

SARs (Carretta et al., 2017; Muto et al., 

2017) or draft 2017 SARs (available 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports). 

Forty species (with 88 managed 

stocks) are considered to have the 

potential to co-occur with AFSC and 

IPHC activities. Species that could 

potentially occur in the proposed 

research areas but are not expected to 

have the potential for interaction with 

AFSC research gear or that are not likely 

to be harassed by AFSC’s use of active 

acoustic devices are described briefly 

but omitted from further analysis. These 

include extralimital species, which are 

species that do not normally occur in a 

given area but for which there are one 

or more occurrence records that are 

considered beyond the normal range of 

the species. The only species considered 

to be extralimital here are the narwhal 

(Monodon monoceros; CSBSRA only) 

and the Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni brydei; IPHC U.S. west coast 

research area only). In addition, the sea 

otter is found in coastal waters—with 

the northern (or eastern) sea otter 

(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) found in 

Alaska—and the Pacific walrus 

(Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and 

polar bear (Ursus maritimus) may also 

occur in AFSC research areas. However, 

these species are managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and are not 

considered further in this document. 

Two populations of gray whales are 

recognized, eastern and western North 

Pacific (ENP and WNP). WNP whales 

are known to feed in the Okhotsk Sea 

and off of Kamchatka before migrating 

south to poorly known wintering 

grounds, possibly in the South China 

Sea. The two populations have 

historically been considered 

geographically isolated from each other; 

however, data from satellite-tracked 

whales indicate that there is some 

overlap between the stocks. Two WNP 

whales were tracked from Russian 

foraging areas along the Pacific rim to 

Baja California (Mate et al., 2011), and, 

in one case where the satellite tag 

remained attached to the whale for a 

longer period, a WNP whale was tracked 

from Russia to Mexico and back again 

(IWC, 2012). Between 22–24 WNP 

whales are known to have occurred in 

the eastern Pacific through comparisons 

of ENP and WNP photo-identification 

catalogs (IWC, 2012; Weller et al., 2011; 

Burdin et al., 2011). Urban et al. (2013) 

compared catalogs of photo-identified 

individuals from Mexico with 

photographs of whales off Russia and 

reported a total of 21 matches. 

Therefore, a portion of the WNP 

population is assumed to migrate, at 

least in some years, to the eastern 

Pacific during the winter breeding 

season. 

However, the AFSC does not believe 

that any gray whale (WNP or ENP) 

would be likely to interact with its 

research gear, as it is extremely unlikely 

that a gray whale in close proximity to 

AFSC research activity would be one of 

the few WNP whales that have been 

documented in the eastern Pacific. The 

likelihood that a WNP whale would 

interact with AFSC research gear is 

insignificant and discountable, and 

WNP gray whales are omitted from 

further analysis. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37649 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AU18.000</GPH>

Table 3. Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of AFSC Research Activities. 

Occurrence1 

Stock ESA/ abundance 

Co nun on MMPA (CV, Nmin, Annual Scientific name Stock status; PBR name Q td 0 Strategic most recent M/SI4 

~ ~ Vl Vl abundance 0 ~ td (Y!Ni survey) ,_.., 3 Vl 

Order Cetartiodactyla- Cetacea- Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae 

North Eubalaena Eastern North 31 (0.226; Pacific X X E/D; y 0.05 0 

right whale japonica Pacific (ENP) 26; 2013) 

16,820 

Bowhead Balaena Western Arctic X X E/D; y (0.052; 161 43 whale mysticetus 16,100; 

2011) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

20,990 

Gray whale Eschrichtius ENP X X X X -;N (0.05; 624 132 robustus 20,125; 

2011) 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

California/ 1,918 (0.03; Oregon! X E/D; y 1,876; 1111 2:9.2 Washington 

Megaptera (CA/OR/WA)* 2014) 

Humpback 

whale novaeangliae Central North 10,103 (0.3; 

kuzira Pacific (CNP)* X X E/D; y 7,890; 83 25 

2006) 

Western North X X X E/D; y 1,107 (0.3; 3 3.2 Pacific* 865;2006) 

Minke Balaenoptera CA/ORIWA X -;N 636 (0.72; 3.5 2:1.3 

whale acutorostrata 369;2014) 

scammoni Alaska* X X X -;N Unknown n!a 0 

Sei whale B. borealis ENP X X X E/D; y 

519 (0.4; 0.75 0 borealis 374;2014) 

9,029 (0.12; 

Fin whale B.physalus CA/ORIWA X E/D; y 8,127; 81 2:2.0 

physalus 2014) 

Northeast Pacific* X X X E/D; y Unknown n!a 0.4 

B. musculus 1,647 (0.07; 

Blue whale musculus ENP X X X E/D; y 1,551; 2.311 2:0.2 

2011) 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae 

1,997 (0.57; 

Sperm Physeter CA/ORIWA X E/D; y 1,270; 2.5 0.9 

whale macrocephalus 2014) 

North Pacific* X X E/D; y Unknown n!a 3.7 

Family Kogiidae 

Pygmy 4,111 (1.12; 

sperm Kogia breviceps CA/ORIWA X -;N 1,924; 19 0 

whale 2014) 
37650 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AU18.001</GPH>

Dwarf 

spem1 K. sima CA/ORIWA6 X -;N Unknown n/a 0 

whale 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales) 

Cuvier's 3,274 (0.67; 

beaked Ziphius CA/ORIWA X -;N 2,059; 21 <0.1 

whale cavirostris 2014) 

Alaska X X -;N Unknown n/a 0 

Baird's 2,697 (0.6; 

beaked Berardius bairdii CA/ORIWA X -;N 1,633; 16 0 

whale 2014) 

Alaska X X -;N Unknown n!a 0 

Stejneger's Mesoplodon beaked Alaska X X -;N Unknown nla 0 

whale stejnegeri 

Hubbs' 

beaked M carlhubbsi X 

whale 

Blainville' s 

beaked M. densirostris X 

whale 

Ginkgotoothed M. ginkgodens X beaked 

whale 3,044 (0.54; 

Perrin's CA/OR/WA7 -;N 1,967; 20 0.1 

beaked Mperrini X 2014) 

whale 

Lesser 

(pygmy) M. peruvianus X beaked 

whale 

Stejneger's 

beaked M stejnegeri X 

whale 

Family Monodontidae 

39,258 

Beaufort Sca9 X X -;N (0.229; 649 139 32,453; 

1992) 

Eastem Chukchi 20,752 (0.7; 

Sea X X -;N 12,194; 244 67 

2012) 

Beluga Delphinapterus 19,186 

whale leu cas Eastem Bering X -;N (0.32; n!a 181 Sea9 14,751; 

2000) 

1,926 (0.25; 

Bristol Ba/ X -;N 2,435; 58 25 

2005) 

Cook Inlet X EID; Y 312(0.1; n!a 0 287;2014) 

Family Delphinidae 

CA/ORIWA 1,924 (0.54; 

Common Tursiops Offshore X -;N 1,255; 11 2:1.6 

bottlenose truncatus 2014) 

dolphin lruncalus Califomia Coastal X -;N 453 (0.06; 2.7 2:2.0 346; 2011) 

Striped Stenella 29,211 (0.2; 

CA/ORIWA X -;N 24,782; 238 2:0.8 dolphin coeruleoalba 2014) 
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37651 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AU18.002</GPH>

ENP long- 101,305 

beaked Delphinus California X -;N (0.49; 657 2:35.4 common de/phis bairdii 68,432; 

dolphin 2014) 

969,861 

Common D. d. de/phis CA/ORIWA X -;N (0.17; 8,393 2:40 dolphin 839,325; 

2014) 

26,814 

CA/ORIWA X -;N (0.28; 191 7.5 Pacific Lagenorhynchus 21,195; 

white-sided 2014) 

dolphin obliquidens 26,880 (nla; 

North Pacific9 X X -;N 26,880; nla 0 

1990) 

Northern 26,556 

right whale Lissodelphis CA/ORIWA X -;N (0.44; 179 3.8 borealis 18,608; dolphin 2014) 

Risso's 6,336 (0.32; 

dolphin Grampus griseus CA/ORIWA X -;N 4,817; 46 2:3.7 

2014) 

ENP Offshore X X X -;N 240 (0.49; 1.6 0 162;2014) 

West Coast X X -;N 243 (nla; 2.4 0 Transient8 2009) 

A Tl Transient X D;Y 7 (nla; 0 0 2016) 

ENP Gulf of 

Killer Alaska, Aleutian 587 (n/a; Orcinus orca5 Islands, and X X X -;N 5.9 1 whale Bering Sea 2012) 

Transient 

ENP Southern X E/D; y 

83 (nla; 0.14 0 Resident 2016) 

ENPNorthern X X -;N 261 (nla; 1.96 0 Resident 2011) 

ENP Alaska X X -;N 2,347 (nla; 24 1 Resident 2012) 

Short- Globicephala 836 (0.79; finned pilot CA/ORIWA X -;N 4.5 1.2 

whale macrorhynchus 466;2014) 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

2,917 (0.41; 

Morro Bay X -;N 2,102; 21 2:0.6 

2012) 

3,715 (0.51; 

Monterey Bay X -;N 2,480; 25 0 

2011) 

San Francisco- 9,886 (0.51; 

Phocoena Russian River X -;N 6,625; 66 0 

Harbor phocoena 2011) 

porpmse vomerina 35,769 

Northern X -;N (0.52; 475 2:0.6 CA/Southern OR 23,749; 

2011) 

21,487 

NorthernOR/WA X -;N (0.44; 151 2:3 Coast 15,123; 

2011) 

Washington X -;N 11,233 66 2:7.2 
37652 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AU18.003</GPH>

Inland Waters (0.37; 

8,308; 

2015) 

Southeast Alaska* X -; y Unknown nla 34 

31,046 

Gulf of Alaska9 X -; y (0.214; nla 72 25,987; 

1998) 

X 48,215 

Bering Sea9 X -; y (0.223; nla 0.4 40,039; 

1999) 

25,750 

CA/ORIWA X -;N (0.45; 172 0.3 

Dall's Phocoenoides 17,954; 

porp01se dalli dalli 2014) 

83,400 

Alaska9 X X -;N (0.097; nla; nla 38 

1993) 

Order Carnivora- Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Guadalupe Arctocephalus Mexico to 20,000 (nla; 

philippii X TID; Y 15,830; 542 2:3.212 

fur seal townsendi California 2010) 

Pribilof 637,561 

Islands/Eastern X X X D;Y (0.2; 11,602 436 

Northern Callorhinus Pacific 539,638; 

fur seal ursinus 2015) 

14,050 (nla; 

California X X -;N 7,524; 451 1.8 

2013) 

296,750 

California Zalophus United States X -;N (nla; 9,200 389 sea lion califomianus 153,337; 

2011) 

Eumetopias 41,638 (nla; 

Steller sea jubatus Eastern U.S. X X -;N 2015) 2,498 108 

monteriensis lion 53,303 (nla; E. j. jubatus Western U.S. X X EID; y 2016) 320 241 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Bearded Erignathus Alaska (Beringia barbatus X X TID; Y 273,676* 8,210* 391 seal nauticus DPS)* 

30,968 (nla; 

California X -;N 27,348; 1,641 43 

2012) 

24,732 

ORIW A Coast9 X -;N (0.12; nla 10.6 22,380; 

1999) 

Phoca vitulina Washington 11,036 

Harbor seal richardii Northern Inland X -;N (0.15; nla 9.8 

Waters9 7,213; 

1999) 

Southern Puget 1,568 (0.15; 

Sound9 X -;N 1,025; nla 3.4 

1999) 

HoodCanae X -;N 1,088 (0.15; nla 0.2 711;1999) 

Clarence Strait1

" X -;N 31,634 1,222 41 
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37653 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AU18.004</GPH>

(4,518; 

29,093; 

2011) 

18,105 

Dixon/Cape X -;N (1,614; 703 69 Decision10 16,727; 

2011) 

14,855 

Sitka/Chatham X -;N (2,106; 555 77 Strait10 13,212; 

2011) 

Lynn Canal/ 9,478 

Stephens X -;N (1,467; 155 50 

Passage10 8,605; 

2011) 

7,210 

Glacier Bay/Icy X -;N (1,866; 169 104 Strait10 5,647; 

2011) 

27,386 

Cook Inlet/ X -;N (3,328; 770 234 Shelikof Strait10 25,651; 

2011) 

29,889 

Prince William X -;N (13,846; 838 279 Sound10 27,936; 

2011) 

19,199 

South Kodiak10 X -;N (2,429; 314 128 17,479; 

2011) 

8,321 

North Kodiak10 X -;N (1,619; 298 37 7,096; 

2011) 

32,350 

Bristol Ba/ 0 X -;N (6,882; 1,182 142 28,146; 

2011) 

Pribiloflslands10 X -;N 232 (n/a; 7 0 2010) 

6,431 (882; 

Aleutian Islands10 X -;N 5,772; 173 90 

2011) 

461,625 

Spotted seal P.largha Alaska X X -;N (n/a; 12,697 329 423,237; 

2013) 

Ringed seal Pusa hispida Alaska* X X TID;N Unknown n/a 1,054 hispida 

184,000 

Ribbon seal Histriophoca Alaska X X -;N (n/a; 9,785 3.8 fasciata 163,086; 

2013) 

Northern 179,000 

elephant Mirounga California X X X -;N (n/a; 4,882 8.8 angustirostris Breeding 81,368; seal 2010) 

*Stocks marked with an asterisk are addressed in further detail in text below. 
37654 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AU18.005</GPH>

1 W C: west coast (including Puget Smmd ); GOA Gulf of Alaska; B SAl: Bering Seal Aleutian Islands; C SBS: Chukchi 

Sea/Reaufort Sea 

2

Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMP A status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that 

the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMP A. Under the MMP A, 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. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the 

MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 

3

NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports at: wwwjisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefiicient of variation; Nrnin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV 

is not applicable. For most stocks of killer whales, the abtmdance values represent direct cmmts of individually identifiable 

animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For certain stocks of pimlipeds, abundance 

estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from 

knowledge of the species' (or similar species') life historv to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated 

CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore. 

4

T11csc values, found in NMFS' s SARs, represent annuallcvcls of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources 

combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, subsistence htmting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cmmot be detern1ined precisely and is 

in some cases presented as a minimum value. All M/SI values are as presented in the 2016 SARs (Carretta eta!., 2017; Muto et 

al., 2017). 

5

Transicnt and resident killer whales arc considered mmamcd subspecies (Conm1ittcc on Taxonomy, 20 17). 

6

No information is available to estimate the population size of dwarf sperm whales off the US. west coast, as no sightings of this 

species have been documented despite numerous vessel surveys of this region (Carretta eta!., 2017). Dwarf and pvgmy sperm 

whales are difficult to differentiate at sea but, based on previous sighting surveys and historical stranding data, it is thought that 

recent ship survey sightings were of pygmy sperm whales. 

7

T11e six species of Mesoplodont beaked whales occurring in the CA/OR!W A region are managed as a single stock due to the 

rarity of records and the difficulty in distinguishing these animals to species in the field. Based on by catch and stranding records, 

it appears thatA1. carlhubbsi is the most commonly encountered of these species (Carretta et al., 2008; Moore and Barlow, 2013). 

8

T11c abundance estimate for this stock includes only animals from the "imler coast" population occurring in inside waters of 

southeastern Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington-excluding animals from the "outer coast" subpopulation, including 

animals from California-and therefore should be considered a minimum count. For comparison, the previous abundance 

estimate for this stock, including counts of animals from California that are now considered outdated, was 354. 

9 Abundance estimates tor these stocks are not considered current. PDR is therefore considered undetermined tor these stocks, as 

there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance 

estimates, as these represent the best available information tor use in this document. Par some stocks of beluga whale, PDR is 

calculated despite a lack of current recent survey data. For the Beaufort Sea stock, recent trend data suggest that the stock is at 

least as large as it was when the minimum abundm1ce was last estimated; theretore, it is acceptable to use the infonnation to 

calculate PBR. Similarly, the Bristol Bay stock of beluga whales is known to be increasing, and the available abundance 

information may be used to calculate a PBR value. Despite current abundm1ce infonnation for the Cook Inlet stock of beluga 

whales, a PBR cannot be calculated because the stock does not meet the assumptions inherent to the use of the PBR equation, i.e., 

despite low abmtdmtce relative to historical estimates and low known levels ofhummt-caused mortality since 1999, the stock is 

not increasing (tor unknown reasons). 

10For harbor seal stocks in Alaska, abmtdmtce estimates are based on aerial smvey data with smvey counts adjusted to account 

tor the int1uence of external conditions (e.g., tide, time of day, day of year) on the number of seals hauled out on shore, and 

counted, dming the surveys. Conections are also made to account for the proportion of seals in the water and not counted. The 

minimum population estimate is calculated as the lower bound ofthe 80 percent credible interval obtained trom the posterior 

distribution of abundance estimates. For these stocks, an estimate of standard error associated with Lhe abundance estimate is 

provided rather than CV. For the Pribiloflslands stock, the abundance estimate represents a complete count of individuals in the 

stock. 

11These stocks are known to spend a portion of their time outside the US. EEZ. Therefore, the PBR presented here is the 

allocation for U.S. waters only and is a portion of the totaL The total PBR for blue whales is 9.3 (one-quarter allocation for U.S. 

waters), and the total for CA/OR!W A humpback whales is 22 (one half allocation for U.S. waters). Armnal M/SI presented for 

these species is for US. waters only. 

12This represents annual M/SI in U.S. waters. However, the vast majority ofM/SI for tllis stock-the level of which is 

unknown-would likely occur in Mexican waters. 
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37655 

2015), NMFS established 14 distinct 

population segments (DPS) with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do 

not necessarily equate to the existing 

stocks designated under the MMPA and 

shown in Table 3. Because MMPA 

stocks cannot be portioned, i.e., parts 

managed as ESA-listed while other parts 

managed as not ESA-listed, until such 

time as the MMPA stock delineations 

are reviewed in light of the DPS 

designations, NMFS considers the 

existing humpback whale stocks under 

the MMPA to be endangered and 

depleted for MMPA management 

purposes (e.g., selection of a recovery 

factor, stock status). 

Within Alaska and U.S. west coast 

waters, four current DPSs may occur: 

The Western North Pacific (WNP) DPS 

(endangered), Hawaii DPS (not listed), 

Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central 

America DPS (endangered). According 

to Wade et al. (2016), in the Aleutian 

Islands and Bering, Chukchi, and 

Beaufort Seas, encountered whales are 

most likely to be from the Hawaii DPS 

(86.5 percent), but could be from the 

Mexico DPS (11.3 percent) or WNP DPS 

(4.4 percent). The same pattern holds in 

the Gulf of Alaska, with the probability 

of encountering whales from these same 

DPSs expected to be 89 percent, 10.5 

percent, and 0.5 percent, respectively, 

and in southeast Alaska (93.9 percent 

from Hawaii DPS and 6.1 percent from 

Mexico DPS). Off of Washington, whales 

remain most likely to be from the 

Hawaii DPS (52.9 percent), but are 

almost equally likely to be from the 

Mexico DPS (41.9 percent), and could 

also be from the Central America DPS 

(14.7 percent). Off of Oregon and 

California, whales are most likely to be 

from the Mexico DPS (89.6 percent), 

with a 19.7 percent probability of an 

encountered whale being from the 

Central America DPS. Note that these 

probabilities reflect the upper limit of 

the 95 percent confidence interval of the 

probability of occurrence; therefore, 

numbers may not sum to 100 percent for 

a given area. 

Although no comprehensive 

abundance estimate is available for the 

Alaska stock of minke whales, recent 

surveys provide estimates for portions 

of the stock’s range. A 2010 survey 

conducted on the eastern Bering Sea 

shelf produced a provisional abundance 

estimate of 2,020 (CV = 0.73) whales 

(Friday et al., 2013). This estimate is 

considered provisional because it has 

not been corrected for animals missed 

on the trackline, animals submerged 

when the ship passed, or responsive 

movement. Additionally, line-transect 

surveys were conducted in shelf and 

nearshore waters (within 30–45 nautical 

miles of land) in 2001–2003 between the 

Kenai Peninsula (150° W) and Amchitka 

Pass (178° W). Minke whale abundance 

was estimated to be 1,233 (CV = 0.34) 

for this area (also not been corrected for 

animals missed on the trackline) 

(Zerbini et al., 2006). The majority of the 

sightings were in the Aleutian Islands, 

rather than in the Gulf of Alaska, and in 

water shallower than 200 m. These 

estimates cannot be used as an estimate 

of the entire Alaska stock of minke 

whales because only a portion of the 

stock’s range was surveyed. Similarly, 

although a comprehensive abundance 

estimate is not available for the 

northeast Pacific stock of fin whales, 

provisional estimates representing 

portions of the range are available. The 

same 2010 survey of the eastern Bearing 

sea shelf provided an estimate of 1,061 

(CV = 0.38) fin whales (Friday et al., 

2013). The estimate is not corrected for 

missed animals, but is expected to be 

robust as previous studies have shown 

that only small correction factors are 

needed for fin whales (Barlow, 1995). 

Zerbini et al. (2006) produced an 

estimate of 1,652 (95% CI: 1,142–2,389) 

fin whales for the area described above. 

Current and historical estimates of the 

abundance of sperm whales in the North 

Pacific are considered unreliable, and 

caution should be exercised in 

interpreting published estimates (Muto 

et al., 2017). However, Kato and 

Miyashita (1998) produced an 

abundance estimate of 102,112 (CV = 

0.155) sperm whales in the western 

North Pacific (believed to be positively 

biased). The number of sperm whales 

occurring within Alaska waters is 

unknown. 

Using 2010–2012 survey data for the 

inland waters of southeast Alaska, 

Dahlheim et al. (2015) calculated a 

combined abundance estimate for 

harbor porpoise in the northern 

(including Cross Sound, Icy Strait, 

Glacier Bay, Lynn Canal, Stephens 

Passage, and Chatham Strait) and 

southern (including Frederick Sound, 

Sumner Strait, Wrangell and Zarembo 

Islands, and Clarence Strait as far south 

as Ketchikan) regions of the inland 

waters of 975 (CV = 0.1). Because this 

abundance estimate has not been 

corrected for detection biases, which are 

expected to be high for harbor porpoise, 

the estimate is likely conservative (Muto 

et al., 2017). However, this estimate may 

be used to calculate a minimum 

abundance estimate of 896 harbor 

porpoise for the area, with a 

corresponding PBR value of 8.9. 

No estimate of population abundance 

is available for the entire Alaska stock 

of bearded seals (note that this stock 

corresponds with the Beringia DPS 

designated pursuant to the ESA and 

listed as threatened). However, during 

2012–2013, U.S. and Russian 

researchers conducted aerial abundance 

and distribution surveys over the entire 

Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk 

(Moreland et al. 2013). A sub-sample of 

data from the U.S. portion of the Bering 

Sea were analyzed by Conn et al. (2014) 

to produce an abundance estimate of 

approximately 299,174 (95% CI: 

245,476–360,544) bearded seals in U.S. 

waters. However, this estimate does not 

include seals that were in the Chukchi 

and Beaufort seas at the time of the 

surveys and therefore must be 

considered an underestimate. Using this 

estimate, a minimum abundance of 

273,676 seals in the U.S. sector of the 

Bering Sea (and associated PBR of 

8,210) was calculated. 

Most taxonomists recognize five 

subspecies of ringed seals. The Arctic 

ringed seal subspecies occurs in the 

Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea and is the 

only stock that occurs in U.S. waters 

(referred to as the Alaska stock). NMFS 

listed the Arctic ringed seal subspecies 

as threatened under the ESA on 

December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76706), 

primarily due to anticipated loss of sea 

ice through the end of the 21st century 

due to ongoing climate change. On 

March 11, 2016, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Alaska issued a 

memorandum decision in a lawsuit 

challenging the listing of ringed seals 

under the ESA (Alaska Oil and Gas 

Association, et al. v. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, et al., Case No. 4:14– 

cv–00029–RRB). The decision vacated 

NMFS’s listing of the Arctic subspecies 

of ringed seals as a threatened species. 

NMFS appealed that decision and on 

February 12, 2018, the Ninth Circuit 

U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the 

decision to list the ringed seal as 

threatened. The decision was affirmed 

and the listing reinstated on May 15, 

2018. 

A comprehensive and reliable 

abundance estimate for the Alaska stock 

of ringed seals is not available. 

However, using data from surveys in the 

late 1990s and 2000 (Bengtson et al., 

2005; Frost et al., 2004), Kelly et al. 

(2010) estimated the total population in 

the Alaska Chukchi and Beaufort seas to 

be at least 300,000 ringed seals. This is 

likely an underestimate since surveys in 

the Beaufort Sea were limited to within 

40 km from shore (Muto et al., 2017). 

Using the same survey data described 

above for bearded seals, Conn et al. 

(2014) calculated an abundance estimate 

of about 170,000 ringed seals for the 

U.S. portion of the Bering Sea. This 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37656 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

estimate did not account for availability 

bias and did not include ringed seals in 

the shorefast ice zone, which were 

surveyed using a different method. 

Thus, the actual number of ringed seals 

in the U.S. sector of the Bering Sea is 

likely much higher, perhaps by a factor 

of two or more (Muto et al., 2017). 

Take Reduction Planning—Take 

reduction plans are designed to 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. Take reduction 

teams are convened to develop these 

plans. 

There are no take reduction plans 

currently in effect for Alaskan fisheries. 

For marine mammals off the U.S. west 

coast, there is currently one take 

reduction plan in effect (Pacific 

Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction 

Plan). The goal of this plan is to reduce 

M/SI of several marine mammal stocks 

incidental to the California thresher 

shark/swordfish drift gillnet fishery (CA 

DGN). A team was convened in 1996 

and a final plan produced in 1997 (62 

FR 51805; October 3, 1997). Marine 

mammal stocks of concern initially 

included the California, Oregon, and 

Washington stocks for beaked whales, 

short-finned pilot whales, pygmy sperm 

whales, sperm whales, and humpback 

whales. The most recent five-year 

averages of M/SI for these stocks are 

below PBR. More information is 

available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/interactions/trt/poctrp.htm. Of the 

stocks of concern, the AFSC has 

requested the authorization of 

incidental M/SI for the short-finned 

pilot whale only (on behalf of IPHC; see 

‘‘Estimated Take’’ later in this 

document). The most recent reported 

average annual human-caused mortality 

for short-finned pilot whales (2010–14) 

is 1.2 animals. The IPHC does not use 

drift gillnets in its fisheries research 

program; therefore, take reduction 

measures applicable to the CA DGN 

fisheries are not relevant. 

Unusual Mortality Events (UME)—A 

UME is defined under the MMPA 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 19 formally 

recognized UMEs on the U.S. west coast 

or in Alaska involving species under 

NMFS’ jurisdiction. The only currently 

ongoing investigations involve 

Guadalupe fur seals and California sea 

lions along the west coast. Increased 

strandings of Guadalupe fur seals (up to 

eight times the historical average) have 

occurred along the entire coast of 

California. These increased strandings 

were reported beginning in January 

2015 and peaked from April through 

June 2015, but have remained well 

above average through 2017. Findings 

from the majority of stranded animals 

include malnutrition with secondary 

bacterial and parasitic infections. 

Beginning in January 2013, elevated 

strandings of California sea lion pups 

were observed in southern California, 

with live sea lion strandings nearly 

three times higher than the historical 

average. Findings to date indicate that a 

likely contributor to the large number of 

stranded, malnourished pups was a 

change in the availability of sea lion 

prey for nursing mothers, especially 

sardines. These UMEs are occurring in 

the same areas and the causes and 

mechanisms of this remain under 

investigation (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

health/mmume/ 

guadalupefurseals2015.html; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/ 

californiasealions2013.htm; accessed 

November 24, 2017). 

Another recent, notable UME 

involved large whales and occurred in 

the western Gulf of Alaska and off of 

British Columbia, Canada. Beginning in 

May 2015, elevated large whale 

mortalities (primarily fin and humpback 

whales) occurred in the areas around 

Kodiak Island, Afognak Island, Chirikof 

Island, the Semidi Islands, and the 

southern shoreline of the Alaska 

Peninsula. Although most carcasses 

have been non-retrievable as they were 

discovered floating and in a state of 

moderate to severe decomposition, the 

UME is likely attributable to ecological 

factors, i.e., the 2015 El Nin ̃ o, ‘‘warm 

water blob,’’ and the Pacific Coast 

domoic acid bloom. While the UME 

remains under investigation at the time 

of this writing, the dates of the UME are 

considered to be from May 22, through 

December 31, 2015 (western Gulf of 

Alaska) and from April 23, 2015 through 

April 16, 2016 (British Columbia). More 

information is available online at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/ 

large_whales_2015.html. 

Additional UMEs in the past ten years 

include those involving ringed, ribbon, 

spotted, and bearded seals (collectively 

‘‘ice seals’’) (2011; disease); harbor 

porpoises in California (2008; cause 

determined to be ecological factors); 

Guadalupe fur seals in the Northwest 

(2007; undetermined); large whales in 

California (2007; human interaction); 

cetaceans in California (2007; 

undetermined); and harbor porpoises in 

the Pacific Northwest (2006; 

undetermined). For more information 

on UMEs, please visit: 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/ 

events.html. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with an 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the result 

was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with 

best hearing estimated to be from 100 

Hz to 8 kHz; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37657 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, 

with best hearing from 10 to less than 

100 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Functional hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1– 

50 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Functional hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz for 

Otariidae, with best hearing between 2– 

48 kHz. 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Forty marine 

mammal species (30 cetacean and ten 

pinniped (four otariid and six phocid) 

species) have the potential to co-occur 

with AFSC and IPHC research activities. 

Please refer to Table 3. Of the 30 

cetacean species that may be present, 

eight are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 

eighteen are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid 

species and the sperm whale), and four 

are classified as high-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., porpoises and Kogia 

spp.). 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity (e.g., gear 

deployment, use of active acoustic 

sources, visual disturbance) may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take’’ 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 and 

the material it references, 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. In the following 

discussion, we consider potential effects 

to marine mammals from ship strike, 

physical interaction with the gear types 

described previously, use of active 

acoustic sources, and visual disturbance 

of pinnipeds. 

Ship Strike 

Vessel collisions with marine 

mammals, or ship strikes, can result in 

death or serious injury of the animal. 

Wounds resulting from ship strike may 

include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, 

broken bones, or propeller lacerations 

(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal 

at the surface may be struck directly by 

a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the 

bottom of a vessel, or an animal just 

below the surface may be cut by a 

vessel’s propeller. Superficial strikes 

may not kill or result in the death of the 

animal. These interactions are typically 

associated with large whales, which are 

occasionally found draped across the 

bulbous bow of large commercial ships 

upon arrival in port. Although smaller 

cetaceans or pinnipeds are more 

maneuverable in relation to large vessels 

than are large whales, they may also be 

susceptible to strike. The severity of 

injuries typically depends on the size 

and speed of the vessel, with the 

probability of death or serious injury 

increasing as vessel speed increases 

(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 

2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; 

Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact forces 

increase with speed, as does the 

probability of a strike at a given distance 

(Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011). 

Pace and Silber (2005) found that the 

probability of death or serious injury 

increased rapidly with increasing vessel 

speed. Specifically, the predicted 

probability of serious injury or death 

increased from 45 to 75 percent as 

vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn, 

and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn. 

Higher speeds during collisions result in 

greater force of impact, but higher 

speeds also appear to increase the 

chance of severe injuries or death 

through increased likelihood of 

collision by pulling whales toward the 

vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton et al., 

1995). In a separate study, Vanderlaan 

and Taggart (2007) analyzed the 

probability of lethal mortality of large 

whales at a given speed, showing that 

the greatest rate of change in the 

probability of a lethal injury to a large 

whale as a function of vessel speed 

occurs between 8.6 and 15 kn. The 

chances of a lethal injury decline from 

approximately 80 percent at 15 kn to 

approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn. At 

speeds below 11.8 kn, the chances of 

lethal injury drop below fifty percent, 

while the probability asymptotically 

increases toward one hundred percent 

above 15 kn. 

In an effort to reduce the number and 

severity of strikes of the endangered 

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis), 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 

80 to 90 percent. 

For vessels used in AFSC research 

activities, transit speeds average 10 kn 

(but vary from 6–14 kn), while vessel 

speed during active sampling with 

towed gear is typically only 2–4 kn. 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 is less 

than 50 percent. However, the 

likelihood of a strike actually happening 

is again unlikely. 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 hydrographic survey vessel 

traveling at low speed (5.5 kn) while 

conducting 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. The 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 research vessel reported a 

fatal strike in 2011 of a dolphin in the 

Atlantic, demonstrating that it is 

possible for strikes involving smaller 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37658 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Although the likelihood of vessels 

associated with research surveys 

striking a marine mammal are low, we 

require a robust ship strike avoidance 

protocol (see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’), 

which we believe eliminates any 

foreseeable risk of ship strike. We 

anticipate that vessel collisions 

involving AFSC research vessels, while 

not impossible, represent unlikely, 

unpredictable events for which there are 

no preventive measures. No ship strikes 

have been reported from any fisheries 

research activities conducted or funded 

by the AFSC. 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 

relative to commercial ship traffic, we 

believe that the possibility of ship strike 

is discountable and, further, that were a 

strike of a large whale to occur, it would 

be unlikely to result in serious injury or 

mortality. No incidental take resulting 

from ship strike is anticipated, and this 

potential effect of research will not be 

discussed further in the following 

analysis. 

Research Gear 

The types of research gear used by 

AFSC were described previously under 

‘‘Detailed Description of Activity.’’ 

Here, we broadly categorize these gears 

into those whose use we consider to 

have an extremely unlikely potential to 

result in marine mammal interaction 

and those whose use we believe may 

result in marine mammal interaction. 

Gears in the former category are not 

considered further, while those in the 

latter category are carried forward for 

further analysis. Gears with likely 

potential for marine mammal 

interaction include trawls, longlines, 

and gillnets. 

Trawl nets, longlines, and gillnets 

deployed by AFSC are similar to gear 

used in various commercial fisheries, 

and the potential for and history of 

marine mammal interaction with these 

gears through physical contact (i.e., 

capture or entanglement) is welldocumented. Read et al. (2006) 

estimated marine mammal bycatch in 

U.S. fisheries from 1990–99 and derived 

an estimate of global marine mammal 

bycatch by expanding U.S. bycatch 

estimates using data on fleet 

composition from the United Nations 

Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO). Although most U.S. bycatch for 

both cetaceans (84 percent) and 

pinnipeds (98 percent) occurred in 

gillnets, global marine mammal bycatch 

in trawl nets and longlines is likely 

substantial given that total global 

bycatch is thought to number in the 

hundreds of thousands of individuals 

(Read et al., 2006). In addition, global 

bycatch via longline has likely 

increased, as longlines have become the 

most common method of capturing 

swordfish and tuna since the U.N. 

banned the use of high seas driftnets 

over 2.5 km long in 1991 (high seas 

driftnets were previously often 40–60 

km long) (Read, 2008; FAO, 2001). 

Marine mammals are widely regarded 

as being quite intelligent and 

inquisitive, and when their pursuit of 

prey coincides with human pursuit of 

the same resources, it should be 

expected that physical interaction with 

fishing gear may occur (e.g., Beverton, 

1985). Fishermen and marine mammals 

are both drawn to areas of high prey 

density, and certain fishing activities 

may further attract marine mammals by 

providing food (e.g., bait, captured fish, 

bycatch discards) or by otherwise 

making it easier for animals to feed on 

a concentrated food source. Provision of 

foraging opportunities near the surface 

may present an advantage by negating 

the need for energetically expensive 

deep foraging dives (Hamer and 

Goldsworthy, 2006). Trawling, for 

example, can make available previously 

unexploited food resources by gathering 

prey that may otherwise be too fast or 

deep for normal predation, or may 

concentrate calories in an otherwise 

patchy landscape (Fertl and 

Leatherwood, 1997). Pilot whales, 

which are generally considered to be 

teuthophagous (i.e., feeding primarily 

on squid), were commonly observed in 

association with Atlantic mackerel 

(Scomber scombrus) trawl fisheries from 

1977–88 in the northeast U.S. EEZ 

(Waring et al., 1990). Not surprisingly, 

stomach contents of captured whales 

were observed to have high proportions 

of mackerel (68 percent of non-trace 

food items), indicating that the ready 

availability of a novel, concentrated, 

high-calorie prey item resulted in 

changed dietary composition (Read, 

1994). 

These interactions can result in injury 

or death for the animal(s) involved and/ 

or damage to fishing gear. Coastal 

animals, including various pinnipeds, 

bottlenose dolphins, and harbor 

porpoises, are perhaps the most 

vulnerable to these interactions and set 

or passive fishing gear (e.g., gillnets, 

traps) the most likely to be interacted 

with (e.g., 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, 2017). 

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 pelagic trawls 

(midwater or surface, 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 pelagic 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 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37659 

(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 in order 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, 

pelagic 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 17 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 (Perez, 2006; Young and 

Iudicello, 2007; Karpouzli and Leaper, 

2004; Hall et al., 2000; Fertl and 

Leatherwood, 1997; Northridge, 1991; 

Song et al., 2010). At least eighteen 

species of seals and sea lions are known 

to have been killed in trawl nets 

(Wickens, 1995; Perez, 2006; Zeeberg et 

al., 2006). Generally, direct interaction 

between trawl nets and marine 

mammals (both cetaceans and 

pinnipeds) has been recorded wherever 

trawling and animals co-occur. A lack of 

recorded interactions where animals are 

known to be present may indicate 

simply that trawling is absent or an 

insignificant component of fisheries in 

that region or that interactions were not 

observed, recorded, or reported. 

In evaluating risk relative to a specific 

fishery (or comparable research survey), 

one must consider the size of the net as 

well as frequency, timing, and location 

of deployment. These considerations 

inform determinations of whether 

interaction with marine mammals is 

likely. Of the net types described 

previously under ‘‘Trawl Nets,’’ AFSC 

has recorded marine mammal 

interactions with the Cantrawl surface 

trawl net but also has one recorded 

interaction with a bottom trawl. Other 

midwater trawl nets, such as the Nordic 

264 and Cobb trawl, have demonstrated 

potential for marine mammal 

interaction based on interaction records 

from other NMFS science centers. 

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 (the latter not 

used by AFSC). 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. 

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). 

As was noted for trawl nets, many 

species of cetaceans and pinnipeds are 

documented to have been killed by 

longlines, including several large 

whales, porpoises, a variety of 

delphinids, seals, and sea lions (Perez, 

2006; Young and Iudicello, 2007; 

Northridge, 1984, 1991; Wickens, 1995). 

Generally, direct interaction between 

longlines and marine mammals (both 

cetaceans and pinnipeds) has been 

recorded wherever longline fishing and 

animals co-occur. A lack of recorded 

interactions where animals are known 

to be present may indicate simply that 

longlining is absent or an insignificant 

component of fisheries in that region or 

that interactions were not observed, 

recorded, or reported. 

In evaluating risk relative to a specific 

fishery (or research survey), one must 

consider the length of the line and 

number of hooks deployed as well as 

frequency, timing, and location of 

deployment. These considerations 

inform determinations of whether 

interaction with marine mammals is 

likely. AFSC has not recorded marine 

mammal interactions with any longline 

survey, while the IPHC has recorded 

five interactions (all pinnipeds) from 

1999–2016. While a lack of historical 

interactions does not in and of itself 

indicate that future interactions are 

unlikely, we believe that the historical 

record, considered in context with the 

frequency and timing of these activities, 

as well as mitigation measures 

employed indicate that future marine 

mammal interactions with these gears 

would be uncommon. 

Gillnets—Marine mammal 

interactions with gillnets are welldocumented, with a large proportion of 

species of all types of marine mammals 

(e.g., mysticetes, odontocetes, 

pinnipeds) recorded as gillnet bycatch 

(Reeves et al., 2013; Lewison et al., 

2014; Zollett, 2009). Reeves et al. (2013) 

note that numbers of marine mammals 

killed in gillnets tend to be greatest for 

species that are widely distributed in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37660 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

coastal and shelf waters. Because of the 

well-documented risk to marine 

mammals, and to coastally distributed 

pinnipeds and small cetaceans in 

particular, we believe there is some risk 

of interaction inherent to AFSC use of 

gillnets, as described below in 

‘‘Estimated Take.’’ However, this risk is 

limited by AFSC’s minimal use of 

gillnets, primarily at the Little Port 

Walter in southeast Alaska (see Table 1– 

1 of AFSC’s application), and by use of 

pingers on gillnets as a deterrent (see 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’). 

The AFSC also uses some traps and 

pots, both of which are passive fishing 

gear that have limited species selectivity 

and may be set for long durations (FAO, 

2001). Thus, these gears have the 

potential to capture non-targeted fauna 

that use the same habitat as targeted 

species, even without the use of bait. 

Mortality in fyke nets can arise from 

stress and injury associated with anoxia, 

abrasion, confinement, and starvation 

(Larocque, 2011). In 2010, NMFS 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

captured a harbor seal in a fyke trap. 

However, AFSC fyke traps are used in 

freshwater habitats with only limited 

deployments. Other traps and pots are 

likewise used in only very limited 

fashion, with some traps deployed 

without bait. Therefore, we do not 

believe that there is a reasonable 

potential for marine mammal 

interaction with fyke traps or pots used 

by the AFSC, and these gears are not 

considered further in this document. 

Other research gear—The only AFSC 

research gears with any record of marine 

mammal interactions are trawl nets, 

while IPHC has recorded marine 

mammal interactions with longlines. 

Because of ample evidence from 

commercial fishing operations, we 

assume that there is also risk of marine 

mammal interaction due to AFSC use of 

gillnets. All other gears used in AFSC 

fisheries research (e.g., a variety of 

plankton nets, CTDs, remotely operated 

vehicles (ROVs)) do not have the 

expected potential for marine mammal 

interactions and are not known to have 

been involved in any marine mammal 

interaction anywhere. Specifically, we 

consider CTDs, ROVs, small surface 

trawls, plankton nets, other small nets, 

camera traps, dredges, and vertically 

deployed or towed imaging systems to 

be no-impact gear types. 

Unlike trawl nets, seine 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 or 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 m2 each or a 

neuston net of approximately 2 m2) and 

no trailing lines to present an 

entanglement risk. These other gear 

types are not considered further in this 

document. 

Acoustic Effects 

We previously provided general 

background information on sound and 

the specific sources used by the AFSC 

(see ‘‘Description of Active Acoustic 

Sound Sources’’), as well as background 

information on marine mammal hearing 

(see ‘‘Description of Marine Mammals in 

the Area of the Specified Activity’’). 

Here, we discuss the potential effects of 

AFSC use of active acoustic sources on 

marine mammals. 

Potential Effects of Underwater 

Sound—Note that, in the following 

discussion, we refer in many cases to a 

review article concerning studies of 

noise-induced hearing loss conducted 

from 1996–2015 (i.e., Finneran, 2015). 

For study-specific citations, please see 

that work. Anthropogenic sounds cover 

a broad range of frequencies and sound 

levels and can have a range of highly 

variable impacts on marine life, from 

none or minor to potentially severe 

responses, depending on received 

levels, duration of exposure, behavioral 

context, and various other factors. The 

potential effects of underwater sound 

from active acoustic sources can 

potentially result in one or more of the 

following: Temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment, non-auditory 

physical or physiological effects, 

behavioral disturbance, stress, and 

masking (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 

2007; Southall et al., 2007; Go ̈tz et al., 

2009). The degree of effect is 

intrinsically related to the signal 

characteristics, received level, distance 

from the source, and duration of the 

sound exposure. In general, sudden, 

high level sounds can cause hearing 

loss, as can longer exposures to lower 

level sounds. Temporary or permanent 

loss of hearing will occur almost 

exclusively for noise within an animal’s 

hearing range. We first describe specific 

manifestations of acoustic effects before 

providing discussion specific to AFSC’s 

use of active acoustic sources (e.g., 

echosounders). 

Richardson et al. (1995) described 

zones of increasing intensity of effect 

that might be expected to occur, in 

relation to distance from a source and 

assuming that the signal is within an 

animal’s hearing range. First is the area 

within which the acoustic signal would 

be audible (potentially perceived) to the 

animal but not strong enough to elicit 

any overt behavioral or physiological 

response. The next zone corresponds 

with the area where the signal is audible 

to the animal and of sufficient intensity 

to elicit behavioral or physiological 

responsiveness. Third is a zone within 

which, for signals of high intensity, the 

received level is sufficient to potentially 

cause discomfort or tissue damage to 

auditory or other systems. Overlaying 

these zones to a certain extent is the 

area within which masking (i.e., when a 

sound interferes with or masks the 

ability of an animal to detect a signal of 

interest that is above the absolute 

hearing threshold) may occur; the 

masking zone may be highly variable in 

size. 

We describe the more severe effects 

(i.e., permanent hearing impairment, 

certain non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects) only briefly as we 

do not expect that there is a reasonable 

likelihood that AFSC use of active 

acoustic sources may result in such 

effects (see below for further 

discussion). Marine mammals exposed 

to high-intensity sound, or to lowerintensity sound for prolonged periods, 

can experience hearing threshold shift 

(TS), which is the loss of hearing 

sensitivity at certain frequency ranges 

(Finneran, 2015). TS can be permanent 

(PTS), in which case the loss of hearing 

sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or 

temporary (TTS), in which case the 

animal’s hearing threshold would 

recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 

Repeated sound exposure that leads to 

TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of 

PTS, there can be total or partial 

deafness, while in most cases the animal 

has an impaired ability to hear sounds 

in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 

1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS 

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In 

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37661 

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, and there is no PTS 

data for cetaceans, but such 

relationships are assumed to be similar 

to those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several decibels 

above (a 40-dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing 

mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift 

approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall 

et al. 2007). Based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 

assumption is that the PTS thresholds 

for impulse sounds (such as impact pile 

driving pulses as received close to the 

source) are at least 6 dB higher than the 

TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis 

and PTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher 

than TTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). 

Given the higher level of sound or 

longer exposure duration necessary to 

cause PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to high level 

underwater sound or as a secondary 

effect of extreme behavioral reactions 

(e.g., change in dive profile as a result 

of an avoidance reaction) caused by 

exposure to sound include neurological 

effects, bubble formation, resonance 

effects, and other types of organ or 

tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall 

et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). 

AFSC activities do not involve the use 

of devices such as explosives or midfrequency active sonar that are 

associated with these types of effects. 

When a live or dead marine mammal 

swims or floats onto shore and is 

incapable of returning to sea, the event 

is termed a ‘‘stranding’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known 

to strand for a variety of reasons, such 

as infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 

starvation, fishery interaction, ship 

strike, unusual oceanographic or 

weather events, sound exposure, or 

combinations of these stressors 

sustained concurrently or in series (e.g., 

Geraci et al., 1999). However, the cause 

or causes of most strandings are 

unknown (e.g., Best, 1982). 

Combinations of dissimilar stressors 

may combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

would not be expected to produce the 

same outcome (e.g., Sih et al., 2004). For 

further description of stranding events 

see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006; Jepson et 

al., 2013; Wright et al., 2013. 

1. Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is 

the mildest form of hearing impairment 

that can occur during exposure to sound 

(Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, 

the hearing threshold rises; and a sound 

must be at a higher level in order to be 

heard. In terrestrial and marine 

mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). 

In many cases, hearing sensitivity 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

sound ends. Few data on sound levels 

and durations necessary to elicit mild 

TTS have been obtained for marine 

mammals. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, 

and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and 

three species of pinnipeds (northern 

elephant seal, harbor seal, and 

California sea lion) exposed to a limited 

number of sound sources (i.e., mostly 

tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). 

TTS was not observed in trained spotted 

and ringed seals exposed to impulsive 

noise at levels matching previous 

predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et 

al., 2016). In general, harbor seals and 

harbor porpoises have a lower TTS 

onset than other measured pinniped or 

cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). 

Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. There are no data available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Southall et al. (2007), 

Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran 

(2015), and NMFS (2016). 

2. Behavioral Effects—Behavioral 

disturbance may include a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance 

of an area or changes in vocalizations), 

more conspicuous changes in similar 

behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37662 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic airguns or 

acoustic harassment devices) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

suggesting discomfort (Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et 

al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

However, many delphinids approach 

low-frequency seismic airgun source 

vessels with no apparent discomfort or 

obvious behavioral change (e.g., 

Barkaszi et al., 2012), indicating the 

importance of frequency output in 

relation to the species hearing 

sensitivitiy. 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). However, there are broad 

categories of potential response, which 

we describe in greater detail here, that 

include alteration of dive behavior, 

alteration of foraging behavior, effects to 

breathing, interference with or alteration 

of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 

al.; 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, 

2013b). Variations in dive behavior may 

reflect interruptions in biologically 

significant activities (e.g., foraging), or 

they may be of little biological 

significance. The impact of an alteration 

to dive behavior resulting from an 

acoustic exposure depends on what the 

animal is doing at the time of the 

exposure and the type and magnitude of 

the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007; Gailey et 

al., 2016). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; 

Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), 

while right whales have been observed 

to shift the frequency content of their 

calls upward while reducing the rate of 

calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). 

In some cases, animals may cease sound 

production during production of 

aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). For example, 

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from seismic airgun surveys (Malme et 

al., 1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 

1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; 

Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et 

al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

(e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and 

England, 2001). However, it should be 

noted that response to a perceived 

predator does not necessarily invoke 

flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and 

whether individuals are solitary or in 

groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveVerDate Sep<11>2014 21:24 Jul 31, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUP2.SGM 01AUP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37663 

day period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

3. Stress Responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; 

Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) 

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). 

For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003). 

4. Auditory Masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when 

the receipt of a sound is interfered with 

by another coincident sound at similar 

frequencies and at similar or higher 

intensity, and may occur whether the 

sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, 

wind, waves, precipitation) or 

anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, 

seismic exploration) in origin. The 

ability of a noise source to mask 

biologically important sounds depends 

on the characteristics of both the noise 

source and the signal of interest (e.g., 

signal-to-noise ratio, temporal 

variability, direction), in relation to each 

other and to an animal’s hearing 

abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency 

range, critical ratios, frequency 

discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 

2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild 

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et 

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37664 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Potential Effects of AFSC Activity—As 

described previously (see ‘‘Description 

of Active Acoustic Sound Sources’’), the 

AFSC proposes to use various active 

acoustic sources, including 

echosounders (e.g., multibeam systems), 

scientific sonar systems, positional 

sonars (e.g., net sounders for 

determining trawl position), and 

environmental sensors (e.g., current 

profilers). These acoustic sources, 

which are present on most AFSC fishery 

research vessels, include a variety of 

single, dual, and multi-beam 

echosounders (many with a variety of 

modes), sources used to determine the 

orientation of trawl nets, and several 

current profilers. 

Many typically investigated acoustic 

sources (e.g., seismic airguns, low- and 

mid-frequency active sonar used for 

military purposes, pile driving, vessel 

noise)—sources for which certain of the 

potential acoustic effects described 

above have been observed or inferred— 

produce signals that are either much 

lower frequency and/or higher total 

energy (considering output sound levels 

and signal duration) than the highfrequency mapping and fish-finding 

systems used by the AFSC. There has 

been relatively little attention given to 

the potential impacts of high-frequency 

sonar systems on marine life, largely 

because their combination of high 

output frequency and relatively low 

output power means that such systems 

are less likely to impact many marine 

species. However, some marine 

mammals do hear and produce sounds 

within the frequency range used by 

these sources and ambient noise is 

much lower at high frequencies, 

increasing the probability of signal 

detection relative to other sounds in the 

environment. 

As noted above, relatively high levels 

of sound are likely required to cause 

TTS in most pinnipeds and odontocete 

cetaceans. While dependent on sound 

exposure frequency, level, and duration, 

existing studies indicate that for the 

kinds of relatively brief exposures 

potentially associated with transient 

sounds such as those produced by the 

active acoustic sources used by the 

AFSC, SPLs in the range of 

approximately 180–220 dB rms might be 

required to induce onset TTS levels for 

most species (Southall et al., 2007). 

However, it should be noted that there 

may be increased sensitivity to TTS for 

certain species generally (harbor 

porpoise; Lucke et al., 2009) or 

specifically at higher sound exposure 

frequencies, which correspond to a 

species’ best hearing range (20 kHz vs. 

3 kHz for bottlenose dolphins; Finneran 

and Schlundt, 2010). However, for these 

animals, which are better able to hear 

higher frequencies and may be more 

sensitive to higher frequencies, 

exposures on the order of approximately 

170 dB rms or higher for brief transient 

signals are likely required for even 

temporary (recoverable) changes in 

hearing sensitivity that would likely not 

be categorized as physiologically 

damaging (Lucke et al., 2009). The 

corresponding estimates for PTS would 

be at very high received levels that 

would rarely be experienced in practice. 

Based on discussion provided by 

Southall et al. (2007), Lurton and 

DeRuiter (2011) modeled the potential 

impacts of conventional echosounders 

on marine mammals, estimating PTS 

onset at typical distances of 10–100 m 

for the kinds of sources considered here. 

Kremser et al. (2005) modeled the 

potential for TTS in blue, sperm, and 

beaked whales (please see Kremser et al. 

(2005) for discussion of assumptions 

regarding TTS onset in these species) 

from a multibeam echosounder, finding 

similarly that TTS would likely only 

occur at very close ranges to the hull of 

the vessel. The authors estimated ship 

movement at 12 kn (faster than AFSC 

vessels would typically move), which 

would result in an underestimate of the 

potential for TTS to occur, but the 

modeled system (Hydrosweep) operates 

at lower frequencies and with a wider 

beam pattern than do typical AFSC 

systems, which would result in a likely 

more significant overestimate of TTS 

potential. The results of both studies 

emphasize that these effects would very 

likely only occur in the cone ensonified 

below the ship and that animal 

responses to the vessel (sound or 

physical presence) at these extremely 

close ranges would very likely influence 

their probability of being exposed to 

these levels. At the same distances, but 

to the side of the vessel, animals would 

not be exposed to these levels, greatly 

decreasing the potential for an animal to 

be exposed to the most intense signals. 

For example, Kremser et al. (2005) note 

that SPLs outside the vertical lobe, or 

beam, decrease rapidly with distance, 

such that SPLs within the horizontal 

lobes are about 20 dB less than the value 

found in the center of the beam. For 

certain species (i.e., odontocete 

cetaceans and especially harbor 

porpoises), these ranges may be 

somewhat greater based on more recent 

data (Lucke et al., 2009; Finneran and 

Schlundt, 2010) but are likely still on 

the order of hundreds of meters. In 

addition, potential behavioral responses 

further reduce the already low 

likelihood that an animal may approach 

close enough for any type of hearing 

loss to occur. 

Various other studies have evaluated 

the environmental risk posed by use of 

specific scientific sonar systems. 

Burkhardt et al. (2007) considered both 

the Hydrosweep system evaluated by 

Kremser et al. (2005) and the Simrad 

EK60, which is used by the AFSC, and 

concluded that direct injury (i.e., sound 

energy causes direct tissue damage) and 

indirect injury (i.e., self-damaging 

behavior as response to acoustic 

exposure) would be unlikely given 

source and operational use (i.e., vessel 

movement) characteristics, and that any 

behavioral responses would be unlikely 

to be significant. Similarly, Boebel et al. 

(2006) considered the Hydrosweep 

system in relation to the risk for direct 

or indirect injury, concluding that (1) 

risk of TTS (please see Boebel et al. 

(2006) for assumptions regarding TTS 

onset) would be less than two percent 

of the risk of ship strike and (2) risk of 

behaviorally-induced damage would be 

essentially nil due to differences in 

source characteristics between scientific 

sonars and sources typically associated 

with stranding events (e.g., midfrequency active sonar, but see 

discussion of the 2008 Madagascar 

stranding event below). It should be 

noted that the risk of direct injury may 

be greater when a vessel operates 

sources while on station (i.e., 

stationary), as there is a greater chance 

for an animal to receive the signal when 

the vessel is not moving. 

Boebel et al. (2005) report the results 

of a workshop in which a structured, 

qualitative risk analysis of a range of 

acoustic technology was undertaken, 

specific to use of such technology in the 

Antarctic. The authors assessed a singlebeam echosounder commonly used for 

collecting bathymetric data (12 kHz, 232 

dB, 10° beam width), an array of singlebeam echosounders used for mapping 

krill (38, 70, 120, and 200 kHz; 230 dB; 

7° beam width), and a multibeam 

echosounder (30 kHz, 236 dB, 150° x 1° 

swath width). For each source, the 

authors produced a matrix displaying 

the severity of potential consequences 

(on a six-point scale) against the 

likelihood of occurrence for a given 

degree of severity. For the former two 

systems, the authors determined on the 

basis of the volume of water potentially 

affected by the system and comparisons 

between its output and available TTS 

data that the chance of TTS is only in 

a small volume immediately under the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37665 

transducers, and that consequences of 

level four and above were 

inconceivable, whereas level one 

consequences (‘‘Individuals show no 

response, or only a temporary (minutes) 

behavior change’’) would be expected in 

almost all instances. Some minor 

displacement of animals in the 

immediate vicinity of the ship may 

occur. For the multibeam echosounder, 

Boebel et al. (2005) note that the high 

output and broad width of the swath 

abeam of the vessel makes displacement 

of animals more likely. However, the 

fore and aft beamwidth is small and the 

pulse length very short, so the risk of 

ensonification above TTS levels is still 

considered quite small and the 

likelihood of auditory or other injuries 

low. In general, the authors reached the 

same conclusions described for the 

single-beam systems but note that more 

severe impacts—including fatalities 

resulting from herding of sensitive 

species in narrow seaways—are at least 

possible (i.e., may occur in exceptional 

circumstances). However, the 

probability of herding remains low not 

just because of the rarity of the 

necessary confluence of species, 

bathymetry, and likely other factors, but 

because the restricted beam shape 

makes it unlikely that an animal would 

be exposed more than briefly during the 

passage of the vessel (Boebel et al., 

2005). More recently, Lurton (2016) 

conducted a modeling exercise and 

concluded similarly that likely potential 

for acoustic injury from these types of 

systems is negligible, but that behavioral 

response cannot be ruled out. 

We have, however, considered the 

potential for severe behavioral 

responses such as stranding and 

associated indirect injury or mortality 

from AFSC use of the multibeam 

echosounder, on the basis of a 2008 

mass stranding of approximately one 

hundred melon-headed whales 

(Peponocephala electra) in a 

Madagascar lagoon system. An 

investigation of the event indicated that 

use of a high-frequency mapping system 

(12-kHz multibeam echosounder; it is 

important to note that all AFSC sources 

operate at higher frequencies (see Table 

2)) was the most plausible and likely 

initial behavioral trigger of the event, 

while providing the caveat that there is 

no unequivocal and easily identifiable 

single cause (Southall et al., 2013). The 

panel’s conclusion was based on (1) 

very close temporal and spatial 

association and directed movement of 

the survey with the stranding event; (2) 

the unusual nature of such an event 

coupled with previously documented 

apparent behavioral sensitivity of the 

species to other sound types (Southall et 

al., 2006; Brownell et al., 2009); and (3) 

the fact that all other possible factors 

considered were determined to be 

unlikely causes. Specifically, regarding 

survey patterns prior to the event and in 

relation to bathymetry, the vessel 

transited in a north-south direction on 

the shelf break parallel to the shore, 

ensonifying large areas of deep-water 

habitat prior to operating intermittently 

in a concentrated area offshore from the 

stranding site; this may have trapped 

the animals between the sound source 

and the shore, thus driving them 

towards the lagoon system. 

The investigatory panel systematically 

excluded or deemed highly unlikely 

nearly all potential reasons for these 

animals leaving their typical pelagic 

habitat for an area extremely atypical for 

the species (i.e., a shallow lagoon 

system). Notably, this was the first time 

that such a system has been associated 

with a stranding event. 

The panel also noted several site- and 

situation-specific secondary factors that 

may have contributed to the avoidance 

responses that led to the eventual 

entrapment and mortality of the whales. 

Specifically, shoreward-directed surface 

currents and elevated chlorophyll levels 

in the area preceding the event may 

have played a role (Southall et al., 

2013). The report also notes that prior 

use of a similar system in the general 

area may have sensitized the animals 

and also concluded that, for odontocete 

cetaceans that hear well in higher 

frequency ranges where ambient noise is 

typically quite low, high-power active 

sonars operating in this range may be 

more easily audible and have potential 

effects over larger areas than low 

frequency systems that have more 

typically been considered in terms of 

anthropogenic noise impacts. It is, 

however, important to note that the 

relatively lower output frequency, 

higher output power, and complex 

nature of the system implicated in this 

event, in context of the other factors 

noted here, likely produced a fairly 

unusual set of circumstances that 

indicate that such events would likely 

remain rare and are not necessarily 

relevant to use of lower-power, higherfrequency systems more commonly used 

for scientific applications. The risk of 

similar events recurring may be very 

low, given the extensive use of active 

acoustic systems used for scientific and 

navigational purposes worldwide on a 

daily basis and the lack of direct 

evidence of such responses previously 

reported. 

Characteristics of the sound sources 

predominantly used by AFSC further 

reduce the likelihood of effects to 

marine mammals, as well as the 

intensity of effect assuming that an 

animal perceives the signal. Intermittent 

exposures—as would occur due to the 

brief, transient signals produced by 

these sources—require a higher 

cumulative SEL to induce TTS than 

would continuous exposures of the 

same duration (i.e., intermittent 

exposure results in lower levels of TTS) 

(Mooney et al., 2009a; Finneran et al., 

2010). In addition, intermittent 

exposures recover faster in comparison 

with continuous exposures of the same 

duration (Finneran et al., 2010). 

Although echosounder pulses are, in 

general, emitted rapidly, they are not 

dissimilar to odontocete echolocation 

click trains. Research indicates that 

marine mammals generally have 

extremely fine auditory temporal 

resolution and can detect each signal 

separately (e.g., Au et al., 1988; Dolphin 

et al., 1995; Supin and Popov, 1995; 

Mooney et al., 2009b), especially for 

species with echolocation capabilities. 

Therefore, it is likely that marine 

mammals would indeed perceive 

echosounder signals as being 

intermittent. 

We conclude here that, on the basis of 

available information on hearing and 

potential auditory effects in marine 

mammals, high-frequency cetacean 

species would be the most likely to 

potentially incur temporary hearing loss 

from a vessel operating high-frequency 

sonar sources, and the potential for PTS 

to occur for any species is so unlikely 

as to be discountable. Even for highfrequency cetacean species, individuals 

would have to make a very close 

approach and also remain very close to 

vessels operating these sources in order 

to receive multiple exposures at 

relatively high levels, as would be 

necessary to cause TTS. Additionally, 

given that behavioral responses 

typically include the temporary 

avoidance that might be expected (see 

below), the potential for auditory effects 

considered physiological damage 

(injury) is considered extremely low in 

relation to realistic operations of these 

devices. Given the fact that fisheries 

research survey vessels are moving, the 

likelihood that animals may avoid the 

vessel to some extent based on either its 

physical presence or due to aversive 

sound (vessel or active acoustic 

sources), and the intermittent nature of 

many of these sources, the potential for 

TTS is probably low for high-frequency 

cetaceans and very low to zero for other 

species. 

Based on the source operating 

characteristics, most of these sources 

may be detected by odontocete 

cetaceans (and particularly highVerDate Sep<11>2014 21:24 Jul 31, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUP2.SGM 01AUP2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37666 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

frequency specialists such as porpoises) 

but are unlikely to be audible to 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans) and some pinnipeds. While 

low-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds 

have been observed to respond 

behaviorally to low- and mid-frequency 

sounds (e.g., Frankel, 2005), there is 

little evidence of behavioral responses 

in these species to high-frequency 

sound exposure (e.g., Jacobs and 

Terhune, 2002; Kastelein et al., 2006). If 

a marine mammal does perceive a signal 

from a AFSC active acoustic source, it 

is likely that the response would be, at 

most, behavioral in nature. Behavioral 

reactions of free-ranging marine 

mammals to scientific sonars are likely 

to vary by species and circumstance. For 

example, Watkins et al. (1985) note that 

sperm whales did not appear to be 

disturbed by or even aware of signals 

from scientific sonars and pingers (36– 

60 kHz) despite being very close to the 

transducers, but Gerrodette and Pettis 

(2005) report that when a 38-kHz 

echosounder and ADCP were on (1) the 

average size of detected schools of 

spotted dolphins and pilot whales was 

decreased; (2) perpendicular sighting 

distances increased for spotted and 

spinner dolphins; and (3) sighting rates 

decreased for beaked whales. 

Despite these observations, few 

experiments have been conducted to 

explicitly test for potential effects of 

echosounders on the behavior of wild 

cetaceans. Quick et al. (2017) describe 

an experimental approach to assess 

potential changes in short-finned pilot 

whale behavior during exposure to an 

echosounder (Simrad EK60 operated at 

38 kHz, which is commonly used by 

AFSC). Previous studies of the effects of 

military tactical sonars on pilot whales 

failed to document overt avoidance 

responses, but did show changes in 

heading variance, which may be 

indicative of avoidance (Miller et al., 

2012; Quick et al., 2017). In 2011, digital 

acoustic recording tags (DTAG) were 

attached to pilot whales off of North 

Carolina, with five of the whales 

exposed to signals from the 

echosounder over a period of eight days 

and four treated as control animals. 

DTAGS record both received levels of 

noise as well as orientation of the 

animal. Results did not show an overt 

response to the echosounder or a change 

to foraging behavior of tagged whales, 

but the whales did increase heading 

variance during exposure. The authors 

suggest that this response was not a 

directed avoidance response but was 

more likely a vigilance response, with 

animals maintaining awareness of the 

location of the echosounder through 

increased changes in heading variance 

(Quick et al., 2017). Visual observations 

of behavior did not indicate any 

dramatic response, unusual behaviors, 

or changes in heading, and cessation of 

biologically important behavior such as 

feeding was not observed. These less 

overt responses to sound exposure are 

difficult to detect by visual observation, 

but may have important consequences if 

the exposure does interfere with 

biologically important behavior. Given 

the transient nature of AFSC use of 

active acoustic sources, we do not 

expect any behavioral disturbance to 

carry meaningful biological 

consequences for individuals. 

As described above, behavioral 

responses of marine mammals are 

extremely variable, depending on 

multiple exposure factors, with the most 

common type of observed response 

being behavioral avoidance of areas 

around aversive sound sources. Certain 

odontocete cetaceans (particularly 

harbor porpoises and beaked whales) 

are known to avoid high-frequency 

sound sources in both field and 

laboratory settings (e.g., Kastelein et al., 

2000, 2005, 2008a, 2008b; Culik et al., 

2001; Johnston, 2002; Olesiuk et al., 

2002; Carretta et al., 2008). There is 

some additional, low probability for 

masking to occur for high-frequency 

specialists, but similar factors 

(directional beam pattern, transient 

signal, moving vessel) mean that the 

significance of any potential masking is 

probably inconsequential. 

Potential Effects of Visual Disturbance 

During AFSC surveys conducted in 

coastal areas, pinnipeds are expected to 

be hauled out and at times experience 

incidental close approaches by 

researchers in small vessels during the 

course of fisheries research activities. 

AFSC expects some of these animals 

will exhibit a behavioral response to the 

visual stimuli (e.g., including alert 

behavior, movement, vocalizing, or 

flushing). NMFS does not consider the 

lesser reactions (e.g., alert behavior) to 

constitute harassment. These events are 

expected to be infrequent and cause 

only a temporary disturbance on the 

order of minutes. Monitoring results 

from other activities involving the 

disturbance of pinnipeds and relevant 

studies of pinniped populations that 

experience more regular vessel 

disturbance indicate that individually 

significant or population level impacts 

are unlikely to occur. 

In areas where disturbance of haulouts due to periodic human activity 

(e.g., researchers approaching on foot, 

passage of small vessels, maintenance 

activity) occurs, monitoring results have 

generally indicated that pinnipeds 

typically move or flush from the haulout in response to human presence or 

visual disturbance, although some 

individuals typically remain hauled-out 

(e.g., SCWA, 2012). The nature of 

response is generally dependent on 

species. For example, California sea 

lions and northern elephant seals have 

been observed as less sensitive to 

stimulus than harbor seals during 

monitoring at numerous sites. 

Monitoring of pinniped disturbance as a 

result of abalone research in the 

Channel Islands showed that while 

harbor seals flushed at a rate of 69 

percent, California sea lions flushed at 

a rate of only 21 percent. The rate for 

elephant seals declined to 0.1 percent 

(VanBlaricom, 2010). 

Upon the occurrence of low-severity 

disturbance (i.e., the approach of a 

vessel or person as opposed to an 

explosion or sonic boom), pinnipeds 

typically exhibit a continuum of 

responses, beginning with alert 

movements (e.g., raising the head), 

which may then escalate to movement 

away from the stimulus and possible 

flushing into the water. Flushed 

pinnipeds typically re-occupy the haulout within minutes to hours of the 

stimulus. 

In a popular tourism area of the 

Pacific Northwest where human 

disturbances occurred frequently, past 

studies observed stable populations of 

seals over a twenty-year period 

(Calambokidis et al., 1991). Despite high 

levels of seasonal disturbance by 

tourists using both motorized and nonmotorized vessels, Calambokidis et al. 

(1991) observed an increase in site use 

(pup rearing) and classified this area as 

one of the most important pupping sites 

for seals in the region. Another study 

observed an increase in seal vigilance 

when vessels passed the haul-out site, 

but then vigilance relaxed within ten 

minutes of the vessels’ passing (Fox, 

2008). If vessels passed frequently 

within a short time period (e.g., 24 

hours), a reduction in the total number 

of seals present was also observed (Fox, 

2008). 

Level A harassment, serious injury, or 

mortality could likely only occur as a 

result of trampling in a stampede (a 

potentially dangerous occurrence in 

which large numbers of animals 

succumb to mass panic and rush away 

from a stimulus) or abandonment of 

pups. Pups could be present at times 

during AFSC research effort, but AFSC 

researchers take precautions to 

minimize disturbance and prevent any 

possibility of stampedes, including 

choosing travel routes as far away from 

hauled pinnipeds as possible and by 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37667 

moving sample site locations to avoid 

consistent haulout areas. In addition, 

harbor seal pups are extremely 

precocious, swimming and diving 

immediately after birth and throughout 

the lactation period, unlike most other 

phocids which normally enter the sea 

only after weaning (Lawson and Renouf, 

1985; Cottrell et al., 2002; Burns et al., 

2005). Lawson and Renouf (1987) 

investigated harbor seal mother-pup 

bonding in response to natural and 

anthropogenic disturbance. In summary, 

they found that the most critical 

bonding time is within minutes after 

birth. As such, it is unlikely that 

infrequent disturbance resulting from 

AFSC research would interrupt the brief 

mother-pup bonding period within 

which disturbance could result in 

separation. 

Disturbance of pinnipeds caused by 

AFSC survey activities would be 

expected to last for only short periods 

of time, separated by significant 

amounts of time in which no 

disturbance occurred. Because such 

disturbance is sporadic, rather than 

chronic, and of low intensity, individual 

marine mammals are unlikely to incur 

any detrimental impacts to vital rates or 

ability to forage and, thus, loss of 

fitness. Correspondingly, even local 

populations, much less the overall 

stocks of animals, are extremely 

unlikely to accrue any significantly 

detrimental impacts. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

Effects to Prey—In addition to direct, 

or operational, interactions between 

fishing gear and marine mammals, 

indirect (i.e., biological or ecological) 

interactions occur as well, in which 

marine mammals and fisheries both 

utilize the same resource, potentially 

resulting in competition that may be 

mutually disadvantageous (e.g., 

Northridge, 1984; Beddington et al., 

1985; Wickens, 1995). Marine mammal 

prey varies by species, season, and 

location and, for some, is not well 

documented. There is some overlap in 

prey of marine mammals and the 

species sampled and removed during 

AFSC research surveys, with primary 

species of concern being walleye 

pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus), Pacific 

cod (G. macrocephalus), Atka mackerel 

(Pleurogrammus monopterygius), 

sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), 

salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.), and 

small, energy-rich, forage fish species 

such as Pacific sandlance (Ammodytes 

spp.) and Pacific herring (Clupea 

pallasi). 

However, the total amount of these 

species taken in research surveys is very 

small relative to their overall biomass in 

the area (See Section 4.3.3 of the AFSC 

EA for more information on fish catch 

during research surveys). For example, 

AFSC research surveys are expected to 

catch approximately 433 metric tons 

(mt) of pollock per year in the GOARA. 

Research catch is therefore negligible 

compared to the allowable commercial 

harvest (111,530 mt in 2014) in the same 

area. For most commercial species, the 

average annual research catch is less 

than one percent of the allowable 

commercial catch. Other species of fish 

and invertebrates that are used as prey 

by marine mammals are taken in 

research surveys as well but, as 

indicated by these examples, the 

proportions of research catch compared 

to biomass and commercial harvest is 

very small. 

Several AFSC fisheries research 

projects target prey of endangered 

western DPS Steller sea lions within the 

GOARA and BSAIRA. These studies are, 

in part, designed to assess aspects of the 

seasonal abundance and distribution of 

sea lion prey as part of a comprehensive 

examination of how nutritional status 

and prey availability may affect the 

recovery of the species. Some of these 

studies may be conducted within 

designated critical habitat for Steller sea 

lions, no-transit zones around rookeries, 

and areas designated as fishery closure 

zones. The primary prey caught in 

critical habitat includes rockfishes, 

pollock, Atka mackerel, arrowtooth 

flounder, and Pacific cod. Table 9–1 of 

AFSC’s application shows the average 

annual AFSC fisheries research catch 

within Steller sea lion critical habitat. 

As described above, these amounts of 

prey are a small fraction of the 

commercial harvest total allowable 

catch, and an even smaller fraction of 

the biomass available to Steller sea 

lions. AFSC fisheries research catches 

are therefore anticipated to result in 

little to no effects on foraging sea lions 

in the general area or in their critical 

habitat. Prior ESA section 7 

consultations conducted as part of the 

process for obtaining regional scientific 

research permits have not found any of 

the fisheries research prey removals to 

jeopardize listed species or to adversely 

modify critical habitat. 

In addition to the small total biomass 

taken, some of the size classes of fish 

targeted in research surveys are very 

small (e.g., juvenile salmonids are 

typically only centimeters long), and 

these small size classes are not known 

to be prey of marine mammals. Research 

catches are also distributed over a wide 

area because of the random sampling 

design covering large sample areas. Fish 

removals by research are therefore 

highly localized and unlikely to affect 

the spatial concentrations and 

availability of prey for any marine 

mammal species. The overall effect of 

research catches on marine mammals 

through competition for prey may 

therefore be considered insignificant for 

all species. 

Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is 

the soundscape—which encompasses 

all of the sound present in a particular 

location and time, as a whole—when 

considered from the perspective of the 

animals experiencing it. Animals 

produce sound for, or listen for sounds 

produced by, conspecifics 

(communication during feeding, mating, 

and other social activities), other 

animals (finding prey or avoiding 

predators), and the physical 

environment (finding suitable habitats, 

navigating). Together, sounds made by 

animals and the geophysical 

environment (e.g., produced by 

earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, 

waves) make up the natural 

contributions to the total acoustics of a 

place. These acoustic conditions, 

termed acoustic habitat, are one 

attribute of an animal’s total habitat. 

Soundscapes are also defined by, and 

acoustic habitat influenced by, the total 

contribution of anthropogenic sound. 

This may include incidental emissions 

from sources such as vessel traffic, or 

may be intentionally introduced to the 

marine environment for data acquisition 

purposes (as in the AFSC’s use of active 

acoustic sources). Anthropogenic noise 

varies widely in its frequency content, 

duration, and loudness and these 

characteristics greatly influence the 

potential habitat-mediated effects to 

marine mammals (please also see the 

previous discussion on masking in the 

‘‘Acoustic Effects’’ subsection), which 

may range from local effects for brief 

periods of time to chronic effects over 

large areas and for long durations. 

Depending on the extent of effects to 

habitat, animals may alter their 

communications signals (thereby 

potentially expending additional 

energy) or miss acoustic cues (either 

conspecific or adventitious). For more 

detail on these concepts see, e.g., Barber 

et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 2011; 

Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., 

2014. 

Problems arising from a failure to 

detect cues are more likely to occur 

when noise stimuli are chronic and 

overlap with biologically relevant cues 

used for communication, orientation, 

and predator/prey detection (Francis 

and Barber, 2013). As described above 

(‘‘Acoustic Effects’’), the signals emitted 

by AFSC active acoustic sources are 

generally high frequency, of short 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37668 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

duration, and transient. These factors 

mean that the signals will attenuate 

rapidly (not travel over great distances), 

may not be perceived or affect 

perception even when animals are in 

the vicinity, and would not be 

considered chronic in any given 

location. AFSC use of these sources is 

widely dispersed in both space and 

time. In conjunction with the prior 

factors, this means that it is highly 

unlikely that AFSC use of these sources 

would, on their own, have any 

appreciable effect on acoustic habitat. 

Sounds emitted by AFSC vessels would 

be of lower frequency and continuous, 

but would also be widely dispersed in 

both space and time. AFSC vessel 

traffic—including both sound from the 

vessel itself and from the active acoustic 

sources—is of very low density 

compared to commercial shipping 

traffic or commercial fishing vessels and 

would therefore be expected to 

represent an insignificant incremental 

increase in the total amount of 

anthropogenic sound input to the 

marine environment. 

Physical Habitat—AFSC conducts 

some bottom trawling, which may 

physically damage seafloor habitat. 

Physical damage may include furrowing 

and smoothing of the seafloor as well as 

the displacement of rocks and boulders, 

and such damage can increase with 

multiple contacts in the same area 

(Schwinghamer et al., 1998; Kaiser et 

al., 2002; Malik and Mayer, 2007; NRC, 

2002). The effects of bottom contact gear 

differ in each type of benthic 

environment. In sandy habitats with 

strong currents, the furrows created by 

mobile bottom contact gear quickly 

begin to erode because lighter weight 

sand at the edges of furrows can be 

easily moved by water back towards the 

center of the furrow (NRC, 2002). 

Duration of effects in these 

environments therefore tend to be very 

short because the terrain and associated 

organisms are accustomed to natural 

disturbance. By contrast, the physical 

features of more stable hard bottom 

habitats are less susceptible to 

disturbance, but once damaged or 

removed by fishing gear, the organisms 

that grow on gravel, cobbles, and 

boulders can take years to recover, 

especially in deeper water where there 

is less natural disturbance (NRC, 2002). 

However, the area of benthic habitat 

affected by AFSC research each year 

would be a very small fraction of total 

area and effects are not expected to 

occur in areas of particular importance. 

Damage to seafloor habitat may also 

harm infauna and epifauna (i.e., animals 

that live in or on the seafloor or on 

structures on the seafloor), including 

corals (Schwinghamer et al., 1998; 

Collie et al., 2000; Stevenson et al., 

2004). In general, recovery of biological 

damage varies based on the type of 

fishing gear used, the type of seafloor 

surface (i.e., mud, sand, gravel, mixed 

substrate), and the level of repeated 

disturbances, but would be expected to 

occur within 1–18 months. However, 

repeated disturbance of an area can 

prolong the recovery time (Stevenson et 

al., 2004), and recovery of corals may 

take significantly longer. However, 

AFSC catch records show that only 

minimal amounts of coral are captured 

(annual average of 100 kg of coral per 

year for most species groups). Relatively 

small areas would be impacted by AFSC 

bottom trawling and, because such 

surveys are conducted in the same areas 

but not in the exact same locations, they 

are expected to cause single rather than 

repeated disturbances in any given area. 

AFSC activities would not be expected 

to have any other impacts on physical 

habitat. 

As described in the preceding, the 

potential for AFSC research to affect the 

availability of prey to marine mammals 

or to meaningfully impact the quality of 

physical or acoustic habitat is 

considered to be insignificant for all 

species. Effects to habitat will not be 

discussed further in this document. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization, which will inform 

both NMFS’s consideration of whether 

the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ and the 

negligible impact determination. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, section 

3(18) of the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A harassment); or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (Level B harassment). 

Take of marine mammals incidental 

to AFSC research activities could occur 

as a result of (1) injury or mortality due 

to gear interaction (Level A harassment, 

serious injury, or mortality); (2) 

behavioral disturbance resulting from 

the use of active acoustic sources (Level 

B harassment only); or (3) behavioral 

disturbance of pinnipeds resulting from 

incidental approach of researchers 

(Level B harassment only). Below we 

describe how the potential take is 

estimated. 

Estimated Take Due to Gear Interaction 

In order to estimate the number of 

potential incidents of take that could 

occur through gear interaction, we first 

consider AFSC’s and IPHC’s record of 

past such incidents, and then consider 

in addition other species that may have 

similar vulnerabilities to AFSC trawl 

and IPHC longline gear as those species 

for which we have historical interaction 

records. Historical interactions with 

research gear are described in Table 4, 

and we anticipate that all species that 

interacted with AFSC or IPHC fisheries 

research gear historically could 

potentially be taken in the future. 

Available records are for the years 2004 

through present (AFSC) and 1998 

through present (IPHC). All historical 

AFSC interactions have taken place in 

the GOARA, and have occurred during 

use of either the Cantrawl surface trawl 

net or with a bottom trawl. Historical 

IPHC interactions have occurred during 

use of bottom longlines and were 

located in the GOARA (southeast 

Alaska) or west coast (offshore Oregon). 

AFSC has no historical interactions for 

any longline or gillnet gear, and there 

are no historical interactions in the 

BSAIRA or CSBSRA. Please see Figures 

6–1 and C–6 in the AFSC request for 

authorization for specific locations of 

these incidents. 

TABLE 4—HISTORICAL INTERACTIONS WITH RESEARCH GEAR

Gear Survey Date Location 1 Species Number 

killed 

Number 

released 

alive 

Total 

Bottom longline ........... IPHC setline ............... 7/17/1999 West coast ..... Harbor seal ................ 1 ................ 1 

Bottom longline ........... IPHC setline ............... 7/23/2003 SE Alaska ...... Steller sea lion ........... 1 ................ 1 

Bottom longline ........... IPHC setline ............... 7/16/2007 SE Alaska ...... Steller sea lion ........... 1 ................ 1 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37669 

TABLE 4—HISTORICAL INTERACTIONS WITH RESEARCH GEAR—Continued 

Gear Survey Date Location 1 Species Number 

killed 

Number 

released 

alive 

Total 

Bottom trawl ................ Gulf of Alaska Biennial Shelf and Slope 

Bottom Trawl 

Groundfish Survey.

6/13/2009 GOARA .......... Northern fur seal 2 ...... 1 ................ 1 

Bottom longline ........... IPHC setline ............... 7/31/2011 West coast ..... Harbor seal ................ 1 ................ 1 

Surface trawl 

(Cantrawl).

Gulf of Alaska Assessment.9/10/2011 GOARA .......... Dall’s porpoise ........... 1 ................ 1 

Surface trawl 

(Cantrawl).

Gulf of Alaska Assessment.9/21/2011 GOARA .......... Dall’s porpoise ........... 1 ................ 1 

Bottom trawl ................ ADFG Large Mesh 

Trawl Survey.

9/5/2014 GOARA .......... Harbor seal ................ 1 ................ 1 

Bottom longline ........... IPHC setline ............... 7/22/2016 SE Alaska ...... Steller sea lion ........... 1 ................ 1 

Total individuals 

captured.

.................................... ........................ ........................ Northern fur seal ........ 1 ................ 1 

.................................... ........................ ........................ Dall’s porpoise ........... 2 ................ 2 

.................................... ........................ ........................ Harbor seal ................ 3 ................ 3 

.................................... ........................ ........................ Steller sea lion ........... 3 ................ 3 

1AFSC interactions are described by research area. IPHC research programs are not distributed according to AFSC research areas and so 

are described by geographic location. Specific locations of all interactions are shown in Figures 6–1 and C–6 of the application. 2Based on the location of this incident, the captured animal was believed to be from the eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seal. 

In order to use these historical 

interaction records as the basis for the 

take estimation process, and because we 

have no specific information to indicate 

whether any given future interaction 

might result in M/SI versus Level A 

harassment, we conservatively assume 

that all interactions equate to mortality 

for these fishing gear interactions. AFSC 

and IPHC have historically had only 

infrequent interactions with marine 

mammals, e.g., from 2004–2015 AFSC 

conducted at least 1,250 trawl tows per 

year, with only three (a fourth occurred 

during a survey conducted by the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game) 

marine mammal interactions (Table 4). 

However, we assume that any of the 

historically-captured species (northern 

fur seal, Dall’s porpoise, harbor seal, 

Steller sea lion) could be captured in 

any year. 

We consider all of the interaction 

records available to us. In consideration 

of these data, we assume that one 

individual of each of the historicallycaptured species (Table 4) could be 

captured per year over the course of the 

five-year period of validity for these 

proposed regulations, specific to 

relevant survey operations where the 

species occur (e.g., one harbor seal taken 

per year specific to IPHC longline 

survey operations, one Dall’s porpoise 

taken per year specific to AFSC trawl 

survey operations in GOARA, one Dall’s 

porpoise taken per year specific to 

AFSC trawl survey operations in 

BSAIRA). Table 5 shows the projected 

five-year total captures of the 

historically-captured species for this 

proposed rule, as described above, for 

AFSC trawl gear and IPHC longline gear 

only. Although more than one 

individual Dall’s porpoise has been 

captured in a single year, interactions 

have historically occurred only 

infrequently. Therefore, we believe that 

the above assumption appropriately 

reflects the likely total number of 

individuals involved in research gear 

interactions over a five-year period and 

that the assumption is precautionary in 

that it separately accounts for potential 

vulnerability of species to gear 

interaction in the different research 

areas. Harbor seals are expected to have 

less frequency of interaction than the fur 

seal or Steller sea lion due to its more 

inshore and coastal distribution. AFSC 

requests authorization of one take per 

harbor seal stock in each relevant 

research area over the 5-year period 

(note that these takes are not included 

in Table 5 but are incorporated in Table 

7). These estimates are based on the 

assumption that annual effort (e.g., total 

annual trawl tow time) over the 

proposed five-year authorization period 

will be approximately equivalent to the 

annual effort during prior years for 

which we have interaction records. 

TABLE 5—PROJECTED FIVE-YEAR TOTAL TAKE FOR HISTORICALLY CAPTURED SPECIES 1

Gear Species 

AFSC GOARA 

average annual 

take 

(total) 

AFSC BSAIRA 

average annual 

take 

(total) 

IPHC average 

annual take 

(total) 2

Projected 

5-year total 

Trawl ................................. Northern fur seal 3 ............ 1 (5) 1 (5) ................................ 10 

Dall’s porpoise .................. 1 (5) 1 (5) ................................ 10 

Longline ............................ Harbor seal ....................... ................................ ................................ 1 (5) 5 

Steller sea lion .................. ................................ ................................ 1 (5) 5 

1Projected takes based on species interaction records in analogous commercial fisheries (versus historical records) are incorporated in Table 

7 below, as are all projected takes within the CSBSRA. 2 IPHC activities are not defined by the three AFSC research areas and may occur anywhere within the IPHC research areas off the U.S. west 

coast or in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. Projected IPHC harbor seal takes could occur to any stock of harbor seal. Historical IPHC takes 

of Steller sea lion have been of the eastern DPS (based on geographic location), but potential future takes could occur to either eastern or western DPS. 3 Referring to expected potential future takes of eastern Pacific stock northern fur seals in AFSC trawl gear on basis of historical record. Additional take of California stock northern fur seals, inferred based on vulnerability and geographic overlap, are incorporated in Table 7 below. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37670 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

As background to the process of 

determining which species not 

historically taken may have sufficient 

vulnerability to capture in AFSC gear to 

justify inclusion in the take 

authorization request (or whether 

species historically taken may have 

vulnerability to gears in which they 

have not historically been taken or 

additional vulnerability not reflected 

above due to activity in other areas such 

as the CSBSRA), we note that the AFSC 

is NMFS’ research arm in Alaska and 

may be considered as a leading source 

of expert knowledge regarding marine 

mammals (e.g., behavior, abundance, 

density) in the areas where they operate. 

The species for which the take request 

was formulated were selected by the 

AFSC, and we have concurred with 

these decisions. We also note that, in 

addition to consulting NMFS’s List of 

Fisheries (LOF; described below), the 

historical interaction records described 

above for the IPHC informed our 

consideration of risk of interaction due 

to AFSC’s use of longline gear (for 

which there are no historical interaction 

records). 

In order to estimate the total potential 

number of incidents of takes that could 

occur incidental to the AFSC’s use of 

trawl, longline, and gillnet gear, and 

IPHC’s use of longline gear, over the 

five-year period of validity for these 

proposed regulations (i.e., takes 

additional to those described in Table 

5), we first consider whether there are 

additional species that may have similar 

vulnerability to capture in trawl or 

longline gear as the five species 

described above that have been taken 

historically and then evaluate the 

potential vulnerability of these and 

other species to additional gears. 

We believe that the Pacific whitesided dolphin likely has similar 

vulnerability to capture in trawl gear as 

the Dall’s porpoise, given similar habitat 

preferences and with documented 

vulnerability to capture in both 

commercial and research trawls. The 

harbor porpoise is also considered 

vulnerable to capture in trawl gear, but 

likely with less frequency of interaction 

given its inshore and coastal 

distribution. The Steller sea lion is 

considered to have similar vulnerability 

to capture in trawl gear as the northern 

fur seal, given similar habitat 

preferences and with documented 

vulnerability to capture in commercial 

trawls. In addition to the one northern 

fur seal per year from the eastern Pacific 

stock that could be captured in each 

relevant research area (Table 5), we 

assume that one additional northern fur 

seal from the California stock could be 

taken in trawl gear over the 5-year 

period. The assumed lesser frequency of 

interaction is due to presumed lower 

occurrence of California stock fur seals 

in AFSC research areas. Only 

approximately half of this relatively 

small stock of fur seals ranges to the 

eastern GOARA. Similar to the harbor 

porpoise, spotted seals are expected to 

have similar vulnerability to capture in 

trawl gear as historically captured 

pinnipeds, but with less frequency of 

interaction due to its more inshore and 

coastal distribution. AFSC requests 

authorization of one take of spotted seal 

in each relevant research area over the 

5-year period. This assumption is 

supported by LOF records (Table 7). 

Historical IPHC take records also 

illustrate likely similar vulnerabilities to 

capture by AFSC longline gear. 

However, due to reduced use of longline 

gear by AFSC relative to IPHC activity, 

expects that one Steller sea lion from 

each DPS could be taken over the 5-year 

period in each relevant research area. 

Despite IPHC records of harbor seal 

capture in longline gear, we do not 

believe that AFSC use of longline gear 

presents similar risk, in part due to the 

relative infrequency of use but also 

because of a lack of expected geographic 

overlap between AFSC longline sets and 

harbor seal occurrence. IPHC conducts 

many more longline sets per year but 

also conducts survey effort further 

inshore than does IPHC (water depths of 

18 m). No take of harbor seals incidental 

to AFSC longline survey effort is 

proposed. Northern fur seals and 

California sea lions are considered 

analogous to Steller sea lions due to 

similar vulnerability to capture in 

longline gear. AFSC has requested 

authorization of one take over the 5-year 

period for each fur seal stock in each 

research area where fur seals are found 

and, on behalf of IPHC, requests 

authorization of one fur seal per year 

(which could be from either stock) and 

one California sea lion over the 5-year 

period. Finally, the spotted seal may 

have similar vulnerability to interaction 

with longline gear as the harbor seal, but 

likely with less frequency given the 

limited overlap between the species 

range and survey effort. We propose to 

authorize one take over the 5-year 

period for IPHC survey effort, but none 

for AFSC given very little expected 

overlap. These assumptions are 

supported by LOF records (Table 7). 

In order to evaluate the potential 

vulnerability of additional species to 

trawl and longline and of all species to 

gillnet gear, we first consulted the LOF, 

which classifies U.S. commercial 

fisheries into one of three categories 

according to the level of incidental 

marine mammal M/SI that is known to 

occur on an annual basis over the most 

recent five-year period (generally) for 

which data has been analyzed: Category 

I, frequent incidental M/SI; Category II, 

occasional incidental M/SI; and 

Category III, remote likelihood of or no 

known incidental M/SI. We provide 

summary information, as presented in 

the 2017 LOF (82 FR 3655; January 12, 

2017), in Table 6. In order to simplify 

information presented, and to 

encompass information related to other 

similar species from different locations, 

we group marine mammals by genus 

(where there is more than one member 

of the genus found in U.S. waters). 

Where there are documented incidents 

of M/SI incidental to relevant 

commercial fisheries, we note whether 

we believe those incidents provide 

sufficient basis upon which to infer 

vulnerability to capture in AFSC or 

IPHC research gear. For a listing of all 

Category I, II, and II fisheries using 

relevant gears, associated estimates of 

fishery participants, and specific 

locations and fisheries associated with 

the historical fisheries takes indicated in 

Table 6 below, please see the 2017 LOF. 

For specific numbers of marine mammal 

takes associated with these fisheries, 

please see the relevant SARs. More 

information is available online at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/ 

fisheries/lof.html and 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. 

TABLE 6—U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES INTERACTIONS FOR TRAWL, LONGLINE, AND GILLNET GEAR FOR RELEVANT

SPECIES

Species 1 Trawl 2 Vulnerability 

inferred? Longline 2 Vulnerability 

inferred? Gillnet 2 Vulnerability inferred? 

North Pacific right whale .......................... N N N N N N 

Bowhead whale ........................................ N N N N N N 

Gray whale ............................................... Y N N N Y N 

Humpback whale ..................................... Y N Y N Y N 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37671 

TABLE 6—U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES INTERACTIONS FOR TRAWL, LONGLINE, AND GILLNET GEAR FOR RELEVANT

SPECIES—Continued 

Species 1 Trawl 2 Vulnerability 

inferred? Longline 2 Vulnerability 

inferred? Gillnet 2 Vulnerability inferred? 

Balaenoptera spp ..................................... Y N Y N Y N 

Sperm whale ............................................ N N Y Y N N 

Kogia spp ................................................. n/a n/a Y N n/a n/a 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ............................. N N Y N N N 

Baird’s beaked whale ............................... N N N N N N 

Mesoplodon spp ....................................... N N Y N N N 

Beluga whale ........................................... N Y N N Y N 

Common bottlenose dolphin .................... n/a n/a Y Y n/a n/a 

Stenella spp ............................................. n/a n/a Y N n/a n/a 

Delphinus spp .......................................... n/a n/a Y Y n/a n/a 

Lagenorhynchus spp ................................ Y Y N N Y Y 

Northern right whale dolphin .................... n/a n/a N N n/a n/a 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................... n/a n/a Y Y n/a n/a 

Killer whale ............................................... Y N Y Y N N 

Globicephala spp ..................................... n/a n/a Y Y n/a n/a 

Harbor porpoise ....................................... Y Y Y N Y Y 

Dall’s porpoise 3 ....................................... n/a n/a Y Y Y Y 

Guadalupe fur seal 4 ................................ n/a n/a N N n/a n/a 

Northern fur seal 3 .................................... n/a n/a Y Y Y Y 

California sea lion 5 .................................. n/a n/a Y Y n/a n/a 

Steller sea lion 3 ....................................... Y Y n/a n/a Y Y 

Bearded seal ............................................ Y Y N N N N 

Phoca spp 3 .............................................. Y Y n/a n/a Y Y 

Ringed seal .............................................. Y Y Y Y N N 

Ribbon seal .............................................. Y Y N N N N 

Northern elephant seal ............................ Y Y Y N Y N 

1Please refer to Table 3 for taxonomic reference. 

2 Indicates whether any member of the genus has documented incidental M/SI in a U.S. fishery using that gear in the most recent five-year 

timespan for which data is available. For those species not expected to occur in Alaskan waters, trawl and gillnet gear are not applicable (these 

gears would only be used in Alaskan waters). 3This exercise is considered ‘‘not applicable’’ for those species historically captured by AFSC or IPHC gear. Historical record, rather than analogy, is considered the best information upon which to base a take estimate. 4 It is likely that Guadalupe fur seals are taken in Mexican fisheries, but there are no records available to us. 

5There are no records of take for California sea lions in commercial longline fisheries, but there have been multiple takes of California sea 

lions in longline surveys conducted by NMFS’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center. We therefore infer vulnerability for the species to research 

longline gear. 

Information related to incidental M/SI 

in relevant commercial fisheries is not, 

however, the sole determinant of 

whether it may be appropriate to 

authorize take incidental to AFSC 

survey operations. A number of factors 

(e.g., species-specific knowledge 

regarding animal behavior, overall 

abundance in the geographic region, 

density relative to AFSC survey effort, 

feeding ecology, propensity to travel in 

groups commonly associated with other 

species historically taken) were taken 

into account by the AFSC to determine 

whether a species may have a similar 

vulnerability to certain types of gear as 

historically taken species. In some 

cases, we have determined that species 

without documented M/SI may 

nevertheless be vulnerable to capture in 

AFSC research gear. Similarly, we have 

determined that some species groups 

with documented M/SI are not likely to 

be vulnerable to capture in AFSC gear. 

In these instances, we provide further 

explanation below. Those species with 

no records of historical interaction with 

AFSC research gear and no documented 

M/SI in relevant commercial fisheries, 

and for which the AFSC has not 

requested the authorization of 

incidental take, are not considered 

further in this section. The AFSC 

believes generally that any sex or age 

class of those species for which take 

authorization is requested could be 

captured. 

In order to estimate a number of 

individuals that could potentially be 

captured in AFSC research gear for 

those species not historically captured, 

we first determine which species may 

have vulnerability to capture in a given 

gear. Of those species, we then 

determine whether any may have 

similar propensity to capture in a given 

gear as a historically captured species. 

For these species, we assume it is 

possible that take could occur while at 

the same time contending that, absent 

significant range shifts or changes in 

habitat usage, capture of a species not 

historically captured would likely be a 

very rare event. Therefore, we assume 

that capture would be a rare event such 

that authorization of a single take over 

the five-year period, for each region 

where the gear is used and the species 

is present, is likely sufficient to capture 

the risk of interaction. 

Trawl—From the 2017 LOF, we infer 

vulnerability to trawl gear for the 

bearded seal, ringed seal, ribbon seal, 

and northern elephant seal. This is in 

addition to the species for which 

vulnerability is indicated by historical 

AFSC interactions (described above). 

For the beluga whale, we believe that 

there is a reasonable likelihood of 

incidental take in trawl gear although 

there are no records of incidental M/SI 

in relevant commercial fisheries. 

Commercial fisheries using trawl gear 

have largely been absent from areas 

where beluga whales occur and, in 

particular, there are no commercial 

trawl fisheries in the CSBSRA. AFSC 

examined the potential for incidental 

take of beluga whales by evaluating the 

areas of overlap between the proposed 

fisheries research activities and beluga 

whale distribution, considering the 

seasonality of both the research 

activities and the species distributions 

as well as other factors that may 

influence the degree of potential overlap 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37672 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

such as sea and shorefast ice 

occurrence. In considering the possible 

take of beluga whales, the AFSC 

considered that beluga whales show 

behavior similar to large dolphins and 

porpoises. While no belugas have been 

taken in AFSC research or commercial 

trawl fisheries, there have been takes of 

large dolphins elsewhere in trawls. 

Beluga whales may occur in summer 

periods within the Chukchi and 

Beaufort Sea regions where the AFSC 

may be conducting trawl surveys. Thus, 

AFSC has requested authorization of 

one take each from two stocks of beluga 

whale (eastern Chukchi stock and 

Beaufort Sea stock) in fisheries research 

trawl surveys over the 5-year 

authorization period. Potential 

spatiotemporal overlap between AFSC 

trawl survey activities and other beluga 

whale stocks was evaluated and 

determined to not support a take 

authorization request for other stocks of 

beluga whale. 

It is also possible that a captured 

animal may not be able to be identified 

to species with certainty. Certain 

pinnipeds and small cetaceans are 

difficult to differentiate at sea, 

especially in low-light situations or 

when a quick release is necessary. For 

example, a captured delphinid that is 

struggling in the net may escape or be 

freed before positive identification is 

made. Therefore, the AFSC has 

requested the authorization of 

incidental take for one unidentified 

pinniped and one unidentified small 

cetacean in trawl gear for each research 

area over the course of the five-year 

period of proposed authorization. One 

exception is for small cetaceans in the 

CSBSRA, as no cetacean interactions 

with trawl gear are expected in that 

region (other than the aforementioned 

potential beluga whale interactions), as 

small cetaceans occur only rarely in this 

region. 

Longline—The process is the same as 

is described above for trawl gear. From 

the 2017 LOF, we infer vulnerability to 

longline gear for the Dall’s porpoise, 

Risso’s dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, 

common dolphin, short-finned pilot 

whale, and ringed seal. This is in 

addition to the species for which 

vulnerability is indicated by historical 

AFSC interactions (described above). 

Based on the 2017 LOF and historical 

observations of sperm whale and killer 

whale interactions with research 

longline gear, we also infer vulnerability 

to interaction with longline gear for 

killer whales (Alaska resident stock 

only) and sperm whales (North Pacific 

stock only). Although we generally 

believe that, despite records of 

interaction with analogous commercial 

fisheries, the potential for incidental 

take of any large whale (i.e., baleen 

whales or sperm whale), beaked whale, 

or killer whale in research gear is so 

unlikely as to be discountable, there is 

a long history of attempted depredation 

of longline gear by animals from these 

stocks in Alaska, with take of these 

species having occurred in commercial 

fisheries. Between 2010 and 2014, five 

sperm whales are recorded as having 

been seriously injured in the Gulf of 

Alaska sablefish longline fishery, while 

there have been two instances of killer 

whale M/SI in BSAI longline fisheries 

(Helker et al., 2016). Cetaceans have 

never been caught or entangled in AFSC 

or IPHC longline research gear. If 

interactions occur, marine mammals 

depredate hooked fish from the gear, but 

typically leave the hooks attached 

although occasionally bent or broken 

(i.e., evidence of the interaction). 

Certain species, particularly killer 

whales in the Bering Sea and sperm 

whales in the Gulf of Alaska, are 

commonly attracted to longline fishing 

operations and are adept at removing 

fish from longline gear as it is retrieved. 

Although we consider it unlikely that 

AFSC or IPHC research activities would 

result in any takes of either sperm 

whales or killer whales, AFSC has 

requested the authorization of such take 

as a precautionary measure, given the 

observed interactions of these species 

with research longline gear. Since 

longline depredation by sperm whales is 

known to occur only in Alaskan waters, 

requested take is limited to the North 

Pacific stock. Commercial fishery takes 

have been reported for both transient 

and resident stocks of killer whale. 

However, the Alaska resident stock 

consumes fish (e.g., Herman et al., 2005) 

and is most likely to be involved in 

depredation of research catch. In 

contrast, transient killer whales feed on 

marine mammals and are less likely to 

interact with research longline gears, 

and the limited effort for AFSC and 

IPHC research surveys compared to 

commercial fisheries does not justify 

take authorization for transient whales. 

Although there are LOF interaction 

records in longlines for stenellid 

dolphin species, the harbor porpoise, 

and the northern elephant seal, we do 

not propose to authorize take of these 

species through use of longline. No take 

is anticipated for the striped dolphin or 

for the long-beaked stock of common 

dolphin and coastal stock of bottlenose 

dolphin because of their expected 

pelagic and southerly distributions 

(respectively) relative to expected IPHC 

survey effort. Harbor porpoise have only 

been recorded as taken in commercial 

fisheries through use of pelagic longline 

in the Atlantic Ocean; there are no 

records of incidental take of harbor 

porpoise in longline fisheries in Alaska 

or off the U.S. west coast. Similarly, the 

LOF indicates that elephant seal 

interaction occurred only in a Hawaiian 

pelagic longline fishery. 

As described for trawl gear, it is also 

possible that a captured animal may not 

be able to be identified to species with 

certainty. Although we expect that 

cetaceans would likely be able to be 

identified when captured in longline 

gear, pinnipeds are considered more 

likely to escape before the animal may 

be identified. Therefore, the AFSC has 

requested the authorization of 

incidental take for one unidentified 

pinniped for each relevant research 

area, in addition to one unidentified 

pinniped captured in IPHC surveys, 

over the course of the five-year period 

of proposed authorization. 

Gillnet—The process is the same as is 

described above for trawl gear. From the 

2017 LOF, we infer vulnerability to 

gillnet gear for the Pacific white-sided 

dolphin, harbor porpoise, Dall’s 

porpoise, harbor seal, northern fur seal, 

and Steller sea lion. Gillnets are used 

only in Prince William Sound and at 

Little Port Walter in southeast Alaska. 

Therefore, only one take is proposed for 

authorization for relevant stocks of the 

vulnerable species over the 5-year 

period. This includes both the eastern 

Pacific and California stocks of northern 

fur seal and the Prince William Sound 

and Sitka/Chatham Strait stocks of 

harbor seal. Although there are LOF 

interaction records in gillnets for the 

beluga whale and the northern elephant 

seal, we do not expect these species to 

be present in areas where AFSC 

proposes to use gillnet research gear and 

no take of these species through use of 

gillnet is proposed for authorization. 

AFSC also expects that there may be 

an interaction resulting in escape of an 

unidentified cetacean in gillnet gear, 

and has requested the authorization of 

incidental take for one unidentified 

cetacean over the course of the five-year 

period of proposed authorization. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37673 

TABLE 7—TOTAL ESTIMATED TAKE DUE TO GEAR INTERACTION, 2018–23 1

Species Estimated 5-year 

total, trawl 

Estimated 5-year 

total, longline 

(AFSC) 

Estimated 5-year 

total, longline 

(IPHC) 2

Estimated 5-year 

total, gillnet Total, all gears 

Sperm whale (North Pacific) ....... ................................ 1 (GOARA) ............ 1 ................................ 2 

Beluga whale (eastern Chukchi) 1 (CSBSRA) ........... ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 

Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea) ...... 1 (CSBSRA) ........... ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 

Bottlenose dolphin (offshore) ...... ................................ ................................ 1 ................................ 1 

Common dolphin ......................... ................................ ................................ 1 ................................ 1 

Pacific white-sided dolphin .......... 5 (GOARA) ............ ................................ ................................ 1 6 

Risso’s dolphin ............................ ................................ ................................ 1 ................................ 1 

Killer whale (Alaska resident) ..... ................................ 1 (BSAIRA) ............ 1 ................................ 2 

Short-finned pilot whale .............. ................................ ................................ 1 ................................ 1 

Harbor porpoise (Southeast Alaska) 3................................. ................................ ................................ ................................ 1

Harbor porpoise (Gulf of Alaska) 1 ............................. ................................ ................................ 1 2 

Harbor porpoise (Bering Sea) ..... 1 ............................. ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 

Dall’s porpoise ............................. 10 (5 GOARA/5 

BSAIRA).

2 (1 GOARA/1 

BSAIRA).

1 1 14 

Northern fur seal (eastern Pacific).10 (5 GOARA/5 

BSAIRA).

2 (1 GOARA/1 

BSAIRA).

5 1 13–18 

Northern fur seal (California) ...... 1 (GOARA) ............ 1 (GOARA) ............ ................................ 1 3–8 

California sea lion ....................... ................................ ................................ 1 ................................ 1 

Steller sea lion (eastern) ............. 5 ............................. 1 ............................. 5 1 7–12 

Steller sea lion (western) ............ 10 (5 GOARA/5 

BSAIRA).

2 (1 GOARA/1 

BSAIRA).

................................ 1 13–18 

Bearded seal ............................... 2 (1 BSAIRA/1 

CSBSRA).

................................ ................................ ................................ 2 

Harbor seal 4 ............................... 12 ........................... ................................ 5 2 19 

Spotted seal ................................ 2 (1 BSAIRA/1 

CSBSRA).

................................ 1 ................................ 3 

Ringed seal ................................. 2 (1 BSAIRA/1 

CSBSRA).

1 ............................. 1 ................................ 4 

Ribbon seal ................................. 2 (1 BSAIRA/1 

CSBSRA).

................................ ................................ ................................ 2 

Northern elephant seal ................ 1 ............................. ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 

Unidentified pinniped 5 ................ 3 ............................. 2 ............................. 1 ................................ 6 

Unidentified small cetacean 6 ...... 2 ............................. ................................ ................................ 1 3 

1Please see Table 6 and preceding text for derivation of take estimates. Takes proposed for authorization are informed by area- and gear-specific vulnerability. However, IPHC longline takes are considered separately. AFSC use of gillnets occurs only in the GOARA. Only trawl gear is 

used in the CSBSRA. 2Potential IPHC takes are not specific to any area or stock. For example, the one expected take of Dall’s porpoise could occur to an individual 

of either the CA/OR/WA or Alaska stocks. For harbor seals, although five total takes may occur over the 5-year period of the proposed regulations, no more than one take is anticipated from any given stock. 3For harbor porpoise in southeast Alaska, we propose to authorize take of one animal in all gears combined (i.e., trawl and gillnet) over the 5- 

year period. In general, harbor porpoise would be expected to have the same vulnerability to particular gears regardless of stock. However, 

AFSC proposes to use acoustic pingers on surface trawl nets in southeast Alaska, reducing the likelihood of porpoise interaction with that gear. 

Use of acoustic pingers is proposed for gillnets in both southeast Alaska and in the Gulf of Alaska. 4For trawl gear, the numbers include one take during the 5-year period for each Alaskan harbor seal stock (three stocks in BSAIRA and nine 

stocks in GOARA). For gillnet gear, the numbers include one take during the 5-year period for the Prince William Sound and Sitka/Chatham 

Strait stocks. For IPHC longline surveys, the five takes proposed for authorization could occur for any harbor seal stock, though no more than 

one take would be expected to occur over the 5-year period for any given stock. 5 Includes one unidentified pinniped in each research area (trawl) and one unidentified pinniped in the GOARA and BSAIRA and for IPHC surveys (longline). 6 Includes one unidentified small cetacean in the GOARA and BSAIRA (trawl) and one unidentified cetacean in the GOARA (gillnet). This is not 

anticipated to apply to harbor porpoise in southeast Alaska, as the already low probability of gear interaction is further reduced through use of 

additional mitigation (described in footnote 3). 

Whales—For large whales (baleen 

whales and sperm whales) and small 

whales (considered here to be beaked 

whales, Kogia spp., and killer whales), 

observed M/SI is extremely rare for 

trawl and gillnet gear and, for most of 

these species, only slightly more 

common in longline gear. Furthermore, 

with the exception of sperm whales and 

killer whales (who attempt to depredate 

longline gear), most of these species 

longline interactions are with pelagic 

gear. Baleen whale interactions with 

longline gear represent entanglements in 

pelagic mainlines, while beaked whales 

and Kogia spp. typically have a pelagic 

distribution resulting in a lack of spatial 

overlap with bottom longline fisheries. 

Although whale species could become 

captured or entangled in AFSC gear, the 

probability of interaction is extremely 

low considering the lower level of effort 

relative to that of commercial fisheries. 

For example, there were estimated to be 

three total incidents of sperm whale M/ 

SI in the Hawaii deep-set longline 

fishery over a five-year period. This 

fishery has 129 participants, and the 

fishery as a whole exerts substantially 

greater effort in a given year than does 

the AFSC. In a very rough estimate, we 

can say that these three estimated 

incidents represent an insignificant perparticipant interaction rate of 0.005 per 

year, despite the greater effort. 

Similarly, there were zero documented 

interactions over a five-year period in 

the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico large pelagics longline fishery, 

despite a reported fishing effort of 8,044 

sets and 5,955,800 hooks in 2011 alone 

(Garrison and Stokes, 2012). With an 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37674 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

average soak time of ten to fourteen 

hours, this represents an approximate 

minimum of almost sixty million hook 

hours. AFSC and IPHC effort would be 

a small fraction of this per year. Other 

large whales and small whales have 

similarly low rates of interaction with 

commercial fisheries, despite the 

significantly greater effort. In addition, 

most large whales and small whales 

generally have, with few exceptions, 

very low densities in areas where AFSC 

and IPHC research occurs relative to 

other species (see Tables 10–12). With 

exceptions for sperm whales and killer 

whales that are known to depredate 

research longline gear in particular 

locations, we believe it extremely 

unlikely that any large whale or small 

whale would be captured or entangled 

in AFSC research gear. 

Estimated Take Due to Acoustic 

Harassment 

As described previously (‘‘Potential 

Effects of the Specified Activity on 

Marine Mammals and Their Habitat’’), 

we believe that AFSC use of active 

acoustic sources has, at most, the 

potential to cause Level B harassment of 

marine mammals. In order to attempt to 

quantify the potential for Level B 

harassment to occur, NMFS (including 

the AFSC and acoustics experts from 

other parts of NMFS) developed an 

analytical framework considering 

characteristics of the active acoustic 

systems described previously under 

‘‘Description of Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources,’’ their expected patterns of use, 

and characteristics of the marine 

mammal species that may interact with 

them. We believe that this quantitative 

assessment benefits from its simplicity 

and consistency with current NMFS 

acoustic guidance regarding Level B 

harassment but caution that, based on a 

number of deliberately precautionary 

assumptions, the resulting take 

estimates may be seen as an 

overestimate of the potential for 

behavioral harassment to occur as a 

result of the operation of these systems. 

Additional details on the approach used 

and the assumptions made that result in 

these estimates are described below. 

In 2016, NMFS released updated 

‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing’’ with revised 

metrics and thresholds to assess the 

potential for injury (e.g., permanent 

threshold shift) from acoustic sources. 

While the AFSC’s documents refer to 

NMFS’s historic guidelines, as the 

acoustic analysis was completed prior to 

the release of the technical guidance, 

the conclusions regarding the potential 

for injury remain the same. Most 

importantly, the technical guidance now 

explicitly takes into account the 

duration of the sound through the use 

of the sound exposure level (SEL) 

metric, as opposed to the previous use 

of root mean square (rms) sound 

pressure level (SPL). The effect of this 

different metric, in particular for the 

very short duration sounds used for 

these echosounders, is to largely reduce 

the exposure level of sound an animal 

is exposed to for short duration sounds 

(e.g., for a 1 ms ping, an SPL source 

level is reduced by 30 dB in the SEL 

metric) offsetting changes in the 

thresholds themselves. While energy is 

accumulated over time using SEL, the 

previous conclusion that an individual 

would have to remain exceptionally 

close to a sound source for unrealistic 

lengths of time holds, suggesting the 

likelihood of injury occurring is 

exceedingly small and is therefore not 

considered further in this analysis. 

The assessment paradigm for active 

acoustic sources used in AFSC fisheries 

research is relatively straightforward 

and has a number of key simplifying 

assumptions. NMFS’s current acoustic 

guidance requires in most cases that we 

assume Level B harassment occurs 

when a marine mammal receives an 

acoustic signal at or above a simple 

step-function threshold. Sound 

produced by these sources are very 

short in duration (typically on the order 

of milliseconds), intermittent, have high 

rise times, and are operated from 

moving platforms. They are 

consequently considered most similar to 

impulsive sources, which are subject to 

the 160 dB rms criterion. Estimating the 

number of exposures at the specified 

received level requires several 

determinations, each of which is 

described sequentially below: 

(1) A detailed characterization of the 

acoustic characteristics of the effective 

sound source or sources in operation; 

(2) The operational areas exposed to 

levels at or above those associated with 

Level B harassment when these sources 

are in operation; 

(3) A method for quantifying the 

resulting sound fields around these 

sources; and 

(4) An estimate of the average density 

for marine mammal species in each area 

of operation. 

Quantifying the spatial and temporal 

dimension of the sound exposure 

footprint (or ‘‘swath width’’) of the 

active acoustic devices in operation on 

moving vessels and their relationship to 

the average density of marine mammals 

enables a quantitative estimate of the 

number of individuals for which sound 

levels exceed the relevant threshold for 

each area. The number of potential 

incidents of Level B harassment is 

ultimately estimated as the product of 

the volume of water ensonified at 160 

dB rms or higher (to a maximum depth 

of 500 m) and the volumetric density of 

animals determined from simple 

assumptions about their vertical 

stratification in the water column. 

Specifically, reasonable assumptions 

based on what is known about diving 

behavior across different marine 

mammal species were made to segregate 

those that predominately remain in the 

upper 200 m of the water column versus 

those that regularly dive deeper during 

foraging and transit. Because depths 

range dramatically along the margin of 

the continental slope that define the 

outer edge of the survey areas, but 

deeper surveyed depths rarely range 

over 500 m in practice, the depth range 

for determining volumes was set at 500 

m for deep diving species. Methods for 

estimating each of these calculations are 

described in greater detail in the 

following sections, along with the 

simplifying assumptions made, and 

followed by the take estimates. Note that 

the IPHC does not use active acoustic 

systems for data acquisition purposes; 

therefore, potential Level B harassment 

is only considered for AFSC survey 

operations in the GOARA, BSAIRA, and 

CSBSRA. 

Sound Source Characteristics—An 

initial characterization of the general 

source parameters for the primary active 

acoustic sources operated by the AFSC 

was conducted, enabling a full 

assessment of all sound sources used by 

the AFSC and delineation of Category 1 

and Category 2 sources, the latter of 

which were carried forward for analysis 

here (see Table 2). This auditing of the 

active acoustic sources also enabled a 

determination of the predominant 

sources that, when operated, would 

have sound footprints exceeding those 

from any other simultaneously used 

sources. These sources were effectively 

those used directly in acoustic 

propagation modeling to estimate the 

zones within which the 160 dB rms 

received level would occur. 

Many of these sources can be operated 

in different modes and with different 

output parameters. In modeling their 

potential impact areas, those features 

among those given previously in Table 

2 (e.g., lowest operating frequency) that 

would lead to the most precautionary 

estimate of maximum received level 

ranges (i.e., largest ensonified area) were 

used. The effective beam patterns took 

into account the normal modes in which 

these sources are typically operated. 

While these signals are brief and 

intermittent, a conservative assumption 

was taken in ignoring the temporal 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37675 

pattern of transmitted pulses in 

calculating Level B harassment events. 

Operating characteristics of each of the 

predominant sound sources were used 

in the calculation of effective linekilometers and area of exposure for each 

source in each survey. 

Note that, for purposes of this 

analysis, the EK60 is assumed to operate 

at 18 kHz, the ES60 is assumed to 

operate at 38 kHz, and the 7111 is 

assumed to operate at 100 kHz. 

Therefore, we assume that Level B 

harassment of low-frequency cetaceans 

may only occur in response to exposure 

to signals from the EK60, as signals from 

the other two systems are outside the 

generalized hearing range for this group. 

Similarly, we assume that pinnipeds 

would not experience harassment upon 

exposure to signals from the 7111, 

which produces signals outside the 

generalized hearing range of both otariid 

and phocid pinnipeds. 

TABLE 8—EFFECTIVE EXPOSURE AREAS FOR PREDOMINANT ACOUSTIC SOURCES ACROSS TWO DEPTH STRATA

Active acoustic system 

Effective 

exposure 

area: Sea 

surface to 

200 m depth 

(km2) 

Effective 

exposure 

area: Sea 

surface to 

500 m depth 

(km2) 

Simrad EK60/ME70 narrow beam echosounder ..................................................................................................... 0.0173 0.056 

Simrad ES60 multibeam echosounder .................................................................................................................... 0.0112 0.036 

Reson 7111 multibeam echosounder ...................................................................................................................... 0.1419 0.914 

Among Category 2 sources (Table 2), 

three predominant sources (Table 8) 

were identified as having the largest 

potential impact zones during 

operations, based on their relatively 

lower output frequency, higher output 

power, and their operational pattern of 

use. Estimated effective cross-sectional 

areas of exposure were estimated for 

each of the predominant sources using 

a commercial software package 

(MATLAB) and key input parameters 

including source-specific operational 

characteristics (e.g., frequency, 

beamwidth, source level; see Table 2) 

and environmental characteristics (i.e., 

temperature, salinity, pH, and latitude). 

Where relevant, calculations were 

performed for different notional 

operational scenarios and the largest 

cross-sectional area used in estimating 

take (e.g., see Figure 6–2 of AFSC’s 

application, which displays a simple 

visualization of a two-dimensional slice 

of modeled sound propagation to 

illustrate the predicted area ensonified 

to the 160-dB threshold by the nominal 

EK60 beam pattern assuming side lobes 

of ensonification). 

In determining the effective linekilometers for each of these 

predominant sources, the operational 

patterns of use relative to one another 

were further applied to determine 

which source was the predominant one 

operating at any point in time for each 

survey. When multiple sound sources 

are used simultaneously, the one with 

the largest potential impact zone in each 

relevant depth strata is considered for 

use in estimating exposures. For 

example, when species (e.g., sperm 

whales) regularly dive deeper than 200 

m, the largest potential impact zone was 

calculated for both depth strata and in 

some cases resulted in a different source 

being predominant in one depth stratum 

or the other. This enabled a more 

comprehensive way of accounting for 

maximum exposures for animals diving 

in a complex sound field resulting from 

simultaneous sources with different 

spatial profiles. This overall process 

effectively resulted in three sound 

sources (Table 8; ES60, EK60/ME70, and 

7111) comprising the total effective linekilometers, their relative proportions 

depending on the nature of each survey. 

Calculating Effective LineKilometers—As described below, based 

on the operating parameters for each 

source type, an estimated volume of 

water ensonified at or above the 160 dB 

rms threshold was determined. In all 

cases where multiple sources are 

operated simultaneously, the one with 

the largest estimated acoustic footprint 

was considered to be the effective 

source. This was calculated for each 

depth stratum, which in some cases 

resulted in different sources being 

predominant in each depth stratum for 

all line-kilometers when multiple 

sources were in operation; this was 

accounted for in estimating overall 

exposures for species that utilize both 

depth strata (deep divers). The total 

number of line-kilometers associated 

with relevant surveys was determined, 

as was the relative percentage of 

surveyed linear kilometers associated 

with each depth stratum (equating to the 

proportion of each survey occurring on 

the shallower upper continental shelf 

versus those in deeper waters). The total 

line-kilometers for each survey, the 

predominant source, the effective 

percentages associated with each depth, 

and the effective total volume 

ensonified are given below (Table 9). 

Calculating Volume of Water 

Ensonified—The cross-sectional area of 

water ensonified at or above the 160 dB 

rms threshold was calculated using a 

simple model of sound propagation loss, 

which accounts for the loss of sound 

energy over increasing range. We used 

a spherical spreading model (where 

propagation loss = 20 * log [range]; such 

that there would be a 6-dB reduction in 

sound level for each doubling of 

distance from the source), a reasonable 

approximation over the relatively short 

ranges involved. Spherical spreading is 

a reasonable assumption even in 

relatively shallow waters since, taking 

into account the beam angle, the 

reflected energy from the seafloor will 

be much weaker than the direct source 

and the volume influenced by the 

reflected acoustic energy would be 

much smaller over the relatively short 

ranges involved. We also accounted for 

the frequency-dependent absorption 

coefficient and beam pattern of these 

sound sources, which is generally 

highly directional. The lowest frequency 

was used for systems that are operated 

over a range of frequencies. The vertical 

extent of this area is calculated for two 

depth strata. These results, shown in 

Table 9, were applied differentially 

based on the typical vertical 

stratification of marine mammals (see 

Table 10). 

Following the determination of 

effective sound exposure area for 

transmissions considered in two 

dimensions, the next step was to 

determine the effective volume of water 

ensonified at or above 160 dB rms for 

the entirety of each survey. For each of 

the three predominant sound sources, 

the volume of water ensonified is 

estimated as the athwartship crosssectional area (in square kilometers) of 

sound at or above 160 dB rms (as 

illustrated in Figure 6.2 of AFSC’s 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37676 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

application) multiplied by the total 

distance traveled by the ship. Where 

different sources operating 

simultaneously would be predominant 

in each different depth strata, the 

resulting cross-sectional area calculated 

took this into account. Specifically, for 

shallow-diving species this crosssectional area was determined for 

whichever was predominant in the 

shallow stratum, whereas for deeperdiving species this area was calculated 

from the combined effects of the 

predominant source in the shallow 

stratum and the (sometimes different) 

source predominating in the deep 

stratum. This creates an effective total 

volume characterizing the area 

ensonified when each predominant 

source is operated and accounts for the 

fact that deeper-diving species may 

encounter a complex sound field in 

different portions of the water column. 

Marine Mammal Densities—One of 

the primary limitations to traditional 

estimates of behavioral harassment from 

acoustic exposure is the assumption that 

animals are uniformly distributed in 

time and space across very large 

geographical areas, such as those being 

considered here. There is ample 

evidence that this is in fact not the case, 

and marine species are highly 

heterogeneous in terms of their spatial 

distribution, largely as a result of 

species-typical utilization of 

heterogeneous ecosystem features. Some 

more sophisticated modeling efforts 

have attempted to include speciestypical behavioral patterns and diving 

parameters in movement models that 

more adequately assess the spatial and 

temporal aspects of distribution and 

thus exposure to sound. While 

simulated movement models were not 

used to mimic individual diving or 

aggregation parameters in the 

determination of animal density in this 

estimation, the vertical stratification of 

marine mammals based on known or 

reasonably assumed diving behavior 

was integrated into the density 

estimates used. 

First, typical two-dimensional marine 

mammal density estimates (animals/ 

km2) were obtained from various 

sources for each ecosystem area. These 

were estimated from marine mammal 

Stock Assessment Reports and other 

sources (please see Table 6–10d of 

AFSC’s application). There are a 

number of caveats associated with these 

estimates: 

(1) They are often calculated using 

visual sighting data collected during one 

season rather than throughout the year. 

The time of year when data were 

collected and from which densities were 

estimated may not always overlap with 

the timing of AFSC fisheries surveys 

(detailed previously in ‘‘Detailed 

Description of Activities’’). 

(2) Marine mammal survey areas do 

not necessarily coincide spatially with 

the entire AFSC fisheries research area 

boundaries. Estimated densities from 

the survey areas are assumed to apply 

to the entire research area. 

(3) The densities used for purposes of 

estimating acoustic exposures do not 

take into account the patchy 

distributions of marine mammals in an 

ecosystem, at least on the moderate to 

fine scales over which they are known 

to occur. Instead, animals are 

considered evenly distributed 

throughout the assessed area, and 

seasonal movement patterns are not 

taken into account. 

In addition, and to account for at least 

some coarse differences in marine 

mammal diving behavior and the effect 

this has on their likely exposure to these 

kinds of often highly directional sound 

sources, a volumetric density of marine 

mammals of each species was 

determined. This value is estimated as 

the abundance averaged over the twodimensional geographic area of the 

surveys and the vertical range of typical 

habitat for the population. Habitat 

ranges were categorized in two 

generalized depth strata (0–200 m and 0 

to greater than 200 m) based on gross 

differences between known generally 

surface-associated and typically deepdiving marine mammals (e.g., Reynolds 

and Rommel, 1999; Perrin et al., 2009). 

Animals in the shallow-diving stratum 

were assumed, on the basis of empirical 

measurements of diving with 

monitoring tags and reasonable 

assumptions of behavior based on other 

indicators, to spend a large majority of 

their lives (i.e., greater than 75 percent) 

at depths shallower than 200 m. Their 

volumetric density and thus exposure to 

sound is therefore limited by this depth 

boundary. In contrast, species in the 

deeper-diving stratum were assumed to 

regularly dive deeper than 200 m and 

spend significant time at these greater 

depths. Their volumetric density and 

thus potential exposure to sound at or 

above the 160 dB rms threshold is 

extended from the surface to 500 m, i.e., 

nominal maximum water depth in 

regions where these surveys occur. 

The volumetric densities are estimates 

of the three-dimensional distribution of 

animals in their typical depth strata. For 

shallow-diving species the volumetric 

density is the area density divided by 

0.2 km (i.e., 200 m). For deeper diving 

species, the volumetric density is the 

area density divided by a nominal value 

of 0.5 km (i.e., 500 m). The twodimensional and resulting threedimensional (volumetric) densities for 

each species in each ecosystem area are 

shown below. 

Using Area of Ensonification and 

Volumetric Density to Estimate 

Exposures—Estimates of potential 

incidents of Level B harassment (i.e., 

potential exposure to levels of sound at 

or exceeding the 160 dB rms threshold) 

are then calculated by using (1) the 

combined results from output 

characteristics of each source and 

identification of the predominant 

sources in terms of acoustic output; (2) 

their relative annual usage patterns for 

each operational area; (3) a sourcespecific determination made of the area 

of water associated with received 

sounds at the extent of a depth 

boundary; and (4) determination of a 

biologically-relevant volumetric density 

of marine mammal species in each area. 

Estimates of Level B harassment by 

acoustic sources are the product of the 

volume of water ensonified at 160 dB 

rms or higher for the predominant 

sound source for each relevant survey 

and the volumetric density of animals 

for each species. These annual estimates 

are given below. 

Most species designated as shallow 

divers (< 200 m depth) were considered 

to be shelf and inshore species, and 

their lineal distance was the extent of 

survey areas to 200 m in depth. 

However, some shallow diving species 

also occur in offshore waters so the 

density to 200 m depth was applied to 

the volumetric density of all survey 

tracks. These species included gray 

whale; harbor porpoise (GOARA only); 

northern fur seal; Steller sea lion; Dalls’ 

porpoise; beluga whale (Bristol Bay 

stock only); humpback whale, killer 

whales, and sei whales (BSAIRA only); 

and bearded, ribbon, ringed, and spotted 

seals (BSAIRA only). Ensonified 

volumes for deep diving species were 

summed for the shallow inshore 

component and the deeper waters. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37677 

TABLE 9—ANNUAL

LINEAR

SURVEY

KILOMETERS FOR

EACH

VESSEL AND ITS

PREDOMINANT

SOURCE

WITHIN

TWO

DEPTH

STRATA

Vessel Survey Line-kms Dominant source Distance 0–200 m (percent) Distance > 200 m (percent) Volume ensonified (0–200 m) Volume ensonified (200–500 m) 

GOARA Oscar Dyson ...................... Pollock summer acoustic trawl ....................................... 17,558 EK60/ME70 74 26 224.8 256.1 Oscar Dyson ...................... Pollock winter acoustic trawl (Shelikof Strait) ................ 9,540 EK60/ME70 31 69 51.2 369.3 Oscar Dyson ...................... Pollock winter acoustic trawl (Shumagin/Sanak Islands) 4,520 EK60/ME70 99 1 77.4 2.5 Charter vessels .................. Shelf and slope bottom trawl groundfish ....................... 9,189 ES60 76 24 78.2 79.4 BSAIRA Oscar Dyson ...................... Pollock summer acoustic trawl (Bering Sea) ................. 25,460 EK60/ME70 91 9 400.8 128.5 Oscar Dyson ...................... Pollock winter acoustic trawl (Bogoslof Island) .............. 2,788 EK60/ME70 15 85 7.2 132.9 Charter vessels .................. Aleutian Islands shelf and slope bottom trawl groundfish. 3,190 ES60 61 39 21.8 44.8 Charter vessels .................. Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey .............................. 2,599 ES60 100 0 29.1 0 Charter vessels .................. Bering Sea shelf bottom trawl ........................................ 11,200 ES60 100 0 125.4 0Charter vessels .................. Eastern Bering Sea upper continental slope trawl summer. 1,125 ES60 0 100 0 40.5 Charter vessels .................. Bering Aleutian Salmon International Survey (BASIS) .. 12,288 ES60 95 5 130.7 34.5 Charter vessels .................. Northern Bering Sea bottom trawl ................................. 1,440 ES60 100 0 16.1 0 Charter vessels .................. Response of fish to drop camera systems .................... 259 ES60 100 0 2.9 0 Fairweather ........................ Acoustic research and mapping to characterize EFH 

(FISHPAC).

145 Reson 7111 100 0 20.6 0 

CSBSRA Charter vessels .................. Arctic Ecosystem Integrated Survey .............................. 5,915 ES60 100 0 66.2 0 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37678 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Next, we provide volumetric densities 

for marine mammals and total estimated 

takes by Level B harassment, by 

dominant source and total, for each 

stock in each of the three research areas 

(Tables 10–12). We also provide a 

sample calculation. 

We first determine the source-specific 

ensonified volume of water for each 

relevant survey and then determine 

species-specific exposure estimates for 

the shallow and deep (if applicable; 

Tables 10–12) depth strata. First, we 

know the estimated source-specific 

cross-sectional ensonified area within 

the shallow and deep strata (Table 8) 

and the number of annual linekilometers for each survey and use these 

values to derive an estimated ensonified 

volume. Survey- and stratum-specific 

exposure estimates are the product of 

these ensonified volumes and the 

species-specific volumetric densities 

(Table 10). 

To illustrate the process, we focus on 

the EK60 and the sperm whale in the 

GOARA. 

(1) EK60 ensonified volume; 0–200 m: 

0.0173 km2 * 17,558 km * 0.74 = 224.8 

km3. 

(2) EK60 ensonified volume; >200 m: 

0.0561 km2 * 17,558 km * 0.26 = 256.1 

km3. 

(3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 for each 

relevant survey; sum total ensonified 

volumes in each depth stratum 

(4) Estimated exposures to sound 

≥160 dB rms; sperm whale; EK60: (0.002 

sperm whales/km3 * 353.4 km3 (total 

ensonified volume; 0–200 m) = 0.7) + 

(0.002 sperm whales/km3 * 627.9 km3

(total ensonified volume; 200–500 m) = 

1.3) = 2 estimated sperm whale 

exposures to SPLs ≥160 dB rms 

resulting from use of the EK60. 

(5) Repeat steps 1–4 for additional 

surveys with other predominant sound 

sources. 

Totals in Tables 10–12 represent sums 

across all relevant surveys/sources 

rounded up to the nearest whole 

number. The AFSC has requested the 

authorization of take indicated by 

rounding. 

TABLE 10—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE GOARA 

Species Shallow Deep 

Area density 

(animals/ 

km2) 1

Volumetric 

density 

(animals/ 

km3) 2

Estimated level B 

harassment, 0–200 m 

Estimated level B 

harassment, >200 m Total 

EK60 ES60 EK60 ES60 

North Pacific right 

whale ........................ X ................ 0.005 0.027 0.1 ................ ................ ................ 1 

Gray whale ................... X ................ 1.700 8.500 4,649.4 ................ ................ ................ 4,650 

Humpback whale (CNP) X ................ 0.065 0.327 115.4 ................ ................ ................ 116 

Humpback whale 

(WNP) ....................... X ................ 0.001 0.004 1.2 ................ ................ ................ 2 

Minke whale ................. X ................ 0.001 0.006 2.1 ................ ................ ................ 3 

Sei whale ..................... X ................ 0.000 0.000 0.01 ................ ................ ................ 1 

Fin whale ...................... X ................ 0.020 0.100 35.3 ................ ................ ................ 36 

Blue whale ................... X ................ 0.000 0.001 0.2 ................ ................ ................ 1 

Sperm whale ................ ................ X 0.001 0.002 0.7 0.2 1.3 0.2 3 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ................ X 0.000 0.000 0.1 0 0.1 0 1 

Baird’s beaked whale ... ................ X 0.002 0.003 1.2 0.3 2.1 0.3 4 

Stejneger’s beaked 

whale ........................ ................ X 0.005 0.010 3.6 0.8 6.4 0.8 12 

Beluga whale (Cook 

Inlet) 3 ........................ X ................ 0.200 1.000 ................ 2.5 ................ ................ 3 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ........................... X ................ 0.015 0.075 26.5 5.9 ................ ................ 33 

Killer whale (offshore) .. X ................ 0.011 0.055 19.4 4.3 ................ ................ 24 

Killer whale (west coast 

transient) ................... X ................ 0.006 0.028 9.9 2.2 ................ ................ 13 

Killer whale (AT1 transient) ......................... X ................ 0.001 0.004 1.2 0.3 ................ ................ 2 

Killer whale (GOA/BSAI 

transient) ................... X ................ 0.001 0.004 1.2 0.3 ................ ................ 2 

Killer whale (northern 

resident) .................... X ................ 0.003 0.013 4.4 1.0 ................ ................ 6 

Killer whale (AK resident) ......................... X ................ 0.009 0.045 15.9 3.5 ................ ................ 20 

Harbor porpoise (GOA) X ................ 0.200 1.000 547.0 102.9 ................ ................ 650 

Harbor porpoise 

(SEAK) ...................... X ................ 0.110 0.550 300.8 56.6 ................ ................ 358 

Dall’s porpoise .............. X ................ 1.600 8.000 4,375.9 823.3 ................ ................ 5,200 

Northern fur seal (CA) 4 X ................ 0.044 0.219 119.5 22.5 ................ ................ 143 

Northern fur seal (EP— 

winter) 5 ..................... X ................ 0.377 1.883 458.0 ................ ................ ................ 459 

Northern fur seal (EP— 

summer) .................... X ................ 0.116 0.582 176.7 59.9 ................ ................ 237 

Steller sea lion (eastern; GOA-wide) ......... X ................ 0.059 0.294 160.8 30.3 ................ ................ 192 

Steller sea lion (eastern; E144) ................. X ................ 0.221 1.103 603.3 113.5 ................ ................ 717 

Steller sea lion (eastern; W144) ................ X ................ 0.001 0.006 3.3 0.6 ................ ................ 4 

Steller sea lion (western; GOA-wide) ........ X ................ 0.035 0.176 96.0 18.1 ................ ................ 115 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37679 

TABLE 10—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE GOARA—Continued 

Species Shallow Deep 

Area density 

(animals/ 

km2) 1

Volumetric 

density 

(animals/ 

km3) 2

Estimated level B 

harassment, 0–200 m 

Estimated level B 

harassment, >200 m Total 

EK60 ES60 EK60 ES60 

Steller sea lion (western; E144) ................. X ................ 0.003 0.015 7.9 1.5 ................ ................ 10 

Steller sea lion (western; W144) ................ X ................ 0.048 0.239 130.7 24.6 ................ ................ 156 

Harbor seal (Clarence 

Strait) ........................ X ................ 0.099 0.494 174.6 38.7 ................ ................ 214 

Harbor seal (Dixon/ 

Cape Decision) ......... X ................ 0.057 0.283 99.9 22.1 ................ ................ 123 

Harbor seal (Sitka/Chatham Strait) ................ X ................ 0.046 0.232 82.0 18.2 ................ ................ 101 

Harbor seal (Lynn 

Canal/Stephens Passage) ......................... X ................ 0.030 0.148 52.3 11.6 ................ ................ 64 

Harbor seal (Glacier 

Bay/Icy Strait) ........... X ................ 0.022 0.113 39.8 8.8 ................ ................ 49 

Harbor seal (Cook Inlet/ 

Shelikof Strait) .......... X ................ 0.031 0.156 54.9 12.2 ................ ................ 68 

Harbor seal (Prince William Sound) .............. X ................ 0.061 0.303 107.2 23.7 ................ ................ 131 

Harbor seal (South Kodiak) .......................... X ................ 0.022 0.109 38.6 8.5 ................ ................ 48 

Harbor seal (North Kodiak) .......................... X ................ 0.009 0.472 16.7 3.7 ................ ................ 21 

Northern elephant seal ................ X 0.020 0.045 15.9 3.5 28.3 3.6 52 

1Sources and derivation of marine mammal density information are provided in Table 6–10d of AFSC’s application. 

2Volumetric density estimates derived by dividing area density estimates by 0.2 km (for shallow species) or 0.5 km (for deep species), corresponding with defined depth strata. 3The EK60 is not used in areas of Cook Inlet where beluga whales may be present. 

4 Individuals from the California stock of northern fur seals are assumed to occur only east of 144°W. 5The EK60 is not used in winter in areas where the northern fur seal may be present. 

TABLE 11—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE BSAIRA 

Species Shallow Deep 

Area density 

(animals/ 

km2) 1

Volumetric 

density 

(animals/ 

km3) 2

Estimated level B harassment, 

0–200 m 

Estimated level B 

harassment, >200 m Total 

EK60 ES60 7111 EK60 ES60 

North Pacific right whale ........... X ................ 0.000 0.002 0.1 ................ ................ ................ ................ 1 

Bowhead whale ......................... X ................ 0.017 0.085 41.5 ................ ................ ................ ................ 42 

Gray whale ................................ X ................ 0.380 1.900 928.5 ................ ................ ................ ................ 929 

Humpback whale (CNP) ........... X ................ 0.018 0.092 45.0 ................ ................ ................ ................ 45 

Humpback whale (WNP) ........... X ................ 0.002 0.008 3.9 ................ ................ ................ ................ 4 

Minke whale .............................. X ................ 0.002 0.011 4.3 ................ ................ ................ ................ 5 

Sei whale ................................... X ................ 0.000 0.001 0.4 ................ ................ ................ ................ 1 

Fin whale ................................... X ................ 0.001 0.007 3.4 ................ ................ ................ ................ 4 

Sperm whale ............................. ................ X 0.008 0.016 6.5 5.5 0.3 4.2 1.9 19 

Cuvier’s beaked whale .............. ................ X 0.000 0.000 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 1 

Baird’s beaked whale ................ ................ X 0.002 0.003 1.4 1.2 0.1 0.9 0.4 4 

Stejneger’s beaked whale ......... ................ X 0.001 0.002 1.0 0.8 0 0.6 0.3 3 

Beluga whale (Bristol Bay) 3 ..... X ................ 0.700 3.500 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 0 

Beluga whale (eastern Bering 

Sea) ....................................... X ................ 0.242 0.484 493.7 419.5 24.9 ................ ................ 939 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ........ X ................ 0.005 0.027 11.0 9.4 0.6 ................ ................ 21 

Killer whale (offshore) ............... X ................ 0.011 0.055 22.4 19.1 1.1 ................ ................ 43 

Killer whale (GOA/BSAI transient) ...................................... X ................ 0.003 0.013 5.3 4.5 0.3 ................ ................ 11 

Killer whale (AK resident) ......... X ................ 0.001 0.005 2.0 1.7 0.1 ................ ................ 4 

Harbor porpoise (Bering Sea) ... X ................ 0.450 2.250 918.1 780.1 46.3 ................ ................ 1,745 

Dall’s porpoise ........................... X ................ 0.033 0.164 79.9 58.8 3.4 ................ ................ 143 

Northern fur seal (EP—winter) 4 X ................ 0.075 0.377 18.2 ................ ................ ................ ................ 19 

Northern fur seal (EP—summer) ....................................... X ................ 0.215 1.075 473.6 386.6 ................ ................ ................ 861 

Steller sea lion (eastern) ........... X ................ 0.000 0.001 0.2 0.2 ................ ................ ................ 1 

Steller sea lion (western) .......... X ................ 0.012 0.060 29.1 21.4 ................ ................ ................ 51 

Bearded seal ............................. X ................ 0.394 1.968 961.5 707.4 ................ ................ ................ 1,669 

Harbor seal (Aleutian Islands) .. X ................ 0.003 0.014 5.9 5.0 ................ ................ ................ 11 

Harbor seal (Pribilof Islands) .... X ................ 0.000 0.001 0.2 0.2 ................ ................ ................ 1 

Harbor seal (Bristol Bay) ........... X ................ 0.015 0.072 29.5 25.1 ................ ................ ................ 55 

Spotted seal .............................. X ................ 0.601 3.006 1,125.1 827.8 ................ ................ ................ 1,953 

Ringed seal ............................... X ................ 0.349 1.746 853.3 627.7 ................ ................ ................ 1,481 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37680 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 11—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE BSAIRA—Continued 

Species Shallow Deep 

Area density 

(animals/ 

km2) 1

Volumetric 

density 

(animals/ 

km3) 2

Estimated level B harassment, 

0–200 m 

Estimated level B 

harassment, >200 m Total 

EK60 ES60 7111 EK60 ES60 

Ribbon seal ............................... X ................ 0.241 1.204 450.5 331.4 ................ ................ ................ 782 

1Sources and derivation of marine mammal density information are provided in Table 6–10d of AFSC’s application. 

2Volumetric density estimates derived by dividing area density estimates by 0.2 km (for shallow species) or 0.5 km (for deep species), corresponding with defined 

depth strata. 3Acoustic sources considered in this analysis are not used in areas of Bristol Bay where beluga whales may occur. 

4The ES60 is not used during winter in BSAIRA. 

TABLE 12—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE CSBSRA 

Species Shallow Deep 

Area density 

(animals/ 

km2) 1

Volumetric 

density 

(animals/ 

km3) 2

Estimated 

level B 

harassment, 

0–200 m Total 

ES60 

Bowhead whale ........................................................ X ................ 2.270 11.350 ........................ 0 

Gray whale ............................................................... X ................ 0.010 0.050 ........................ 0 

Humpback whale (CNP) .......................................... X ................ 0.000 0.001 ........................ 0 

Humpback whale (WNP) ......................................... X ................ 0.000 0.000 ........................ 0 

Minke whale ............................................................. X ................ 0.000 0.001 ........................ 0

Fin whale .................................................................. X ................ 0.000 0.001 ........................ 0 

Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea) ................................... X ................ 0.008 0.040 3.0 3 

Beluga whale (eastern Chukchi Sea) ...................... X ................ 0.008 0.040 3.0 3 

Killer whale (GOA/BSAI transient) ........................... X ................ 0.000 0.000 0.003 1 

Harbor porpoise (Bering Sea) .................................. X ................ 0.000 0.001 0.03 1 

Bearded seal ............................................................ X ................ 0.175 0.875 58.0 58 

Spotted seal ............................................................. X ................ 0.460 2.302 152.5 153 

Ringed seal .............................................................. X ................ 1.765 8.825 584.6 585 

Ribbon seal .............................................................. X ................ 0.184 0.922 75 62 

1Sources and derivation of marine mammal density information are provided in Table 6–10d of AFSC’s application. 

2Volumetric density estimates derived by dividing area density estimates by 0.2 km. 

Estimated Take Due to Physical 

Disturbance 

Take due to physical disturbance 

could potentially happen, as it is likely 

that some pinnipeds will move or flush 

from known haul-outs into the water in 

response to the presence or sound of 

AFSC vessels or researchers. Such 

events could occur as a result of 

unintentional approach during survey 

activity, in the GOARA or BSAIRA only. 

Physical disturbance would result in no 

greater than Level B harassment. 

Behavioral responses may be considered 

according to the scale shown in Table 

13 and based on the method developed 

by Mortenson (1996). We consider 

responses corresponding to Levels 2–3 

to constitute Level B harassment. 

TABLE 13—PINNIPED RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE

Level Type of 

response Definition 

1 .............. Alert ............... Seal head orientation or brief movement in response to disturbance, which may include turning head towards the 

disturbance, craning head and neck while holding the body rigid in a u-shaped position, changing from a lying to 

a sitting position, or brief movement of less than twice the animal’s body length. 

2 .............. Movement ..... Movements away from the source of disturbance, ranging from short withdrawals at least twice the animal’s body 

length to longer retreats over the beach. 

3 .............. Flight ............. All retreats (flushes) to the water. 

The AFSC has estimated potential 

incidents of Level B harassment due to 

physical disturbance (Table 14) by 

considering the number of seals 

believed to potentially be present at 

affected haul-outs or rookeries and the 

number of visits within a certain 

distance of the haul-out expected to be 

made by AFSC researchers. AFSC 

compared haul-out and rookery 

locations and research survey station 

and track line locations. Analysis was 

limited to activities that occurred within 

a 5-km buffer zone from the shoreline. 

For point data, a 2-km zone around the 

point was assumed to represent the 

extent of the vessel and survey activity 

around the point. For line data 

representing the Alaska longline survey 

and the Gulf of Alaska acoustic pollock 

survey, a 0.5 nmi (0.9 km) buffer around 

the line was used to represent the 

potential interaction area. Take 

interactions where then tallied if the 

buffered line or point data from the 

research activities intersected within a 

0.5 nmi buffer zone around any 

identified rookery or haul-out. When on 

the basis of this analysis a 

‘‘disturbance’’ was assumed, the number 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37681 

of individuals expected to be present at 

the location are assumed to be 

disturbed. Number of individuals was 

determined based on count data for 

Steller sea lions and based on a density 

value multiplied by the buffered haulout area for harbor seals. AFSC does not 

believe that any research activities 

would result in physical disturbance of 

pinnipeds other than Steller sea lions or 

harbor seals. Similarly, no disturbance 

is expected of eastern Steller sea lions 

due to a lack of overlap between known 

haul-outs or rookeries and research 

activities. 

Although not all individuals on 

‘‘disturbed’’ haul-outs would 

necessarily actually be disturbed, and 

some haul-outs may experience some 

disturbance at distances greater than 

expected, we believe that this approach 

is a reasonable effort towards 

accounting for this potential source of 

disturbance. The results are likely 

overestimates, because some activities 

may only be one-time, sporadic, or 

biennial activities, but are assumed to 

happen on an annual basis. 

TABLE 14—ESTIMATED ANNUAL LEVEL B HARASSMENT OF PINNIPEDS ASSOCIATED WITH DISTURBANCE BY RESEARCHERS

Species Stock 

Estimated 

annual level B 

harassment 

Harbor seal ............................................... Clarence Strait ............................................................................................................. 28 

Dixon/Cape Decision .................................................................................................... 30 

Sitka/Chatham Strait .................................................................................................... 864 

Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage .................................................................................... 45 

Glacier Bay/Icy Strait ................................................................................................... 20 

Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait .............................................................................................. 2,554 

Prince William Sound ................................................................................................... 3,063 

South Kodiak ................................................................................................................ 3,761 

North Kodiak ................................................................................................................ 885

Bristol Bay .................................................................................................................... 132 

Pribilof Islands .............................................................................................................. 28 

Aleutian Islands ............................................................................................................ 290

Steller sea lion .......................................... Western DPS (GOARA) ............................................................................................... 3,082 

Western DPS (BSAIRA) ............................................................................................... 112 

Effects of Specified Activities on 

Subsistence Uses of Marine Mammals 

The availability of the affected marine 

mammal stocks or species for 

subsistence uses may be impacted by 

this activity. The subsistence uses that 

may be affected and the potential 

impacts of the activity on those uses are 

described in section 8 of the AFSC’s 

application. Measures included in this 

proposed rulemaking to reduce the 

impacts of the activity on subsistence 

uses are described in Appendix B of the 

AFSC’s application. For full details, 

please see those documents. Last, the 

information from this section and the 

Proposed Mitigation section is analyzed 

to determine whether the necessary 

findings may be made in the 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination section. 

Proposed Mitigation 

Under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA, NMFS must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to such activity, and other means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on such species or stock and its 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’). 

NMFS does not have a regulatory 

definition for ‘‘least practicable adverse 

impact.’’ However, NMFS’s 

implementing regulations require 

applicants for incidental take 

authorizations to include information 

about the availability and feasibility 

(economic and technological) of 

equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, we 

carefully consider two primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, implementation of the 

measure(s) is expected to reduce 

impacts to marine mammal species or 

stocks, their habitat, and their 

availability for subsistence uses. This 

analysis will consider such things as the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

(such as likelihood, scope, and range), 

the likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented, and the 

likelihood of successful 

implementation. 

(2) The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Practicability of implementation may 

consider such things as cost, impact on 

operations, personnel safety, and 

practicality of implementation. 

The following suite of mitigation 

measures and procedures, i.e., measures 

taken to monitor, avoid, or minimize the 

encounter and potential take of marine 

mammals, will be employed by the 

AFSC during research cruises and 

activities. These procedures are the 

same whether the survey is conducted 

AFSC, IPHC, or is an AFSC-supported 

survey, which may be conducted 

onboard a variety of vessels, e.g., on 

board a NOAA vessel or charter vessel. 

The procedures described are based on 

protocols used during previous research 

surveys and/or best practices developed 

for commercial fisheries using similar 

gear. The AFSC conducts a large variety 

of research operations, but only 

activities using trawl, longline, and 

gillnet gears are expected to present a 

reasonable likelihood of resulting in 

incidental take of marine mammals. 

AFSC’s past survey operations have 

resulted in marine mammal 

interactions. These protocols are 

designed to continue the past record of 

few interactions while providing 

credible, documented, and safe 

encounters with observed or captured 

animals. Mitigation procedures will be 

focused on those situations where 

mammals, in the best professional 

judgement of the vessel operator and 

Chief Scientist (CS), pose a risk of 

incidental take. In many instances, the 

AFSC will use streamlined protocols 

and training for protected species 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37682 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

developed in collaboration with the 

North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut 

Observer Program. 

The AFSC has invested significant 

time and effort in identifying 

technologies, practices, and equipment 

to minimize the impact of the proposed 

activities on marine mammal species 

and stocks and their habitat. These 

efforts have resulted in the 

consideration of many potential 

mitigation measures, including those 

the AFSC has determined to be feasible 

and has implemented in recent years as 

a standard part of sampling protocols. 

These measures include the move-on 

rule mitigation protocol (also referred to 

in the preamble as the move-on rule), 

protected species visual watches and 

use of acoustic pingers on gillnet gear 

and on surface trawls in southeast 

Alaska. 

Effective monitoring is a key step in 

implementing mitigation measures and 

is achieved through regular marine 

mammal watches. Marine mammal 

watches are a standard part of 

conducting AFSC fisheries research 

activities, particularly those activities 

that use gears that are known to or 

potentially interact with marine 

mammals. Marine mammal watches and 

monitoring occur during daylight hours 

prior to deployment of gear (e.g., trawls, 

gillnets, and longline gear), and they 

continue until gear is brought back on 

board. If marine mammals are sighted in 

the area and are considered to be at risk 

of interaction with the research gear, 

then the sampling station is either 

moved or canceled or the activity is 

suspended until the marine mammals 

are no longer in the area. On smaller 

vessels, the CS and the vessel operator 

are typically those looking for marine 

mammals and other protected species. 

When marine mammal researchers are 

on board (distinct from marine mammal 

observers dedicated to monitoring for 

potential gear interactions), they will 

record the estimated species and 

numbers of animals present and their 

behavior using protocols similar or 

adapted from the North Pacific 

Groundfish and Halibut Observer 

Program. If marine mammal researchers 

are not on board or available, then the 

CS in cooperation with the vessel 

operator will monitor for marine 

mammals and provide training as 

practical to bridge crew and other crew 

to observe and record such information. 

Because marine mammals are frequently 

observed in Alaskan waters, marine 

mammal observations may be limited to 

those animals that directly interact with 

or are near to the vessel or gear. NOAA 

vessels, chartered vessels, and affiliated 

vessels or studies are required to 

monitor interactions with marine 

mammals but are limited to reporting 

direct interactions, dead animals, or 

entangled whales. 

General Measures 

Coordination and Communication— 

When AFSC survey effort is conducted 

aboard NOAA-owned vessels, there are 

both vessel officers and crew and a 

scientific party. Vessel officers and crew 

are not composed of AFSC staff but are 

employees of NOAA’s Office of Marine 

and Aviation Operations (OMAO), 

which is responsible for the 

management and operation of NOAA 

fleet ships and aircraft and is composed 

of uniformed officers of the NOAA 

Commissioned Corps as well as 

civilians. The ship’s officers and crew 

provide mission support and assistance 

to embarked scientists, and the vessel’s 

Commanding Officer (CO) has ultimate 

responsibility for vessel and passenger 

safety and, therefore, decision authority. 

When AFSC survey effort is conducted 

aboard cooperative platforms (i.e., nonNOAA vessels), ultimate responsibility 

and decision authority again rests with 

non-AFSC personnel (i.e., vessel’s 

master or captain). Decision authority 

includes the implementation of 

mitigation measures (e.g., whether to 

stop deployment of trawl gear upon 

observation of marine mammals). The 

scientific party involved in any AFSC 

survey effort is composed, in part or 

whole, of AFSC staff and is led by a CS. 

Therefore, because the AFSC—not 

OMAO or any other entity that may 

have authority over survey platforms 

used by AFSC—is the applicant to 

whom any incidental take authorization 

issued under the authority of these 

proposed regulations would be issued, 

we require that the AFSC take all 

necessary measures to coordinate and 

communicate in advance of each 

specific survey with OMAO, or other 

relevant parties, to ensure that all 

mitigation measures and monitoring 

requirements described herein, as well 

as the specific manner of 

implementation and relevant eventcontingent decision-making processes, 

are clearly understood and agreed-upon. 

This may involve description of all 

required measures when submitting 

cruise instructions to OMAO or when 

completing contracts with external 

entities. AFSC will coordinate and 

conduct briefings at the outset of each 

survey and as necessary between ship’s 

crew (CO/master or designee(s), as 

appropriate) and scientific party in 

order to explain responsibilities, 

communication procedures, marine 

mammal monitoring protocol, and 

operational procedures. The CS will be 

responsible for coordination with the 

Officer on Deck (OOD; or equivalent on 

non-NOAA platforms) to ensure that 

requirements, procedures, and decisionmaking processes are understood and 

properly implemented. 

As described previously, for IPHC 

longline survey operations, applicable 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements would be conveyed from 

the AFSC to the IPHC via Letters of 

Acknowledgement issued by the AFSC 

pursuant to the MSA. Although IPHC 

survey effort is not conducted aboard 

NOAA platforms, the same 

communication and coordination 

requirements would apply to IPHC 

surveys. 

Vessel Speed—Vessel speed during 

active sampling rarely exceeds 5 kn, 

with typical speeds being 2–4 kn. 

Transit speeds vary from 6–14 kn but 

average 10 kn. These low vessel speeds 

minimize the potential for ship strike 

(see ‘‘Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat’’ for an in-depth discussion of 

ship strike). In addition, when research 

vessels are operating in areas and times 

where greater risk is expected due to 

marine mammal presence, e.g., Seguam 

Pass during humpback whale migration, 

additional crew are brought up to the 

bridge to monitor for whales. In such 

cases vessel captains may also reduce 

speed to improve the chances of 

observing whales and avoiding them. At 

any time during a survey or in transit, 

if a crew member or designated marine 

mammal observer standing watch sights 

marine mammals that may intersect 

with the vessel course that individual 

will immediately communicate the 

presence of marine mammals to the 

bridge for appropriate course alteration 

or speed reduction, as possible, to avoid 

incidental collisions. 

Other Gears—The AFSC deploys a 

wide variety of gear to sample the 

marine environment during all of their 

research cruises. Many of these types of 

gear (e.g., plankton nets, video camera 

and ROV deployments) are not 

considered to pose any risk to marine 

mammals and are therefore not subject 

to specific mitigation measures. 

However, at all times when the AFSC is 

conducting survey operations at sea, the 

OOD and/or CS and crew will monitor 

for any unusual circumstances that may 

arise at a sampling site and use best 

professional judgment to avoid any 

potential risks to marine mammals 

during use of all research equipment. 

Handling Procedures—Handling 

procedures are those taken to return a 

live animal to the sea or process a dead 

animal. The AFSC will implement a 

number of handling protocols to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37683 

minimize potential harm to marine 

mammals that are incidentally taken 

during the course of fisheries research 

activities. In general, protocols have 

already been prepared for use on 

commercial fishing vessels; these have 

been adapted from the North Pacific 

Fishery Observer Manual. These 

procedures are expected to increase 

post-release survival and, in general, 

following a ‘‘common sense’’ approach 

to handling captured or entangled 

marine mammals will present the best 

chance of minimizing injury to the 

animal and of decreasing risks to 

scientists and vessel crew. Handling or 

disentangling marine mammals carries 

inherent safety risks, and using best 

professional judgment and ensuring 

human safety is paramount. 

Captured live or injured marine 

mammals are released from research 

gear and returned to the water as soon 

as possible with no gear or as little gear 

remaining on the animal as possible. 

Animals are released without removing 

them from the water if possible and data 

collection is conducted in such a 

manner as not to delay release of the 

animal(s) or endanger the crew. AFSC 

staff will be instructed on how to 

identify different species; handle and 

bring marine mammals aboard a vessel; 

assess the level of consciousness; 

remove fishing gear; and return marine 

mammals to water. For further 

information regarding proposed 

handling procedures, please see section 

11.7 of AFSC’s application. 

Other Measures—AFSC scientists are 

aware of the need to prevent or 

minimize disturbance of marine 

mammals when operating vessels 

nearshore around pinniped rookeries 

and haul-outs, and other places where 

marine mammals are aggregated. 

Minimum approaches shall be not less 

than 1 km from the aggregation area. 

Trawl Survey Visual Monitoring and 

Operational Protocols 

Visual monitoring protocols, 

described above, are an integral 

component of trawl mitigation 

protocols. Observation of marine 

mammal presence and behaviors in the 

vicinity of AFSC trawl survey 

operations allows for the application of 

professional judgment in determining 

the appropriate course of action to 

minimize the incidence of marine 

mammal gear interactions. 

The OOD, CS or other designated 

member of the scientific party, and crew 

standing watch on the bridge visually 

scan surrounding waters with the naked 

eye and rangefinding binoculars (or 

monocular) for marine mammals prior 

to, during, and until all trawl operations 

are completed. Some sets may be made 

at night or other limited visibility 

conditions, when visual observation 

may be conducted using the naked eye 

and available vessel lighting with 

limited effectiveness. 

Most research vessels engaged in 

trawling will have their station in view 

for 15 minutes or 2 nmi prior to 

reaching the station, depending upon 

the sea state and weather. Many vessels 

will inspect the tow path before 

deploying the trawl gear, adding another 

15 minutes of observation time and gear 

preparation prior to deployment. 

Lookouts immediately alert the OOD 

and CS as to their best estimate of the 

species and number of animals observed 

and any observed animal’s distance, 

bearing, and direction of travel relative 

to the ship’s position. If any marine 

mammals are sighted around the vessel 

before setting gear, the vessel may be 

moved away from the animals to a 

different section of the sampling area if 

the animals appear to be at risk of 

interaction with the gear. This is what 

is referred to as the ‘‘move-on’’ rule. 

If marine mammals are observed at or 

near the station, the CS and the vessel 

operator will determine the best strategy 

to avoid potential takes based on the 

species encountered, their numbers and 

behavior, their position and vector 

relative to the vessel, and other factors. 

For instance, a whale transiting through 

the area and heading away from the 

vessel may not require any move, or 

may require only a short move from the 

initial sampling site, while a pod of 

dolphins gathered around the vessel 

may require a longer move from the 

initial sampling site or possibly 

cancellation of the station if the 

dolphins follow the vessel. After 

moving on, if marine mammals are still 

visible from the vessel and appear to be 

at risk, the CS may decide, in 

consultation with the vessel operator, to 

move again or to skip the station. In 

many cases, the survey design can 

accommodate sampling at an alternate 

site. In most cases, gear is not deployed 

if marine mammals have been sighted 

from the ship in its approach to the 

station unless those animals do not 

appear to be in danger of interactions 

with the gear, as determined by the 

judgment of the CS and vessel operator. 

The efficacy of the ‘‘move-on’’ rule is 

limited during night time or other 

periods of limited visibility; although 

operational lighting from the vessel 

illuminates the water in the immediate 

vicinity of the vessel during gear setting 

and retrieval. In these cases, it is again 

the judgment of the CS as based on 

experience and in consultation with the 

vessel operator to exercise due diligence 

and to decide on appropriate course of 

action to avoid unintentional 

interactions. 

Once the trawl net is in the water, the 

OOD, CS or other designated scientist, 

and/or crew standing watch continue to 

monitor the waters around the vessel 

and maintain a lookout for marine 

mammals as environmental conditions 

allow (as noted previously, visibility 

can be limited for various reasons). If 

marine mammals are sighted before the 

gear is fully retrieved, the most 

appropriate response to avoid incidental 

take is determined by the professional 

judgment of the OOD, in consultation 

with the CS and vessel operator as 

necessary. These judgments take into 

consideration the species, numbers, and 

behavior of the animals, the status of the 

trawl net operation (net opening, depth, 

and distance from the stern), the time it 

would take to retrieve the net, and 

safety considerations for changing speed 

or course. If marine mammals are 

sighted during haul-back operations, 

there is the potential for entanglement 

during retrieval of the net, especially 

when the trawl doors have been 

retrieved and the net is near the surface 

and no longer under tension. The risk of 

catching an animal may be reduced if 

the trawling continues and the haulback is delayed until after the marine 

mammal has lost interest in the gear or 

left the area. The appropriate course of 

action to minimize the risk of incidental 

take is determined by the professional 

judgment of the OOD, vessel operator, 

and the CS based on all situation 

variables, even if the choices 

compromise the value of the data 

collected at the station. We recognize 

that it is not possible to dictate in 

advance the exact course of action that 

the OOD or CS should take in any given 

event involving the presence of marine 

mammals in proximity to an ongoing 

trawl tow, given the sheer number of 

potential variables, combinations of 

variables that may determine the 

appropriate course of action, and the 

need to prioritize human safety in the 

operation of fishing gear at sea. 

Nevertheless, we require a full 

accounting of factors that shape both 

successful and unsuccessful decisions, 

and these details will be fed back into 

AFSC training efforts and ultimately 

help to refine the best professional 

judgment that determines the course of 

action taken in any given scenario (see 

further discussion in ‘‘Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting’’). 

If trawling operations have been 

suspended because of the presence of 

marine mammals, the vessel will 

resume trawl operations (when 

practicable) only when the animals are 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37684 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

believed to have departed the area. This 

decision is at the discretion of the OOD/ 

CS and is dependent on the situation. 

Standard survey protocols that are 

expected to lessen the likelihood of 

marine mammal interactions include 

standardized tow durations and 

distances. Standard bottom trawl tow 

durations of not more than 15–30 

minutes at the target depth will 

typically be implemented, excluding 

deployment and retrieval time, to 

reduce the likelihood of attracting and 

incidentally taking marine mammals. 

Short tow durations, and the resulting 

short tow distances (typically 1–2 nmi), 

decrease the opportunity for marine 

mammals to find the vessel and 

investigate. The scientific crew will 

avoid dumping previous catches when 

the net is being retrieved, especially 

when the net is at the surface at the 

trawl alley. This practice of dumping 

fish when the net is near the vessel may 

train marine mammals to expect food 

when the net is retrieved and may 

capture the protected species. 

In operations in areas of southeast 

Alaska deploying surface nets, several 

additional measures have been 

employed to minimize the likelihood of 

marine mammal encounters, including 

no offal discard prior to or during the 

trawling at a station, trawling of short 

duration and seldom at night, no 

trawling less than one kilometer from 

pinniped rookeries or haul-outs, and 

deployment of acoustic pingers attached 

on the trawl foot or head ropes. Pingers 

are acoustic deterrents that are intended 

to deter the presence of marine 

mammals and therefore decrease the 

probability of entanglement or 

unintended capture of marine 

mammals. 

Acoustic Deterrent Devices—Acoustic 

deterrent devices (pingers) are 

underwater sound-emitting devices that 

have been shown to decrease the 

probability of interactions with certain 

species of marine mammals when 

fishing gear is fitted with the devices. 

Multiple studies have reported large 

decreases in harbor porpoise mortality 

(approximately eighty to ninety percent) 

in bottom-set gillnets (nets composed of 

vertical panes of netting, typically set in 

a straight line and either anchored to the 

bottom or drifting) during controlled 

experiments (e.g., Kraus et al., 1997; 

Trippel et al., 1999; Gearin et al., 2000). 

Using commercial fisheries data rather 

than a controlled experiment, Palka et 

al. (2008) reported that harbor porpoise 

bycatch rates in the northeast U.S gillnet 

fishery when fishing without pingers 

was about two to three times higher 

compared to when pingers were used. 

After conducting a controlled 

experiment in a California drift gillnet 

fishery during 1996–97, Barlow and 

Cameron (2003) reported significantly 

lower bycatch rates when pingers were 

used for all cetacean species combined, 

all pinniped species combined, and 

specifically for short-beaked common 

dolphins (85 percent reduction) and 

California sea lions (69 percent 

reduction). While not a statistically 

significant result, catches of Pacific 

white-sided dolphins were reduced by 

seventy percent. Carretta et al. (2008) 

subsequently examined nine years of 

observer data from the same drift gillnet 

fishery and found that pinger use had 

eliminated beaked whale bycatch. 

Carretta and Barlow (2011) assessed the 

long-term effectiveness of pingers in 

reducing marine mammal bycatch in the 

California drift gillnet fishery by 

evaluating fishery data from 1990–2009 

(with pingers in use beginning in 1996), 

finding that bycatch rates of cetaceans 

were reduced nearly fifty percent in sets 

using a sufficient number of pingers. 

However, in contrast to the findings of 

Barlow and Cameron (2003), they report 

no significant difference in pinniped 

bycatch. 

To be effective, a pinger must emit a 

signal that is sufficiently aversive to 

deter the species of concern, which 

requires that the signal is perceived 

while also deterring investigation. In 

rare cases, aversion may be learned as 

a warning when an animal has survived 

interaction with gear fitted with pingers 

(Dawson, 1994). The mechanisms by 

which pingers work in operational 

settings are not fully understood, but 

field trials and captive studies have 

shown that sounds produced by pingers 

are aversive to harbor porpoises (e.g., 

Laake et al., 1998; Kastelein et al., 2000; 

Culik et al., 2001), and it is assumed 

that when marine mammals are deterred 

from interacting with gear fitted with 

pingers that it is because the sounds 

produced by the devices are aversive. 

Two primary concerns expressed with 

regard to pinger effectiveness in 

reducing marine mammal bycatch relate 

to habituation (i.e., marine mammals 

may become habituated to the sounds 

made by the pingers, resulting in 

increasing bycatch rates over time; 

Dawson, 1994; Cox et al., 2001; 

Carlstro ̈m et al., 2009) and the ‘‘dinner 

bell effect’’ (Dawson, 1994; Richardson 

et al., 1995), which implies that certain 

predatory marine mammal species (e.g., 

sea lions) may come to associate pingers 

with a food source (e.g., fish caught in 

nets) with the result that bycatch rates 

may be higher in nets with pingers than 

in those without. 

Palka et al. (2008) report that 

habituation has not occurred on a level 

that affects the bycatch estimate for the 

northeast U.S. gillnet fishery, while 

cautioning that the data studied do not 

provide a direct method to study 

habituation. Similarly, Carretta and 

Barlow (2011) report that habituation is 

not apparent in the California drift 

gillnet fishery, with the proportion of 

pinger-fitted sets with bycatch not 

significantly different for either 

cetaceans or pinnipeds between the 

periods 1996–2001 and 2001–09; in fact, 

bycatch rates for both taxa overall were 

lower in the latter period. We are not 

aware of any long-term behavioral 

studies investigating habituation. 

Bycatch rates of California sea lions, 

specifically, did increase during the 

latter period. However, the authors do 

not attribute the increase to pinger use 

(i.e., the ‘‘dinner bell effect’’); rather, 

they believe that continuing increases in 

population abundance for the species 

(Carretta et al., 2017) coincident with a 

decline in fishery effort are responsible 

for the increased rate of capture. Despite 

these potential limitations on the 

effectiveness of pingers, and while 

effectiveness has not been tested on 

trawl gear, we believe that the available 

evidence supports an assumption that 

use of pingers is likely to reduce the 

potential for marine mammal 

interactions with AFSC surface trawl 

gear in southeast Alaska. 

If one assumes that use of a pinger is 

effective in deterring marine mammals 

from interacting with fishing gear, one 

must therefore assume that receipt of 

the acoustic signal has a disturbance 

effect on those marine mammals (i.e., 

Level B harassment). However, Level B 

harassment that may be incurred as a 

result of AFSC use of pingers does not 

constitute take that must be authorized 

under the MMPA. The MMPA prohibits 

the taking of marine mammals by U.S. 

citizens or within the U.S. EEZ unless 

such taking is appropriately permitted 

or authorized. However, the MMPA 

provides several narrowly defined 

exemptions from this requirement (e.g., 

for Alaskan natives; for defense of self 

or others; for Good Samaritans (16 

U.S.C. 1371(b)–(d))). Section 109(h) of 

the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1379(h)) allows 

for the taking of marine mammals in a 

humane manner by Federal, state, or 

local government officials or employees 

in the course of their official duties if 

the taking is necessary for the protection 

or welfare of the mammal, the 

protection of the public health and 

welfare, or the non-lethal removal of 

nuisance animals. AFSC use of pingers 

as a deterrent device, which may cause 

Level B harassment of marine mammals, 

is intended solely for the avoidance of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37685 

potential marine mammal interactions 

with AFSC research gear (i.e., avoidance 

of Level A harassment, serious injury, or 

mortality). Therefore, use of such 

deterrent devices, and the taking that 

may result, is for the protection and 

welfare of the mammal and is covered 

explicitly under MMPA section 

109(h)(1)(A). Potential taking of marine 

mammals resulting from AFSC use of 

pingers is not discussed further in this 

document. 

As described above, pingers (10 kHz, 

132 dB, 300 ms every 4 s) would be 

deployed on surface trawl nets deployed 

in southeast Alaska. Pingers would also 

be deployed on gillnets. Please see 

‘‘Marine Mammal Hearing’’ below for 

reference to functional and best hearing 

ranges for marine mammals. 

Longline Survey Visual Monitoring and 

Operational Protocols 

Visual monitoring requirements for all 

longline surveys are similar to the 

general protocols described above for 

trawl surveys. Please see that section for 

full details of the visual monitoring 

protocol and the move-on rule 

mitigation protocol. In summary, 

requirements for longline surveys are to: 

(1) Conduct visual monitoring prior to 

arrival on station; (2) implement the 

move-on rule if marine mammals are 

observed within the area around the 

vessel and may be at risk of interacting 

with the vessel or gear; (3) deploy gear 

as soon as possible upon arrival on 

station (depending on presence of 

marine mammals); and (4) maintain 

visual monitoring effort throughout 

deployment and retrieval of the longline 

gear. As was described for trawl gear, 

the OOD, CS, or watch leader will use 

best professional judgment to minimize 

the risk to marine mammals from 

potential gear interactions during 

deployment and retrieval of gear. If 

marine mammals are detected during 

setting operations and are considered to 

be at risk, immediate retrieval or 

suspension of operations may be 

warranted. If operations have been 

suspended because of the presence of 

marine mammals, the vessel will 

resume setting (when practicable) only 

when the animals are believed to have 

departed the area. If marine mammals 

are detected during retrieval operations 

and are considered to be at risk, haulback may be postponed. These decisions 

are at the discretion of the OOD/CS and 

are dependent on the situation. 

As for trawl surveys, some standard 

survey protocols are expected to 

minimize the potential for marine 

mammal interactions. Soak times are 

typically short relative to commercial 

fishing operations, measured from the 

time the last hook is in the water to 

when the first hook is brought out of the 

water. AFSC longline protocols 

specifically prohibit chumming 

(releasing additional bait to attract target 

species to the gear). Spent bait and offal 

are discarded away from the longline 

retrieval area but not retained until 

completion of longline retrieval. Due to 

the volume of fish caught with each set 

and the length of time it takes to retrieve 

the longline (up to eight hours), the 

retention of spent bait and offal until the 

gear is completely retrieved is not 

possible. 

Whales, particularly killer whales in 

the Bering Sea and sperm whales in the 

Gulf of Alaska, are commonly attracted 

to longline fishing operations and have 

learned how to remove fish from 

longline gear as it is retrieved. Such 

depredation of fish off the longline by 

whales can significantly affect catch rate 

and species composition of data 

collected by the survey. The effect of 

depredation activity on survey results 

has been a research subject for many 

years and many aspects are therefore 

recorded as part of normal survey 

protocols, including the amount of catch 

potentially depredated (percent of 

empty hooks or damaged fish), number 

of whales visible, behavior of whales, 

whale proximity to the vessel, and any 

whale/vessel interactions. Sperm whale 

depredation can be difficult to 

determine because they can alternate 

between diving deep to depredate the 

line and swimming at the surface eating 

offal (see below). The presence of sperm 

whales at the surface does not mean 

they are actively depredating the line. 

The Alaska Longline Survey uses 

bottom longline gear with a 16-km 

mainline. Sets are made in the morning 

if no killer whales or sperm whales are 

present and the longline gear is allowed 

to soak for three hours before haul-back 

begins. Due to the length of the mainline 

and numbers of hooks involved, it takes 

up to eight hours to complete the haulback. Whales have learned to associate 

particular sounds with longline 

operations and typically arrive on scene 

as the gear is being retrieved. Efforts 

have been made to avoid depredation by 

allowing the line to sink back down but 

such strategies have proved impractical 

as whales can wait in the area for days 

and fish caught on the line are then 

eaten by other demersal marine 

organisms. The only practical way to 

minimize depredation if whales find the 

vessel is to continue retrieving the gear 

as quickly as possible. As killer whales 

may also follow the survey vessel 

between stations, the station order has 

been altered to disrupt the survey 

pattern as a means to dissuade the 

animals from this behavior and to avoid 

continued interactions. 

Gillnet Survey Visual Monitoring and 

Operational Protocols 

Visual monitoring and operational 

protocols for gillnet surveys are similar 

to those described previously for trawl 

surveys, with a focus on visual 

observation in the survey area and 

avoidance of marine mammals that may 

be at risk of interaction with survey 

vessels or gear. Gillnets are not 

deployed if marine mammals have been 

sighted on arrival at the sample site. The 

exception is for animals that, because of 

their behavior, travel vector or other 

factors, do not appear to be at risk of 

interaction with the gillnet gear. If no 

marine mammals are present, the gear is 

set and monitored continuously during 

the soak. If a marine mammal is sighted 

during the soak and appears to be at risk 

of interaction with the gear, then the 

gear is pulled immediately. As noted 

above, pingers would be deployed on 

gillnets, which are used only at the 

Little Port Walter Research Station in 

southeast Alaska and in Prince William 

Sound. 

We have carefully evaluated the 

AFSC’s proposed mitigation measures 

and considered a range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

we prescribed the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Based on our 

evaluation of these measures, we have 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

subsistence uses. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an LOA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of the 

authorized taking. NMFS’s MMPA 

implementing regulations further 

describe the information that an 

applicant should provide when 

requesting an authorization (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(13)), including the means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37686 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of significant 

interactions with marine mammal 

species in action area (e.g., animals that 

came close to the vessel, contacted the 

gear, or are otherwise rare or displaying 

unusual behavior). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or important physical 

components of marine mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

AFSC plans to make more systematic 

its training, operations, data collection, 

animal handling and sampling 

protocols, etc. in order to improve its 

ability to understand how mitigation 

measures influence interaction rates and 

ensure its research operations are 

conducted in an informed manner and 

consistent with lessons learned from 

those with experience operating these 

gears in close proximity to marine 

mammals. It is in this spirit that we 

propose the monitoring requirements 

described below. 

Visual Monitoring 

Marine mammal watches are a 

standard part of conducting fisheries 

research activities, and are implemented 

as described previously in ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation.’’ Dedicated marine mammal 

visual monitoring occurs as described 

(1) for some period prior to deployment 

of most research gear; (2) throughout 

deployment and active fishing of all 

research gears; (3) for some period prior 

to retrieval of longline gear; and (4) 

throughout retrieval of all research gear. 

This visual monitoring is performed by 

trained AFSC personnel or other trained 

crew during the monitoring period. 

Observers record the species and 

estimated number of animals present 

and their behaviors, which may be 

valuable information towards an 

understanding of whether certain 

species may be attracted to vessels or 

certain survey gears. Separately, marine 

mammal watches are conducted by 

watch-standers (those navigating the 

vessel and other crew; these will 

typically not be AFSC personnel) at all 

times when the vessel is being operated. 

The primary focus for this type of watch 

is to avoid striking marine mammals 

and to generally avoid navigational 

hazards. These watch-standers typically 

have other duties associated with 

navigation and other vessel operations 

and are not required to record or report 

to the scientific party data on marine 

mammal sightings, except when gear is 

being deployed or retrieved. 

AFSC will also monitor disturbance of 

hauled-out pinnipeds resulting from the 

presence of researchers, paying 

particular attention to the distance at 

which different species of pinniped are 

disturbed. Disturbance will be recorded 

according to the three-point scale, 

representing increasing seal response to 

disturbance, shown in Table 13. 

Training 

AFSC anticipates that additional 

information on practices to avoid 

marine mammal interactions can be 

gleaned from training sessions and more 

systematic data collection standards. 

The AFSC will conduct annual trainings 

for all chief scientists and other 

personnel who may be responsible for 

conducting marine mammal visual 

observations or handling incidentally 

captured marine mammals to explain 

mitigation measures and monitoring and 

reporting requirements, mitigation and 

monitoring protocols, marine mammal 

identification, recording of count and 

disturbance observations, completion of 

datasheets, and use of equipment. Some 

of these topics may be familiar to AFSC 

staff, who may be professional 

biologists; the AFSC shall determine the 

agenda for these trainings and ensure 

that all relevant staff have necessary 

familiarity with these topics. The AFSC 

will work with the North Pacific 

Fisheries Groundfish and Halibut 

Observer Program to customize a new 

training program. The first such training 

will include three primary elements: (1) 

An overview of the purpose and need 

for the authorization, including 

mandatory mitigation measures by gear 

and the purpose for each, and species 

that AFSC is authorized to incidentally 

take; (2) detailed descriptions of 

reporting, data collection, and sampling 

protocols; and (3) discussion of best 

professional judgment (which is 

recognized as an integral component of 

mitigation implementation; see 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’). 

The second topic will include 

instruction on how to complete new 

data collection forms such as the marine 

mammal watch log, the incidental take 

form (e.g., specific gear configuration 

and details relevant to an interaction 

with protected species), and forms used 

for species identification and biological 

sampling. 

The third topic will include use of 

professional judgment in any incidents 

of marine mammal interaction and 

instructive examples where use of best 

professional judgment was determined 

to be successful or unsuccessful. We 

recognize that many factors come into 

play regarding decision-making at sea 

and that it is not practicable to simplify 

what are inherently variable and 

complex situational decisions into rules 

that may be defined on paper. However, 

it is our intent that use of best 

professional judgment be an iterative 

process from year to year, in which any 

at-sea decision-maker (i.e., responsible 

for decisions regarding the avoidance of 

marine mammal interactions with 

survey gear through the application of 

best professional judgment) learns from 

the prior experience of all relevant 

AFSC personnel (rather than from solely 

their own experience). The outcome 

should be increased transparency in 

decision-making processes where best 

professional judgment is appropriate 

and, to the extent possible, some degree 

of standardization across common 

situations, with an ultimate goal of 

reducing marine mammal interactions. 

It is the responsibility of the AFSC to 

facilitate such exchange. 

Handling Procedures and Data 

Collection 

Improved standardization of handling 

procedures were discussed previously 

in ‘‘Proposed Mitigation.’’ In addition to 

the benefits implementing these 

protocols are believed to have on the 

animals through increased post-release 

survival, AFSC believes adopting these 

protocols for data collection will also 

increase the information on which 

‘‘serious injury’’ determinations (NMFS, 

2012a, 2012b) are based and improve 

scientific knowledge about marine 

mammals that interact with fisheries 

research gears and the factors that 

contribute to these interactions. AFSC 

personnel will be provided standard 

guidance and training regarding 

handling of marine mammals, including 

how to identify different species, bring 

an individual aboard a vessel, assess the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37687 

level of consciousness, remove fishing 

gear, return an individual to water and 

log activities pertaining to the 

interaction. 

AFSC will record interaction 

information on their own standardized 

forms. To aid in serious injury 

determinations and comply with the 

current NMFS Serious Injury Guidelines 

(NMFS, 2012a, 2012b), researchers will 

also answer a series of supplemental 

questions on the details of marine 

mammal interactions. 

Finally, for any marine mammals that 

are killed during fisheries research 

activities, scientists will collect data and 

samples pursuant to Appendix D of the 

AFSC DEA, ‘‘Protected Species 

Mitigation and Handling Procedures for 

AFSC Fisheries Research Vessels.’’ 

Reporting 

As is normally the case, AFSC will 

coordinate with the relevant stranding 

coordinators for any unusual marine 

mammal behavior and any stranding, 

beached live/dead, or floating marine 

mammals that are encountered during 

field research activities. The AFSC will 

follow a phased approach with regard to 

the cessation of its activities and/or 

reporting of such events, as described in 

the proposed regulatory texts following 

this preamble. In addition, Chief 

Scientists (or cruise leader, CS) will 

provide reports to AFSC leadership and 

to the Office of Protected Resources 

(OPR). As a result, when marine 

mammals interact with survey gear, 

whether killed or released alive, a report 

provided by the CS will fully describe 

any observations of the animals, the 

context (vessel and conditions), 

decisions made and rationale for 

decisions made in vessel and gear 

handling. The circumstances of these 

events are critical in enabling AFSC and 

OPR to better evaluate the conditions 

under which takes are most likely occur. 

We believe in the long term this will 

allow the avoidance of these types of 

events in the future. 

The AFSC will submit annual 

summary reports to OPR including: (1) 

Annual line-kilometers surveyed during 

which the EK60, ME70, ES60, 7111 (or 

equivalent sources) were predominant 

(see ‘‘Estimated Take by Acoustic 

Harassment’’ for further discussion), 

specific to each region; (2) summary 

information regarding use of all 

longline, gillnet, and trawl gear, 

including number of sets, tows, etc., 

specific to each research area and gear; 

(3) accounts of all incidents of marine 

mammal interactions, including 

circumstances of the event and 

descriptions of any mitigation 

procedures implemented or not 

implemented and why; (4) summary 

information related to any disturbance 

of pinnipeds, including event-specific 

total counts of animals present, counts 

of reactions according to the three-point 

scale shown in Table 13, and distance 

of closest approach; and (5) a written 

evaluation of the effectiveness of AFSC 

mitigation strategies in reducing the 

number of marine mammal interactions 

with survey gear, including best 

professional judgment and suggestions 

for changes to the mitigation strategies, 

if any. The period of reporting will be 

annually, beginning one year postissuance of any LOA, and the report 

must be submitted not less than ninety 

days following the end of a given year. 

Submission of this information is in 

service of an adaptive management 

framework allowing NMFS to make 

appropriate modifications to mitigation 

and/or monitoring strategies, as 

necessary, during the proposed five-year 

period of validity for these regulations. 

NMFS has established a formal 

incidental take reporting system, the 

Protected Species Incidental Take 

(PSIT) database, requiring that 

incidental takes of protected species be 

reported within 48 hours of the 

occurrence. The PSIT generates 

automated messages to NMFS 

leadership and other relevant staff, 

alerting them to the event and to the fact 

that updated information describing the 

circumstances of the event has been 

inputted to the database. The PSIT and 

CS reports represent not only valuable 

real-time reporting and information 

dissemination tools but also serve as an 

archive of information that may be 

mined in the future to study why takes 

occur by species, gear, region, etc. 

AFSC will also collect and report all 

necessary data, to the extent practicable 

given the primacy of human safety and 

the well-being of captured or entangled 

marine mammals, to facilitate serious 

injury (SI) determinations for marine 

mammals that are released alive. AFSC 

will require that the CS complete data 

forms and address supplemental 

questions, both of which have been 

developed to aid in SI determinations. 

AFSC understands the critical need to 

provide as much relevant information as 

possible about marine mammal 

interactions to inform decisions 

regarding SI determinations. In 

addition, the AFSC will perform all 

necessary reporting to ensure that any 

incidental M/SI is incorporated as 

appropriate into relevant SARs. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

Introduction—NMFS has defined 

negligible impact as an impact resulting 

from the specified activity that cannot 

be reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

by mortality, serious injury, and Level A 

or Level B harassment, we consider 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any behavioral responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

such responses (e.g., critical 

reproductive time or location, 

migration), as well as effects on habitat, 

and the likely effectiveness of 

mitigation. We also assess the number, 

intensity, and context of estimated takes 

by evaluating this information relative 

to population status. Consistent with the 

1989 preamble for NMFS’s 

implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; 

September 29, 1989), the impacts from 

other past and ongoing anthropogenic 

activities are incorporated into this 

analysis via their impacts on the 

environmental baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the regulatory status of the 

species, population size and growth rate 

where known, ongoing sources of 

human-caused mortality, and specific 

consideration of take by M/SI 

previously authorized for other NMFS 

research activities). 

We note here that the takes from 

potential gear interactions enumerated 

below could result in non-serious 

injury, but their worse potential 

outcome (mortality) is analyzed for the 

purposes of the negligible impact 

determination. We discuss here the 

connection between the mechanisms for 

authorizing incidental take under 

section 101(a)(5) for activities, such as 

AFSC’s research activities, and for 

authorizing incidental take from 

commercial fisheries. In 1988, Congress 

amended the MMPA’s provisions for 

addressing incidental take of marine 

mammals in commercial fishing 

operations. Congress directed NMFS to 

develop and recommend a new longterm regime to govern such incidental 

taking (see MMC, 1994). The need to 

develop a system suited to the unique 

circumstances of commercial fishing 

operations led NMFS to suggest a new 

conceptual means and associated 

regulatory framework. That concept, 

Potential Biological Removal (PBR), and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37688 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

a system for developing plans 

containing regulatory and voluntary 

measures to reduce incidental take for 

fisheries that exceed PBR were 

incorporated as sections 117 and 118 in 

the 1994 amendments to the MMPA. 

PBR is defined in the MMPA (16 

U.S.C. 1362(20)) as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population, and 

is a measure to be considered when 

evaluating the effects of M/SI on a 

marine mammal species or stock. 

Optimum sustainable population (OSP) 

is defined by the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 

1362(9)) as the number of animals 

which will result in the maximum 

productivity of the population or the 

species, keeping in mind the carrying 

capacity of the habitat and the health of 

the ecosystem of which they form a 

constituent element. A primary goal of 

the MMPA is to ensure that each species 

or stock of marine mammal is 

maintained at or returned to its OSP. 

PBR values are calculated by NMFS as 

the level of annual removal from a stock 

that will allow that stock to equilibrate 

within OSP at least 95 percent of the 

time, and is the product of factors 

relating to the minimum population 

estimate of the stock (Nmin); the 

productivity rate of the stock at a small 

population size; and a recovery factor. 

Determination of appropriate values for 

these three elements incorporates 

significant precaution, such that 

application of the parameter to the 

management of marine mammal stocks 

may be reasonably certain to achieve the 

goals of the MMPA. For example, 

calculation of Nmin incorporates the 

precision and variability associated with 

abundance information and is intended 

to provide reasonable assurance that the 

stock size is equal to or greater than the 

estimate (Barlow et al., 1995). In 

general, the three factors are developed 

on a stock-specific basis in 

consideration of one another in order to 

produce conservative PBR values that 

appropriately account for both 

imprecision that may be estimated as 

well as potential bias stemming from 

lack of knowledge (Wade, 1998). 

PBR can be used as a consideration of 

the effects of M/SI on a marine mammal 

stock but was applied specifically to 

work within the management 

framework for commercial fishing 

incidental take. PBR cannot be applied 

appropriately outside of the section 118 

regulatory framework for which it was 

designed without consideration of how 

it applies in section 118 and how other 

statutory management frameworks in 

the MMPA differ. PBR was not designed 

as an absolute threshold limiting 

commercial fisheries, but rather as a 

means to evaluate the relative impacts 

of those activities on marine mammal 

stocks. Even where commercial fishing 

is causing M/SI at levels that exceed 

PBR, the fishery is not suspended. 

When M/SI exceeds PBR, NMFS may 

develop a take reduction plan, usually 

with the assistance of a take reduction 

team. The take reduction plan will 

include measures to reduce and/or 

minimize the taking of marine mammals 

by commercial fisheries to a level below 

the stock’s PBR. That is, where the total 

annual human-caused M/SI exceeds 

PBR, NMFS is not required to halt 

fishing activities contributing to total 

M/SI but rather utilizes the take 

reduction process to further mitigate the 

effects of fishery activities via additional 

bycatch reduction measures. PBR is not 

used to grant or deny authorization of 

commercial fisheries that may 

incidentally take marine mammals. 

Similarly, to the extent consideration 

of PBR may be relevant to considering 

the impacts of incidental take from 

activities other than commercial 

fisheries, using it as the sole reason to 

deny incidental take authorization for 

those activities would be inconsistent 

with Congress’s intent under section 

101(a)(5) and the use of PBR under 

section 118. The standard for 

authorizing incidental take under 

section 101(a)(5) continues to be, among 

other things, whether the total taking 

will have a negligible impact on the 

species or stock. When Congress 

amended the MMPA in 1994 to add 

section 118 for commercial fishing, it 

did not alter the standards for 

authorizing non-commercial fishing 

incidental take under section 101(a)(5), 

acknowledging that negligible impact 

under section 101(a)(5) is a separate 

standard from PBR under section 118. In 

fact, in 1994 Congress also amended 

section 101(a)(5)(E) (a separate 

provision governing commercial fishing 

incidental take for species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act) to add 

compliance with the new section 118 

but kept the requirement for a negligible 

impact finding, showing that the 

determination of negligible impact and 

application of PBR may share certain 

features but are different. 

Since the introduction of PBR, NMFS 

has used the concept almost entirely 

within the context of implementing 

sections 117 and 118 and other 

commercial fisheries managementrelated provisions of the MMPA. The 

MMPA requires that PBR be estimated 

in stock assessment reports and that it 

be used in applications related to the 

management of take incidental to 

commercial fisheries (i.e., the take 

reduction planning process described in 

section 118 of the MMPA and the 

determination of whether a stock is 

‘‘strategic’’ (16 U.S.C. 1362(19))), but 

nothing in the MMPA requires the 

application of PBR outside the 

management of commercial fisheries 

interactions with marine mammals. 

Nonetheless, NMFS recognizes that as 

a quantitative metric, PBR may be useful 

in certain instances as a consideration 

when evaluating the impacts of other 

human-caused activities on marine 

mammal stocks. Outside the commercial 

fishing context, and in consideration of 

all known human-caused mortality, PBR 

can help inform the potential effects of 

M/SI caused by activities authorized 

under 101(a)(5)(A) on marine mammal 

stocks. As noted by NMFS and the 

USFWS in our implementation 

regulations for the 1986 amendments to 

the MMPA (54 FR 40341, September 29, 

1989), the Services consider many 

factors, when available, in making a 

negligible impact determination, 

including, but not limited to, the status 

of the species or stock relative to OSP 

(if known), whether the recruitment rate 

for the species or stock is increasing, 

decreasing, stable, or unknown, the size 

and distribution of the population, and 

existing impacts and environmental 

conditions. To specifically use PBR, 

along with other factors, to evaluate the 

effects of M/SI, we first calculate a 

metric for each species or stock that 

incorporates information regarding 

ongoing anthropogenic M/SI into the 

PBR value (i.e., PBR minus the total 

annual anthropogenic mortality/serious 

injury estimate), which is called 

‘‘residual PBR’’ (Wood et al., 2012). We 

then consider how the anticipated 

potential incidental M/SI from the 

activities being evaluated compares to 

residual PBR. Anticipated or potential 

M/SI that exceeds residual PBR is 

considered to have a higher likelihood 

of adversely affecting rates of 

recruitment or survival, while 

anticipated M/SI that is equal to or less 

than residual PBR has a lower 

likelihood (both examples given without 

consideration of other types of take, 

which also factor into a negligible 

impact determination). In such cases 

where the anticipated M/SI is near, at, 

or above residual PBR, consideration of 

other factors, including those outlined 

above as well as mitigation and other 

factors (positive or negative), is 

especially important to assessing 

whether the M/SI will have a negligible 

impact on the stock. As described 

above, PBR is a conservative metric and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37689 

is not intended to be used as a solid cap 

on mortality—accordingly, impacts from 

M/SI that exceed residual PBR may still 

potentially be found to be negligible in 

light of other factors that offset concern, 

especially when robust mitigation and 

adaptive management provisions are 

included. 

Alternately, for a species or stock with 

incidental M/SI less than 10 percent of 

residual PBR, we consider M/SI from 

the specified activities to represent an 

insignificant incremental increase in 

ongoing anthropogenic M/SI that alone 

(i.e., in the absence of any other take) 

cannot affect annual rates of recruitment 

and survival. In a prior incidental take 

rulemaking and in the commercial 

fishing context, this threshold is 

identified as the significance threshold, 

but it is more accurately an 

insignificance threshold outside 

commercial fishing because it represents 

the level at which there is no need to 

consider other factors in determining 

the role of M/SI in affecting rates of 

recruitment and survival. Assuming that 

any additional incidental take by 

harassment would not exceed the 

negligible impact level, the anticipated 

M/SI caused by the activities being 

evaluated would have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock. This 10 

percent was identified as a workload 

simplification consideration to avoid 

the need to provide unnecessary 

additional information when the 

conclusion is relatively obvious; but as 

described above, values above 10 

percent have no particular significance 

associated with them until and unless 

they approach residual PBR. 

Our evaluation of the M/SI for each of 

the species and stocks for which 

mortality could occur follows. In 

addition, all mortality authorized for 

some of the same species or stocks over 

the next several years pursuant to our 

final rulemakings for the NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center and 

the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center has been incorporated into the 

residual PBR. 

We first consider maximum potential 

incidental M/SI for each stock (Table 6) 

in consideration of NMFS’s threshold 

for identifying insignificant M/SI take 

(10 percent of residual PBR (69 FR 

43338; July 20, 2004)). By considering 

the maximum potential incidental M/SI 

in relation to PBR and ongoing sources 

of anthropogenic mortality, we begin 

our evaluation of whether the potential 

incremental addition of M/SI through 

AFSC research activities may affect the 

species’ or stock’s annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. We also 

consider the interaction of those 

mortalities with incidental taking of that 

species or stock by harassment pursuant 

to the specified activity. 

Summary of Estimated Incidental Take 

Here we provide a summary of the 

total proposed incidental take 

authorization on an annual basis, as 

well as other information relevant to the 

negligible impact analysis. Table 15 

shows information relevant to our 

negligible impact analysis concerning 

the total annual taking that could occur 

for each stock from NMFS’ scientific 

research activities when considering 

incidental take previously authorized 

for SWFSC (80 FR 58982; September 30, 

2015) and take proposed for 

authorization for NWFSC (81 FR 38516; 

June 13, 2016) and AFSC. Scientific 

research activities conducted by the 

SWFSC and/or NWFSC may impact the 

same populations of marine mammals 

expected to be impacted by IPHC survey 

activities occurring off of the U.S. west 

coast. We propose to authorize take by 

M/SI over the five-year period of 

validity for these proposed regulations 

as indicated in Table 15 below. For the 

purposes of the negligible impact 

analysis, we assume that all of these 

takes could potentially be in the form of 

M/SI; PBR is not appropriate for direct 

assessment of the significance of 

harassment. 

For some stocks, a range is provided 

in the ‘‘Total M/SI Authorization’’ 

columns of Table 15 (below). In these 

cases, the worst case potential outcome 

is used to derive the value presented in 

the ‘‘Estimated Maximum Annual M/SI’’ 

column (Table 15, below). For example, 

we present ranges of 13–18 and 3–8 as 

the total take authorization proposed 

over five years for the eastern Pacific 

and California stocks of northern fur 

seal, respectively. These ranges reflect 

that, as part of the overall proposed take 

authorization for AFSC, a total of five 

takes of northern fur seals are expected 

to occur as a result specifically of IPHC 

longline operations. These five takes are 

considered as potentially accruing to 

either stock; therefore, we assess the 

consequences of the proposed take 

authorization for these stocks as though 

the maximum could occur to both. The 

ten total takes expected to potentially 

occur as a result of SWFSC and/or 

NWFSC survey operations could also 

occur to individuals from either stock. 

Similarly, we assume that IPHC survey 

operations specifically could result in 

incidental take of up to five harbor seals 

over the five years, and that these takes 

could occur for any stock of harbor seal 

(but that no more than one take would 

be expected from any given stock). 

Therefore, although only five takes are 

expected from IPHC activities, we 

assume that one take accrues to each of 

the 17 harbor seal stocks that may 

overlap with the IPHC surveys. For the 

NWFSC, we assumed that nine total 

takes of harbor seal could occur over 

five years, and that these takes could 

occur to either the California or Oregon/ 

Washington coast stocks. Over five 

years, six total takes were expected to 

result from NWFSC/SWFSC survey 

operations within Washington inland 

waters—potentially occurring to any of 

the three stocks of harbor seals 

occurring in those waters. The value 

presented for ‘‘Estimated Maximum 

Annual M/SI’’ for each stock reflects 

these considerations. Similar 

considerations result in the ranges given 

for Steller sea lions (Table 15). This 

stock-specific accounting does not 

change our expectations regarding the 

combined total number of takes that 

would actually occur for each stock, but 

informs our stock-specific negligible 

impact analysis. 

We previously authorized take of 

marine mammals incidental to fisheries 

research operations conducted by the 

SWFSC (see 80 FR 58982 and 80 FR 

68512), and proposed to authorize take 

incidental to fisheries research 

operations conducted by the NWFSC 

(see 81 FR 38516). This take would 

occur to some of the same stocks for 

which we propose to authorize take 

incidental to AFSC fisheries research 

operations. Therefore, in order to 

evaluate the likely impact of the take by 

M/SI proposed for authorization in this 

rule, we consider not only other ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality but 

the potential mortality authorized or 

proposed for authorization for SWFSC/ 

NWFSC. As used in this document, 

other ongoing sources of human-caused 

(anthropogenic) mortality refers to 

estimates of realized or actual annual 

mortality reported in the SARs and does 

not include authorized or unknown 

mortality. Below, we consider the total 

taking by M/SI proposed for 

authorization for AFSC and previously 

authorized or proposed for 

authorization for SWFSC/NWFSC 

together to produce a maximum annual 

M/SI take level (including take of 

unidentified marine mammals that 

could accrue to any relevant stock) and 

compare that value to the stock’s PBR 

value, considering ongoing sources of 

anthropogenic mortality (as described in 

footnote 4 of Table 15 and in the 

following discussion). PBR and annual 

M/SI values considered in Table 15 

reflect the most recent information 

available (i.e., final 2016 SARs). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37690 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 15—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO AFSC PROPOSED ANNUAL TAKE AUTHORIZATION, 2018–23 

Species 1 Stock 

Proposed total 

annual Level B 

harassment 

authorization 2

Percent of 

estimated 

population 

abundance 

Proposed 

AFSC/IPHC 

total M/SI 

authorization, 

2018–23 3

SWFSC/ 

NWFSC total 

M/SI 

authorization 

Estimated 

maximum 

annual 

M/SI 4

PBR minus 

annual 

M/SI 

(%) 5

Stock 

trend 6

North Pacific right whale .... ENP ................................... 2 6.5 .............. 0 0 0 n/a ? 

Bowhead whale .................. Western Arctic ................... 42 0.2 .............. 0 0 0 n/a ↑ 

Gray whale ......................... ENP ................................... 5,579 26.6 ............ 0 0 0 n/a → 

Humpback whale ................ CNP ................................... 161 1.6 .............. 0 0 0 n/a ↑ 

WNP .................................. 6 0.5 .............. 0 0 0 n/a ↑ 

Minke whale ....................... Alaska ................................ 8 0.2 8 ............ 0 0 0 n/a ? 

Sei whale ............................ ENP ................................... 2 0.4 .............. 0 0 0 n/a ↑ 

Fin whale ............................ Northeast Pacific ............... 40 3.9 8 ............ 0 0 0 n/a ↑ 

Blue whale .......................... ENP ................................... 1 0.1 .............. 0 0 0 n/a → 

Sperm whale ...................... North Pacific ...................... 22 Unknown .... 2 0 0.4 ? ? 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ....... Alaska ................................ 2 Unknown .... 0 0 0 n/a ? 

Baird’s beaked whale ......... Alaska ................................ 8 Unknown .... 0 0 0 n/a ? 

Stejneger’s beaked whale .. Alaska ................................ 15 Unknown .... 0 0 0 n/a ? 

Beluga whale ...................... Beaufort Sea ...................... 3 0.0 .............. 1 0 0.2 510 (0.0) ↑ or → 

Eastern Chukchi Sea ......... 3 0.1 .............. 1 0 0.2 177 (0.1) ? 

Eastern Bering Sea ........... 939 4.9 .............. 0 0 0 n/a ? 

Bristol Bay ......................... 0 n/a .............. 0 0 0 n/a ↑ 

Cook Inlet .......................... 3 1.0 .............. 0 0 0 n/a ↓ 

Bottlenose dolphin .............. CA/OR/WA Offshore .......... 0 n/a .............. 1 11 2.8 9.4 (29.8) ? 

Common dolphin ................ CA/OR/WA ......................... 0 n/a .............. 1 15 3.6 8,353 (0.0) ↑ 

Pacific white-sided dolphin NP ...................................... 54 0.2 .............. 6 0 1.6 ? ? 

Risso’s dolphin ................... CA/OR/WA ......................... 0 n/a .............. 1 20 4.6 42.3 (10.9) ? 

Killer whale ......................... ENP Offshore .................... 67 27.9 ............ 0 0 n/a n/a ? 

West Coast Transient ........ 13 5.3 .............. 0 0 n/a n/a ↑ 

AT1 Transient .................... 2 28.6 ............ 0 0 n/a n/a ↓ 

ENP Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering 

Sea Transient.

14 2.4 .............. 0 0 n/a n/a → 

ENP Northern Resident ..... 6 2.3 .............. 0 0 n/a n/a ↑ 

ENP Alaska Resident ........ 24 1.0 .............. 2 0 0.4 23 (1.7) ↑ 

Short-finned pilot whale ...... CA/OR/WA ......................... 0 n/a .............. 1 2 0.6 3.3 (18.2) ? 

Harbor porpoise .................. Southeast Alaska ............... 358 12.4 8 .......... 1 0 0.2 ? ↓ or → 

Gulf of Alaska .................... 650 2.1 .............. 2 0 0.8 ? ? 

Bering Sea ......................... 1,746 3.6 .............. 1 0 0.4 ? ? 

Dall’s porpoise .................... CA/OR/WA ......................... 0 n/a .............. 1 8 2.2 171.7 (1.3) ? 

Alaska ................................ 5,343 6.4 .............. 14 0 3.4 ? ? 

Northern fur seal ................ Pribilof Islands/Eastern Pacific.1,576 0.3 .............. 13–18 10 7.0 11,166 (0.1) ↓ 

California ............................ 143 1.0 .............. 3–8 ........................ 4.6 449.2 (1.0) ↑ 

California sea lion ............... United States ..................... 0 n/a .............. 1 35 8.0 8,811 (0.1) ↑ 

Steller sea lion .................... Eastern U.S ....................... 914 2.2 .............. 7–12 19 7.4 2,390 (0.3) ↑ 

Western U.S ...................... 3,526 6.9 .............. 13–18 0 4.6 79 (5.8) ? 7

Bearded seal ...................... Alaska (Beringia DPS) ....... 1,727 0.6 .............. 2 0 0.8 7,819 (0.0) ? 

Harbor seal ......................... California ............................ 0 n/a .............. 1 5–14 3.6 1,598 (0.2) → 

OR/WA Coast .................... 0 n/a .............. 1 2–11 2.2 ? → 

Washington Inland Waters 0 n/a .............. 1 6 1.6 ? → 

Clarence Strait ................... 242 0.8 .............. 2 0 0.8 1,181 (0.1) ↑ 

Dixon/Cape Decision ......... 153 0.8 .............. 2 0 0.8 634 (0.1) ↑ 

Sitka/Chatham Strait .......... 965 6.5 .............. 3 0 1.0 483 (0.2) ↑ 

Lynn Canal/Stephens Passage.109 1.2 .............. 2 0 0.8 105 (0.8) ↓ 

Glacier Bay/Ice Strait ......... 69 1.0 .............. 2 0 0.8 65 (1.2) ↑ 

Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait ... 2,622 9.6 .............. 2 0 0.8 536 (0.1) ↑ 

Prince William Sound ........ 3,194 10.7 ............ 3 0 1.0 559 (0.2) ↓ 

South Kodiak ..................... 3,809 19.8 ............ 2 0 0.8 186 (0.4) ↓ 

North Kodiak ...................... 906 10.9 ............ 2 0 0.8 261 (0.3) ↑ 

Bristol Bay ......................... 187 0.6 .............. 2 0 0.8 1,040 (0.1) ↑ 

Pribilof Islands ................... 29 12.5 ............ 2 0 0.8 7 (11.4) → 

Aleutian Islands ................. 301 4.7 .............. 2 0 0.8 83 (1.0) ↑ 

Spotted seal ....................... Alaska ................................ 2,106 0.5 .............. 3 0 1.2 12,368 (0.0) ? 

Ringed seal ........................ Alaska ................................ 2,066 1.2 8 ............ 4 0 1.6 ? ? 

Ribbon seal ........................ Alaska ................................ 1,404 0.8 .............. 2 0 0.8 9,781.2 (0.0) ? 

Northern elephant seal ....... California Breeding ............ 52 0.0 .............. 1 10 2.6 4,873.2 (0.1) ↑ 

Please see Tables 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 and preceding text for details. 

1For some species with multiple stocks, indicated level of take could occur to individuals from any stock (as indicated in table). For some stocks, a range is presented. 2 Level B harassment totals include estimated take due to acoustic harassment and, for harbor seals and Steller sea lions, estimated take due to physical disturbance. Active acoustic devices are not used for data acquisition by IPHC; therefore, no takes by acoustic harassment are expected for stocks that occur entirely outside of Alaskan waters. 3As explained earlier in this document, gear interaction could result in mortality, serious injury, or Level A harassment. Because we do not have sufficient information to enable us to parse out these outcomes, we present such take as a pool. For purposes of this negligible impact analysis we assume the worst case scenario 

(that all such takes incidental to research activities result in mortality). 4This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock as a result of NMFS’s fisheries research activities and is the number carried forward for evaluation in the negligible impact analysis (later in this document). To reach this total, we add one to the total 

for each pinniped that may be captured in trawl gear in each of the three AFSC research areas; one to the total for each pinniped that may be captured in AFSC 

longline gear in the GOARA and BSAIRA; and one to the total for each pinniped that may be captured in IPHC longline gear. We also add one to the total of each 

small cetacean that may be captured in trawl gear in the GOARA and BSAIRA and one to the total of each small cetacean that may be captured in gillnet gear 

(GOARA only). This represents the potential that the take of an unidentified pinniped or small cetacean could accrue to any given stock captured in that gear in that 

area. The proposed take authorization is formulated as a five-year total; the annual average is used only for purposes of negligible impact analysis. We recognize that 

portions of an animal may not be taken in a given year. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37691 

5This value represents the calculated PBR less the average annual estimate of ongoing anthropogenic mortalities (i.e., total annual human-caused M/SI, which is 

presented in the SARs) (see Table 3). In parentheses, we provide the estimated maximum annual M/SI expressed as a percentage of this value. For some stocks, a 

minimum population abundance value (and therefore PBR) is unavailable. In these cases, the proportion of estimated population abundance represented by the Level 

B harassment total and/or the proportion of residual PBR represented by the estimated maximum annual M/SI cannot be calculated. 6See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends. Interannual increases may not be interpreted as evidence of a trend. Based on the 

most recent abundance estimates, harbor seal stocks may have reached carrying capacity and appear stable. A time series of stock-specific abundance estimates for 

harbor porpoise shows either increasing or stable estimates, but it is not statistically valid to infer a trend. 7For western Steller sea lions, it is not appropriate to identify a single trend. Using data collected through 2015, there is strong evidence that non-pup and pup 

counts increased at ∼2 percent per year between 2000 and 2015. However, there are strong regional differences across the range in Alaska, with positive trends east 

of Samalga Pass (∼170° W) in the Gulf of Alaska and eastern Bering Sea and negative trends to the west in the Aleutian Islands. For more information, please see 

Muto et al. (2017). 8 No official abundance estimate is provided for these stocks; however, we use the best available information regarding population abundance for comparison with 

the proposed total annual Level B harassment authorization. For the minke whale, surveys covering portions of the stock range provide a partial abundance estimate 

of 2,020 (CV = 0.73) + 1,233 (CV = 0.34) whales. For the fin whale, we use the minimum abundance estimate provided for a portion of the stock range (1,036 

whales). Surveys in 2010–2012 provide an abundance estimate of 398 (CV = 0.12) + 577 (CV = 0.14) harbor porpoises in southeast Alaska. However, the resulting 

total of 975 is not corrected for observer perception bias and porpoise availability at the surface, which is particularly influential for estimates of porpoise abundance. 

Therefore, we apply a previously estimated correction factor of 2.96 (Hobbs and Waite, 2010) to this estimate for a provisional abundance estimate of 2,886. For the 

ringed seal, a partial abundance estimate (that does not account for availability bias) of 170,000 seals is given. For more information, please see the relevant SARs. 

Analysis—The majority of stocks that 

may potentially be taken by M/SI (25 of 

41) fall below the insignificance 

threshold (i.e., 10 percent of residual 

PBR), while an additional 11 stocks do 

not have current PBR values and 

therefore are evaluated using other 

factors. We first consider stocks 

expected to be affected only by 

behavioral harassment and those stocks 

that fall below the insignificance 

threshold. Next, we consider those 

stocks above the insignificance 

threshold (i.e., the offshore stock of 

bottlenose dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, 

short-finned pilot whale, and the 

Pribilof Islands stock of harbor seal) and 

those without PBR values (harbor seal 

stocks along the Oregon and 

Washington coasts and in Washington 

inland waters; three stocks of harbor 

porpoise; sperm whale; Pacific whitesided dolphin; the Alaska stock of Dall’s 

porpoise; and the ringed seal). 

As described in greater depth 

previously (see ‘‘Acoustic Effects’’), we 

do not believe that AFSC use of active 

acoustic sources has the likely potential 

to cause any effect exceeding Level B 

harassment of marine mammals. We 

have produced what we believe to be 

precautionary estimates of potential 

incidents of Level B harassment. There 

is a general lack of information related 

to the specific way that these acoustic 

signals, which are generally highly 

directional and transient, interact with 

the physical environment and to a 

meaningful understanding of marine 

mammal perception of these signals and 

occurrence in the areas where AFSC 

operates. The procedure for producing 

these estimates, described in detail in 

‘‘Estimated Take Due to Acoustic 

Harassment,’’ represents NMFS’s best 

effort towards balancing the need to 

quantify the potential for occurrence of 

Level B harassment with this general 

lack of information. The sources 

considered here have moderate to high 

output frequencies, generally short ping 

durations, and are typically focused 

(highly directional) to serve their 

intended purpose of mapping specific 

objects, depths, or environmental 

features. In addition, some of these 

sources can be operated in different 

output modes (e.g., energy can be 

distributed among multiple output 

beams) that may lessen the likelihood of 

perception by and potential impacts on 

marine mammals in comparison with 

the quantitative estimates that guide our 

proposed take authorization. We also 

produced estimates of incidents of 

potential Level B harassment due to 

disturbance of hauled-out pinnipeds 

that may result from the physical 

presence of researchers; these estimates 

are combined with the estimates of 

Level B harassment that may result from 

use of active acoustic devices. 

Here, we consider authorized Level B 

take less than five percent of population 

abundance to be de minimis, while 

authorized Level B taking between 5–15 

percent is low. A moderate amount of 

authorized taking by Level B harassment 

would be from 15–25 percent, and high 

above 25 percent. Of the 49 stocks that 

may be subject to Level B harassment, 

the level of taking proposed for 

authorization would represent a de 

minimis impact for 31 stocks and a low 

impact for an additional ten stocks. We 

do not consider these impacts further 

for these 41 stocks. The level of taking 

by Level B harassment would represent 

a moderate impact on one additional 

stock, the South Kodiak stock of harbor 

seals; and, therefore, we consider these 

potential impacts in conjunction with 

the level of taking by M/SI. The annual 

taking by M/SI projected for this stock 

equates to less than one percent of 

residual PBR; therefore we do not 

consider this stock further. The total 

taking by Level B harassment represents 

a high level of impact for three stocks 

(gray whale and the offshore and AT1 

stocks of killer whale). We discuss these 

in further detail below. For an 

additional four stocks (sperm whale and 

Alaska stocks of three beaked whale 

species), there is no abundance estimate 

upon which to base a comparison. 

However, we note that the anticipated 

number of incidents of take by Level B 

harassment are very low (2–22 for these 

four stocks) and likely represent a de 

minimis impact on these stocks. 

As described previously, there is 

some minimal potential for temporary 

effects to hearing for certain marine 

mammals, but most effects would likely 

be limited to temporary behavioral 

disturbance. Effects on individuals that 

are taken by Level B harassment will 

likely be limited to reactions such as 

increased swimming speeds, increased 

surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if 

such activity were occurring), reactions 

that are considered to be of low severity 

(e.g., Ellison et al., 2012). Individuals 

may move away from the source if 

disturbed; but, because the source is 

itself moving and because of the 

directional nature of the sources 

considered here, there is unlikely to be 

even temporary displacement from areas 

of significance and any disturbance 

would be of short duration. Although 

there is no information on which to base 

any distinction between incidents of 

harassment and individuals harassed, 

the same factors, in conjunction with 

the fact that AFSC survey effort is 

widely dispersed in space and time, 

indicate that repeated exposures of the 

same individuals would be very 

unlikely. For these reasons, we do not 

consider the proposed level of take by 

acoustic disturbance to represent a 

significant additional population 

stressor when considered in context 

with the proposed level of take by 

M/SI for any species, including those for 

which no abundance estimate is 

available. 

There are no additional impacts other 

than Level B harassment expected for 

the three stocks listed above for which 

Level B harassment is expected to be at 

a relatively high level, i.e., the gray 

whale and offshore and AT1 stocks of 

killer whale (Level B harassment 

incidents equate to approximately 27, 

28, and 29 percent of the stock 

abundances, respectively). It should be 

noted that the AT1 stock of transient 

killer whales has a critically low 

population abundance of seven whales. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37692 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Although the estimate of take by Level 

B harassment is at 29 percent, this 

represents only two estimated incidents 

of temporary and insignificant 

behavioral disruption, which would not 

be expected to affect annual rates of 

recruitment or survival for the stock. We 

do not discuss these three stocks 

further. 

Similarly, disturbance of pinnipeds 

on haul-outs by researchers (expected 

for harbor seals and Steller sea lions in 

the GOARA and BSAIRA) are expected 

to be infrequent and cause only a 

temporary disturbance on the order of 

minutes. As noted previously, 

monitoring results from other activities 

involving the disturbance of pinnipeds 

and relevant studies of pinniped 

populations that experience more 

regular vessel disturbance indicate that 

individually significant or population 

level impacts are unlikely to occur. 

When considering the individual 

animals likely affected by this 

disturbance, only a small fraction of the 

estimated population abundance of the 

affected stocks would be expected to 

experience the disturbance. 

For Risso’s dolphin, short-finned pilot 

whale, and the offshore stock of 

bottlenose dolphin, maximum total 

potential M/SI due to NMFS’ fisheries 

research activity (SWFSC, NWFSC, and 

AFSC combined) is approximately 11, 

18, and 30 percent of residual PBR, 

respectively. For example, PBR for 

Risso’s dolphin is currently set at 46 

and the annual average of known 

ongoing anthropogenic M/SI is 3.7, 

yielding a residual PBR value of 42.3. 

The maximum combined annual 

average M/SI incidental to NMFS 

fisheries research activity is 4.6, or 10.9 

percent of residual PBR. The only 

known source of other anthropogenic 

mortality for these species is in 

commercial fisheries. For the Risso’s 

dolphin and offshore stock of bottlenose 

dolphin, such take is considered to be 

insignificant and approaching zero 

mortality and serious injury. This is not 

the case for the short-finned pilot whale; 

however, the annual take from fisheries 

(1.2) and from NMFS’s fisheries 

research (0.6) are both very low. There 

are no other factors that would lead us 

to believe that take by M/SI of 18 

percent of residual PBR would be 

problematic for this species. Total 

potential M/SI due to NMFS’ fisheries 

research activity is approximately 11 

percent of residual PBR for the Pribilof 

Islands stock of harbor seals. However, 

there are no other known sources of 

anthropogenic M/SI for this stock or 

other known significant stressors; 

therefore, there is no indication that the 

take by M/SI of 11 percent of residual 

PBR would be problematic for this 

stock. 

PBR is unknown for harbor seals on 

the Oregon and Washington coasts and 

in Washington inland waters 

(comprised of the Hood Canal, southern 

Puget Sound, and Washington northern 

inland waters stocks). The Hood Canal, 

southern Puget Sound, and Washington 

northern inland waters stocks were 

formerly a single inland waters stock. 

Both the Oregon/Washington coast and 

Washington inland waters stocks of 

harbor seal were considered to be stable 

following the most recent abundance 

estimates (in 1999, stock abundances 

were estimated at 24,732 and 13,692, 

respectively). However, a Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife expert 

(S. Jeffries) stated an unofficial 

abundance of 32,000 harbor seals in 

Washington (Mapes, 2013). Therefore, it 

is reasonable to assume that at worst, 

the stocks have not declined since the 

last abundance estimates. Ongoing 

anthropogenic mortality is estimated at 

10.6 harbor seals per year for the coastal 

stock and 13.4 for inland waters seals; 

therefore, we reasonably assume that the 

maximum potential annual M/SI 

incidental to NMFS’ fisheries research 

activities (2.2 and 1.6, respectively) is a 

small fraction of any sustainable take 

level that might be calculated for either 

stock. 

As noted above, PBR is also 

undetermined for the sperm whale, 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, three 

stocks of harbor porpoise, Alaska stock 

of Dall’s porpoise, and the ringed seal. 

We follow a similar approach as for 

harbor seals (see above) in evaluating 

the significance of the proposed M/SI by 

describing available information 

regarding population abundance and 

other sources of anthropogenic M/SI. 

• Rice (1989) estimated that there 

were 930,000 sperm whales in the North 

Pacific following the conclusion of 

commercial whaling. However, this 

estimate included areas beyond the 

range of the U.S. North Pacific stock of 

sperm whales. Kato and Miyashita 

(1998) produced an estimate of 102,112 

(CV = 0.155) sperm whales in the 

western North Pacific. However, this 

estimate is considered to be positively 

biased, and includes whales outside of 

Alaskan waters. Commercial fishing is 

the only other source of ongoing 

anthropogenic M/SI, which is estimated 

to be 3.7 whales per year. When 

considered in conjunction with the 

maximum total annual M/SI anticipated 

as a result of NMFS fisheries research 

activities (0.4), we expect that the 

resulting total annual M/SI (4.1) is a 

small fraction of any sustainable take 

level that might be calculated for the 

stock. 

• Historically, the minimum 

population estimate for the Central 

North Pacific stock of Pacific whitesided dolphin was 26,880, based on the 

sum of abundance estimates for four 

separate survey blocks north of 45° N 

from surveys conducted during 1987– 

1990, reported in Buckland et al. (1993). 

This was considered a minimum 

estimate because the abundance of 

animals in a fifth block, which straddled 

the boundary of the two stocks for this 

species, was not included in the 

estimate for the North Pacific stock. In 

addition, much of the potential habitat 

for this stock was not surveyed between 

1987 and 1990 (Muto et al., 2017). Using 

this minimum abundance estimate in 

the PBR equation, assuming the default 

4 percent productivity rate and a 

recovery factor of 0.5 (as recommended 

for stocks of unknown status), produces 

a PBR value of 268.8. There are no other 

sources of anthropogenic M/SI for this 

stock. The maximum total annual M/SI 

anticipated as a result of NMFS fisheries 

research activities (1.6) would represent 

0.6 percent of residual PBR. 

• For the Alaska stock of Dall’s 

porpoise, no current estimate of 

minimum population abundance is 

available. However, an abundance 

estimate of 83,400 was estimated on the 

basis of data collected form 1987–1991 

(Hobbs and Lerczak, 1993). Using this 

population estimate and its associated 

CV of 0.097, the minimum abundance 

would be 76,874. Using this estimate 

with the default productivity rate and 

the recovery factor for stocks expected 

to be within the OSP level (Buckland et 

al., 1993), a PBR value of 1,537.5 may 

be calculated. Accounting for ongoing 

M/SI due to commercial fisheries, the 

maximum total annual M/SI anticipated 

as a result of NMFS fisheries research 

activities (3.4) would represent 0.2 

percent of residual PBR. 

• For the Bering Sea stock of harbor 

porpoise, a minimum abundance 

estimate of 40,039 was calculated by 

Hobbs and Waite (2010) on the basis of 

a partial abundance estimate, derived 

from 1999 aerial surveys of Bristol Bay. 

Although this estimate is formally 

considered outdated for use in 

calculating PBR values, we use it here 

in the same way as the Pacific whitesided dolphin and Dall’s porpoise, 

addressed above. As for the Pacific 

white-sided dolphin, we use the default 

productivity rate and recovery factor for 

stocks of unknown status to calculate a 

PBR value of 400.4. Accounting for 

minimal fisheries mortality, the 

maximum total annual M/SI anticipated 

as a result of NMFS fisheries research 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37693 

activities (0.4) would represent 0.1 

percent of residual PBR. 

• For the Gulf of Alaska stock of 

harbor porpoise, an minimum 

abundance estimate of 25,987 was 

calculated by Hobbs and Waite (2010) 

on the basis of an abundance estimate 

derived from 1998 aerial surveys of the 

western Gulf of Alaska. Using the 

default productivity rate and recovery 

factor for stocks of unknown status to 

calculate a PBR value of 259.9. 

Accounting for relatively significant 

ongoing fisheries mortality, the 

maximum total annual M/SI anticipated 

as a result of NMFS fisheries research 

activities (0.8) would represent 0.4 

percent of residual PBR. 

• A negatively biased minimum 

abundance estimate of 896 was 

calculated for the southeast Alaska stock 

of harbor porpoise on the basis of 2010– 

2012 aerial surveys (Muto et al., 2017). 

The estimate is negatively biased 

because it does not account for observer 

perception bias and porpoise 

availability at the surface. However, use 

of a widely accepted correction factor 

(2.96) provides a minimum abundance 

estimate of 2,652 and a corresponding 

PBR value of 26.5. This PBR value is 

less than estimated annual ongoing 

mortality due to commercial fisheries 

(34). However, the maximum total 

annual M/SI anticipated as a result of 

NMFS fisheries research activities (0.2) 

represents a minimum potential take of 

one animal over the 5-year period and 

would represent an insignificant 

incremental addition to the total annual 

M/SI (0.6 percent). 

• Although NMFS does not provide a 

formal PBR value for the ringed seal, 

Muto et al. (2017) provide a minimum 

abundance estimate of 170,000 seals in 

the U.S. sector of the Bering Sea. This 

is not considered a reliable estimate for 

the stock because it does not account for 

seals in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

However, as this is a conservative 

minimum abundance estimate, we use 

the corresponding PBR value of 5,100 

given by Muto et al. (2017). Accounting 

for minimal ongoing M/SI due to 

commercial fisheries, as well as ongoing 

subsistence harvest of ringed seals, the 

maximum total annual M/SI anticipated 

as a result of NMFS fisheries research 

activities (1.6) would represent 0.04 

percent of residual PBR. 

In summary, our negligible impact 

analysis is founded on the following 

factors: (1) The possibility of injury, 

serious injury, or mortality from the use 

of active acoustic devices may 

reasonably be considered discountable; 

(2) the anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment from the use of active 

acoustic devices and physical 

disturbance of pinnipeds consist of, at 

worst, temporary and relatively minor 

modifications in behavior; (3) the 

predicted number of incidents of 

potential mortality are at insignificant 

levels for a majority of affected stocks; 

(4) consideration of additional factors 

for Risso’s dolphin, short-finned pilot 

whale, the offshore stock of bottlenose 

dolphin, and the Pribilof Isalnds stock 

of harbor seal do not reveal cause for 

concern; (5) total maximum potential 

M/SI incidental to NMFS fisheries 

research activity for southeast Alaska 

harbor porpoise, considered in 

conjunction with other sources of 

ongoing mortality, presents only a 

minimal incremental additional to total 

M/SI; (6) available information 

regarding stocks for which no current 

PBR estimate is available indicates that 

total maximum potential M/SI is 

sustainable; and (7) the presumed 

efficacy of the planned mitigation 

measures in reducing the effects of the 

specified activity to the level of least 

practicable adverse impact. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors demonstrate that the specified 

activity will have only short-term effects 

on individuals (resulting from Level B 

harassment) and that the total level of 

taking will not impact rates of 

recruitment or survival sufficiently to 

result in population-level impacts. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, we preliminarily find that the 

total marine mammal take from the 

proposed activities will have a 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA 

for specified activities. The MMPA does 

not define small numbers and so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

Please see Table 15 for information 

relating to this small numbers analysis. 

The total amount of taking proposed for 

authorization is less than five percent 

for a majority of stocks, and the total 

amount of taking proposed for 

authorization is less than one-third of 

the stock abundance for all stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

In order to issue an LOA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that: 

(1) Is likely to reduce the availability 

of the species to a level insufficient for 

a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: 

(i) Causing the marine mammals to 

abandon or avoid hunting areas; 

(ii) Directly displacing subsistence 

users; or 

(iii) Placing physical barriers between 

the marine mammals and the 

subsistence hunters; and 

(2) Cannot be sufficiently mitigated by 

other measures to increase the 

availability of marine mammals to allow 

subsistence needs to be met. 

As described in this preamble, the 

AFSC has requested authorization of 

take incidental to fisheries research 

activities within Alaskan waters. The 

proposed activities have the potential to 

result in M/SI of marine mammals as a 

result of incidental interaction with 

research gear, and have the potential to 

result in incidental Level B harassment 

of marine mammals as a result of the 

use of active acoustic devices or because 

of the physical presence of researchers 

at locations where pinnipeds may be 

hauled out. These activities also have 

the potential to result in impacts on the 

availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses. The AFSC is aware of 

this potential and is committed to 

implementing actions to avoid or to 

minimize any such effects to Alaska 

Native subsistence communities. The 

AFSC addresses the potential for their 

proposed research activities to impact 

subsistence uses on the following 

factors: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37694 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Actions That May Cause Marine 

Mammals To Abandon or Avoid 

Hunting Areas 

Some AFSC fisheries research efforts 

use high-frequency mapping and fishfinding sonars to assess abundance and 

distribution of target stocks of fish. The 

high frequency transient sound sources 

operated by the AFSC are used for a 

wide variety of environmental and 

remote-object sensing in the marine 

environment. These acoustic sources, 

which are present on most AFSC fishery 

research vessels, include a variety of 

single, dual, and multi-beam 

echosounders, sources used to 

determine the orientation of trawl nets, 

and several current profilers. Some of 

these acoustic sources are likely to be 

audible to some marine mammal 

species. Among the marine mammals, 

most of these sources are unlikely to be 

audible to whales and most pinnipeds, 

whereas they may be detected by 

odontocete cetaceans (and particularly 

high frequency specialists such as 

harbor porpoise). There is relatively 

little direct information about 

behavioral responses of marine 

mammals, including the odontocete 

cetaceans to these devices, but the 

responses that have been measured in a 

variety of species to audible sounds 

suggest that the most likely behavioral 

responses (if any) would be localized 

short-term avoidance behavior (See 

‘‘Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and their 

Habitat’’). As a general conclusion, 

while some of the active acoustic 

sources used during AFSC fisheries 

research surveys are likely to be 

detected by some marine species 

(particularly phocid pinnipeds and 

odontocete cetaceans), the sound 

sources with potential for disturbance 

would be temporary and transient in 

any particular location as the research 

vessels move through an area. Any 

changes in marine mammal behavior in 

response to the sound sources or 

physical presence of the research vessel 

would likely involve temporary 

avoidance behavior in the vicinity of the 

research vessel and would return to 

normal after the vessel passed. Given 

the small number of research vessels 

involved and their infrequent and 

inconsistent presence in any given area 

from day to day, it is unlikely that the 

proposed activity would cause animals 

to avoid any particular area. 

Most AFSC fisheries research 

activities occur well away from land 

and, in cases where they do approach 

land, include mitigation measures to 

minimize the risk of disturbing 

pinnipeds hauled out on land. Any 

incidental disturbance of pinnipeds on 

haul-outs would likely be infrequent 

and result in temporary or short term 

changes in behavior. This sporadic and 

temporary type of disturbance is not 

likely to result in a change in use or 

abandonment of a known haul-out. 

AFSC fisheries research activities 

generally are highly transient and short 

term (e.g., several hours to a day in any 

one location) in duration and take place 

well out to sea, far from coastal or ice 

pack subsistence hunting activities. It is 

possible, albeit unlikely, for these 

fisheries research sound sources to 

interact with migratory species hunted 

for subsistence such that there could be 

short term alterations in migratory 

pathways. However, as described in the 

AFSC Communication Plan (Appendix 

B of AFSC’s application), the AFSC will 

work with subsistence users to identify 

important areas for marine mammals 

and subsistence hunters early in the 

planning process as well as in real time 

to identify the potential for overlap 

between migratory pathways, key 

hunting regions and seasons, and 

proposed fisheries research. This 

communication should lead to 

avoidance of any issues of displacement 

of marine mammals and their prey. 

Activities That May Directly Displace 

Subsistence Users 

AFSC fisheries research primarily 

utilizes ocean-going ships generally 

suited for offshore work. These vessels 

are not designed to work in or near sea 

ice where much of the subsistence 

harvest of pinnipeds occurs; thus 

research activities are most likely to 

occur outside of periods when this type 

of hunting occurs. Due to the desire to 

avoid disturbing pinnipeds hauled out 

on land, these ships largely avoid 

nearshore routes that might otherwise 

put them in the path of seal hunters. 

Bowhead whale hunts may occur near 

sea ice in the spring or in open water 

in the fall. AFSC fisheries research is 

only conducted during the open water 

season in the Arctic so there is no risk 

of potential interference with 

subsistence hunts in the spring. 

However, AFSC fisheries research 

vessels may be present in whale hunting 

areas in the fall and could potentially 

interfere with subsistence activities. The 

communications plan is designed to 

minimize the risk of any such 

interference by advance planning and 

communication between AFSC 

scientists and subsistence hunting 

organizations (e.g., Alaska Eskimo 

Whaling Commission) and real-time 

communication between AFSC research 

vessels as they approach subsistence 

areas and nearby coastal community 

contacts. The AFSC is committed to 

alter its research plans to address any 

concerns about potential interference 

and to avoid any such interference in 

the field. 

AFSC fisheries research vessels make 

port calls in established harbors and 

ports, thus reducing the chances for 

interaction with the transit of hunters to 

and from coastal villages to nearby 

hunting regions. As described in the 

Communication Plan provided as 

Appendix B of AFSC’s application, in 

those rare cases where a research vessel 

may need to anchor offshore from a 

subsistence community, AFSC 

personnel will, within the limits of 

maritime safety, direct the ship to a 

predetermined location in coordination 

with the local subsistence community 

so as to avoid interfering with those 

activities. 

Activities That May Place Physical 

Barriers (Vessels and Gear) Between the 

Marine Mammals and the Subsistence 

Hunters 

The AFSC uses a variety of towed nets 

and sampling gear to conduct its 

fisheries and ecosystem research. 

However, current operational guidelines 

designed to reduce incidental catch of 

marine mammals include measures that 

direct activities away from marine 

mammals near the research vessel 

(move-on rule). These measures will 

reduce the possibility for placing any 

barriers between subsistence hunters 

and their marine mammal prey. As 

outlined in the Communication Plan, 

AFSC will not deploy such research 

gear when subsistence hunters have 

been visually observed in the area. 

AFSC fisheries research will also 

strive to avoid working in any areas 

when migrating species are present in 

the immediate vicinity. Per the 

Communication Plan, the AFSC will 

coordinate both in advance and in real 

time with known marine mammal 

hunting communities within the 

immediate vicinity of research to avoid 

any interactions between hunting 

activity and fisheries research vessels or 

gear. 

The AFSC has provided a draft 

Communication Plan as Appendix B to 

their application, and we invite 

comment on that document. The AFSC 

is committed to conduct its proposed 

activities in ways that do not affect the 

availability of marine mammals to 

subsistence hunters. The AFSC will 

implement standard operational 

procedures and mitigation measures to 

minimize direct impacts on marine 

mammals and will work with Alaska 

Native organizations and coastal 

communities to develop effective 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37695 

communication protocols to minimize 

the risk of potential interference with 

subsistence activities. The AFSC will 

thus work to ensure that its research 

activities do not negatively impact the 

availability of marine mammals to 

Alaska Native subsistence users. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

proposed mitigation and monitoring 

measures, we have preliminarily 

determined that there will not be an 

unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from AFSC’s proposed 

activities. 

Adaptive Management 

The regulations governing the take of 

marine mammals incidental to AFSC 

fisheries research survey operations 

would contain an adaptive management 

component. The inclusion of an 

adaptive management component will 

be both valuable and necessary within 

the context of five-year regulations for 

activities that have been associated with 

marine mammal mortality. 

The reporting requirements associated 

with this proposed rule are designed to 

provide OPR with monitoring data from 

the previous year to allow consideration 

of whether any changes are appropriate. 

OPR and the AFSC will meet annually 

to discuss the monitoring reports and 

current science and whether mitigation 

or monitoring modifications are 

appropriate. The use of adaptive 

management allows OPR to consider 

new information from different sources 

to determine (with input from the AFSC 

regarding practicability) on an annual or 

biennial basis if mitigation or 

monitoring measures should be 

modified (including additions or 

deletions). Mitigation measures could be 

modified if new data suggests that such 

modifications would have a reasonable 

likelihood of reducing adverse effects to 

marine mammals and if the measures 

are practicable. 

The following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data to be 

considered through the adaptive 

management process: (1) Results from 

monitoring reports, as required by 

MMPA authorizations; (2) results from 

general marine mammal and sound 

research; and (3) any information which 

reveals that marine mammals may have 

been taken in a manner, extent, or 

number not authorized by these 

regulations or subsequent LOAs. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are multiple marine mammal 

species listed under the ESA with 

confirmed or possible occurrence in the 

proposed specified geographical regions 

(see Table 3). The proposed 

authorization of incidental take 

pursuant to the AFSC’s specified 

activity would not affect any designated 

critical habitat. OPR has initiated 

consultation with NMFS’s Alaska 

Regional Office under section 7 of the 

ESA on the promulgation of five-year 

regulations and the subsequent issuance 

of LOAs to AFSC under section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. This 

consultation will be concluded prior to 

issuing any final rule. 

Request for Information 

NMFS requests interested persons to 

submit comments, information, and 

suggestions concerning the AFSC 

request and the proposed regulations 

(see ADDRESSES). All comments will be 

reviewed and evaluated as we prepare 

final rules and make final 

determinations on whether to issue the 

requested authorizations. This notice 

and referenced documents provide all 

environmental information relating to 

our proposed action for public review. 

Classification 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established to implement Executive 

Order 12866, the Office of Management 

and Budget has determined that this 

proposed rule is not significant. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Chief Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce has certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration that this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

NMFS is the sole entity that would be 

subject to the requirements in these 

proposed regulations, and NMFS is not 

a small governmental jurisdiction, small 

organization, or small business, as 

defined by the RFA. Because of this 

certification, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required and none has 

been prepared. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a collection-of-information requirement 

subject to the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

because the applicant is a Federal 

agency. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to respond to nor shall a person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

These requirements have been approved 

by OMB under control number 0648– 

0151 and include applications for 

regulations, subsequent LOAs, and 

reports. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 219 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, 

Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seafood, Transportation. 

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 219 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 219—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 219 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Add subpart F to part 219 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart F—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center Fisheries Research 

Sec. 

219.51 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

219.52 Effective dates. 

219.53 Permissible methods of taking. 

219.54 Prohibitions. 

219.55 Mitigation requirements. 

219.56 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

219.57 Letters of Authorization. 

219.58 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

219.59–219.60 [Reserved] 

Subpart F—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center Fisheries Research 

§ 219.51 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service’s (NMFS) Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center (AFSC) and those 

persons it authorizes, including the 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) or funds to conduct 

activities on its behalf for the taking of 

marine mammals that occurs in the 

areas outlined in paragraph (b) of this 

section and that occurs incidental to 

research survey program operations. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

AFSC may be authorized in a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs 

within the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands, Chukchi Sea and 

Beaufort Sea, or is conducted by the 

IPHC in the Bering Sea and Aleutian 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37696 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Islands, Gulf of Alaska, or off the U.S. 

West Coast. 

§ 219.52 Effective dates. 

Regulations in this subpart are 

effective from [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 

FINAL RULE] through [DATE 5 YEARS 

AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE]. 

§ 219.53 Permissible methods of taking. 

Under LOAs issued pursuant to 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 219.57, 

the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter 

‘‘AFSC’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in § 219.51(b) 

by Level B harassment associated with 

use of active acoustic systems and 

physical or visual disturbance of 

hauled-out pinnipeds and by Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

associated with use of hook and line 

gear, trawl gear, and gillnet gear, 

provided the activity is in compliance 

with all terms, conditions, and 

requirements of the regulations in this 

subpart and the appropriate LOA. 

§ 219.54 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 219.51 and 

authorized by a LOA issued under 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 219.57, 

no person in connection with the 

activities described in § 219.51 may: 

(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or a LOA issued under 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 219.57; 

(b) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in such LOA; 

(c) Take any marine mammal 

specified in such LOA in any manner 

other than as specified; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in such LOA if NMFS determines such 

taking results in more than a negligible 

impact on the species or stocks of such 

marine mammal; or 

(e) Take a marine mammal specified 

in such LOA if NMFS determines such 

taking results in an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the species or stock of such 

marine mammal for taking for 

subsistence uses. 

§ 219.55 Mitigation requirements. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 219.51(a), the mitigation 

measures contained in any LOA issued 

under § 216.106 of this chapter and 

§ 219.57 must be implemented. These 

mitigation measures shall include but 

are not limited to: 

(a) General conditions: (1) AFSC shall 

convey relevant mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting requirements to the IPHC, 

as indicated in the following subparts. 

(2) AFSC shall take all necessary 

measures to coordinate and 

communicate in advance of each 

specific survey with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s (NOAA) Office of 

Marine and Aviation Operations 

(OMAO) or other relevant parties on 

non-NOAA platforms to ensure that all 

mitigation measures and monitoring 

requirements described herein, as well 

as the specific manner of 

implementation and relevant eventcontingent decision-making processes, 

are clearly understood and agreed upon. 

AFSC shall convey this requirement to 

IPHC. 

(2) AFSC shall coordinate and 

conduct briefings at the outset of each 

survey and as necessary between ship’s 

crew (Commanding Officer/master or 

designee(s), as appropriate) and 

scientific party in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

AFSC shall convey this requirement to 

IPHC. 

(3) AFSC shall coordinate as 

necessary on a daily basis during survey 

cruises with OMAO personnel or other 

relevant personnel on non-NOAA 

platforms to ensure that requirements, 

procedures, and decision-making 

processes are understood and properly 

implemented. AFSC shall convey this 

requirement to IPHC. 

(4) When deploying any type of 

sampling gear at sea, AFSC shall at all 

times monitor for any unusual 

circumstances that may arise at a 

sampling site and use best professional 

judgment to avoid any potential risks to 

marine mammals during use of all 

research equipment. AFSC shall convey 

this requirement to IPHC. 

(5) AFSC shall implement handling 

and/or disentanglement protocols as 

specified in the guidance that shall be 

provided to AFSC survey personnel. 

AFSC shall convey this requirement to 

IPHC. 

(6) AFSC shall not approach within 1 

km of locations where marine mammals 

are aggregated, including pinniped 

rookeries and haul-outs. 

(7) AFSC shall adhere to a final 

Communication Plan. In summary and 

in accordance with the Plan, AFSC 

shall: 

(i) Notify and provide potentially 

affected Alaska Native subsistence 

communities with the Communication 

Plan through a series of mailings, direct 

contacts, and planned meetings 

throughout the regions where AFSC 

fisheries research is expected to occur; 

(ii) Meet with potentially affected 

subsistence communities to discuss 

planned activities and to resolve 

potential conflicts regarding any aspects 

of either the fisheries research 

operations or the Communication Plan; 

(iii) Develop field operations plans as 

necessary, which shall address how 

researchers will consult and maintain 

communication with contacts in the 

potentially affected subsistence 

communities when in the field, 

including a list of local contacts and 

contact mechanisms, and which shall 

describe operational procedures and 

actions planned to avoid or minimize 

the risk of interactions between AFSC 

fisheries research and local subsistence 

activities; 

(iv) Schedule post-season 

informational sessions with subsistence 

contacts from the study areas to brief 

them on the outcome of the AFSC 

fisheries research and to assess 

performance of the Communication Plan 

and individual field operations or cruise 

plans in working to minimize effects to 

subsistence activities; and 

(v) Evaluate overall effectiveness of 

the Communications Plan in year four of 

any LOA issued pursuant to § 216.106 of 

this chapter and § 219.57. 

(b) Trawl survey protocols: (1) AFSC 

shall conduct trawl operations as soon 

as is practicable upon arrival at the 

sampling station. 

(2) AFSC shall initiate marine 

mammal watches (visual observation) at 

least 15 minutes prior to beginning of 

net deployment, but shall also conduct 

monitoring during any pre-set activities 

including trackline reconnaissance, CTD 

casts, and plankton or bongo net hauls. 

Marine mammal watches shall be 

conducted by scanning the surrounding 

waters with the naked eye and 

rangefinding binoculars (or monocular). 

During nighttime operations, visual 

observation shall be conducted using 

the naked eye and available vessel 

lighting. 

(3) AFSC shall implement the moveon rule mitigation protocol, as described 

in this paragraph. If one or more marine 

mammals are observed and are 

considered at risk of interacting with the 

vessel or research gear, or appear to be 

approaching the vessel and are 

considered at risk of interaction, AFSC 

shall either remain onsite or move on to 

another sampling location. If remaining 

onsite, the set shall be delayed. If the 

animals depart or appear to no longer be 

at risk of interacting with the vessel or 

gear, a further observation period shall 

be conducted. If no further observations 

are made or the animals still do not 

appear to be at risk of interaction, then 

the set may be made. If the vessel is 

moved to a different section of the 

sampling area, the move-on rule 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37697 

mitigation protocol would begin anew. 

If, after moving on, marine mammals 

remain at risk of interaction, the AFSC 

shall move again or skip the station. 

Marine mammals that are sighted shall 

be monitored to determine their 

position and movement in relation to 

the vessel to determine whether the 

move-on rule mitigation protocol should 

be implemented. AFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making these 

decisions. 

(4) AFSC shall maintain visual 

monitoring effort during the entire 

period of time that trawl gear is in the 

water (i.e., throughout gear deployment, 

fishing, and retrieval). If marine 

mammals are sighted before the gear is 

fully removed from the water, AFSC 

shall take the most appropriate action to 

avoid marine mammal interaction. 

AFSC may use best professional 

judgment in making this decision. 

(5) If trawling operations have been 

suspended because of the presence of 

marine mammals, AFSC may resume 

trawl operations when practicable only 

when the animals are believed to have 

departed the area. AFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

determination. 

(6) AFSC shall implement standard 

survey protocols to minimize potential 

for marine mammal interactions, 

including maximum tow durations at 

target depth and maximum tow 

distance, and shall carefully empty the 

trawl as quickly as possible upon 

retrieval. 

(7) Whenever surface trawl nets are 

used in southeast Alaska, AFSC must 

install and use acoustic deterrent 

devices, with two pairs of the devices 

installed near the net opening. AFSC 

must ensure that the devices are 

operating properly before deploying the 

net. 

(c) Longline survey protocols: (1) 

AFSC shall deploy longline gear as soon 

as is practicable upon arrival at the 

sampling station. AFSC shall convey 

this requirement to IPHC. 

(2) AFSC shall initiate marine 

mammal watches (visual observation) 

no less than 30 minutes (or for the 

duration of transit between set 

locations, if shorter than 30 minutes) 

prior to both deployment and retrieval 

of longline gear. Marine mammal 

watches shall be conducted by scanning 

the surrounding waters with the naked 

eye and rangefinding binoculars (or 

monocular). During nighttime 

operations, visual observation shall be 

conducted using the naked eye and 

available vessel lighting. AFSC shall 

convey this requirement to IPHC. 

(3) AFSC shall implement the moveon rule mitigation protocol, as described 

in this paragraph. If one or more marine 

mammals are observed in the vicinity of 

the planned location before gear 

deployment, and are considered at risk 

of interacting with the vessel or research 

gear, or appear to be approaching the 

vessel and are considered at risk of 

interaction, AFSC shall either remain 

onsite or move on to another sampling 

location. If remaining onsite, the set 

shall be delayed. If the animals depart 

or appear to no longer be at risk of 

interacting with the vessel or gear, a 

further observation period shall be 

conducted. If no further observations are 

made or the animals still do not appear 

to be at risk of interaction, then the set 

may be made. If the vessel is moved to 

a different section of the sampling area, 

the move-on rule mitigation protocol 

would begin anew. If, after moving on, 

marine mammals remain at risk of 

interaction, the AFSC shall move again 

or skip the station. Marine mammals 

that are sighted shall be monitored to 

determine their position and movement 

in relation to the vessel to determine 

whether the move-on rule mitigation 

protocol should be implemented. AFSC 

may use best professional judgment in 

making these decisions. AFSC shall 

convey this requirement to IPHC. 

(4) AFSC shall maintain visual 

monitoring effort during the entire 

period of gear deployment and retrieval. 

If marine mammals are sighted before 

the gear is fully deployed or retrieved, 

AFSC shall take the most appropriate 

action to avoid marine mammal 

interaction. AFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

decision. AFSC shall convey this 

requirement to IPHC. 

(5) If deployment or retrieval 

operations have been suspended 

because of the presence of marine 

mammals, AFSC may resume such 

operations when practicable only when 

the animals are believed to have 

departed the area. AFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

decision. AFSC shall convey this 

requirement to IPHC. 

(d) Gillnet survey protocols: (1) AFSC 

shall conduct gillnet operations as soon 

as is practicable upon arrival at the 

sampling station. 

(2) AFSC shall conduct marine 

mammal watches (visual observation) 

prior to beginning of net deployment. 

Marine mammal watches shall be 

conducted by scanning the surrounding 

waters with the naked eye and 

rangefinding binoculars (or monocular). 

(3) AFSC shall implement the moveon rule mitigation protocol. If one or 

more marine mammals are observed in 

the vicinity of the planned location 

before gear deployment, and are 

considered at risk of interacting with 

research gear, AFSC shall either remain 

onsite or move on to another sampling 

location. If remaining onsite, the set 

shall be delayed. If the animals depart 

or appear to no longer be at risk of 

interacting with the gear, a further 

observation period shall be conducted. 

If no further observations are made or 

the animals still do not appear to be at 

risk of interaction, then the set may be 

made. If the vessel is moved to a 

different area, the move-on rule 

mitigation protocol would begin anew. 

If, after moving on, marine mammals 

remain at risk of interaction, the AFSC 

shall move again or skip the station. 

Marine mammals that are sighted shall 

be monitored to determine their 

position and movement in relation to 

the vessel to determine whether the 

move-on rule mitigation protocol should 

be implemented. AFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making these 

decisions. 

(4) AFSC shall maintain visual 

monitoring effort during the entire 

period of time that gillnet gear is in the 

water (i.e., throughout gear deployment, 

fishing, and retrieval). If marine 

mammals are sighted before the gear is 

fully removed from the water, and 

appear to be at risk of interaction with 

the gear, AFSC shall pull the gear 

immediately. AFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

decision. 

(5) If gillnet operations have been 

suspended because of the presence of 

marine mammals, AFSC may resume 

gillnet operations when practicable only 

when the animals are believed to have 

departed the area. AFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

determination. 

(6) AFSC must install and use 

acoustic deterrent devices whenever 

gillnets are used. AFSC must ensure that 

the devices are operating properly 

before deploying the net. 

§ 219.56 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) AFSC shall designate a compliance 

coordinator who shall be responsible for 

ensuring compliance with all 

requirements of any LOA issued 

pursuant to § 216.106 of this chapter 

and § 219.57 and for preparing for any 

subsequent request(s) for incidental take 

authorization. AFSC shall convey this 

requirement to IPHC. 

(b) Visual monitoring program: (1) 

Marine mammal visual monitoring shall 

occur prior to deployment of trawl, 

longline, and gillnet gear, respectively; 

throughout deployment of gear and 

active fishing of research gears (not 

including longline soak time); prior to 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
37698 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

retrieval of longline gear; and 

throughout retrieval of all research gear. 

AFSC shall convey this requirement to 

IPHC. 

(2) Marine mammal watches shall be 

conducted by watch-standers (those 

navigating the vessel and/or other crew) 

at all times when the vessel is being 

operated. AFSC shall convey this 

requirement to IPHC. 

(c) Training: (1) AFSC must conduct 

annual training for all chief scientists 

and other personnel who may be 

responsible for conducting dedicated 

marine mammal visual observations to 

explain mitigation measures and 

monitoring and reporting requirements, 

mitigation and monitoring protocols, 

marine mammal identification, 

completion of datasheets, and use of 

equipment. AFSC may determine the 

agenda for these trainings. 

(2) AFSC shall also dedicate a portion 

of training to discussion of best 

professional judgment, including use in 

any incidents of marine mammal 

interaction and instructive examples 

where use of best professional judgment 

was determined to be successful or 

unsuccessful. 

(3) AFSC shall convey these training 

requirements to IPHC. 

(d) Handling procedures and data 

collection: (1) AFSC must develop and 

implement standardized marine 

mammal handling, disentanglement, 

and data collection procedures. These 

standard procedures will be subject to 

approval by NMFS’s Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR). AFSC shall convey 

these procedures to IPHC. 

(2) When practicable, for any marine 

mammal interaction involving the 

release of a live animal, AFSC shall 

collect necessary data to facilitate a 

serious injury determination. AFSC 

shall convey this requirement to IPHC. 

(3) AFSC shall provide its relevant 

personnel with standard guidance and 

training regarding handling of marine 

mammals, including how to identify 

different species, bring an individual 

aboard a vessel, assess the level of 

consciousness, remove fishing gear, 

return an individual to water, and log 

activities pertaining to the interaction. 

AFSC shall convey this requirement to 

IPHC. 

(4) AFSC shall record such data on 

standardized forms, which will be 

subject to approval by OPR. AFSC shall 

also answer a standard series of 

supplemental questions regarding the 

details of any marine mammal 

interaction. AFSC shall convey this 

requirement to IPHC. 

(e) Reporting: (1) AFSC shall report all 

incidents of marine mammal interaction 

to NMFS’s Protected Species Incidental 

Take database, including those resulting 

from IPHC activities, within 48 hours of 

occurrence and shall provide 

supplemental information to OPR upon 

request. Information related to marine 

mammal interaction (animal captured or 

entangled in research gear) must include 

details of survey effort, full descriptions 

of any observations of the animals, the 

context (vessel and conditions), 

decisions made, and rationale for 

decisions made in vessel and gear 

handling. 

(2) Annual reporting: (i) AFSC shall 

submit an annual summary report to 

OPR not later than ninety days 

following the end of a given year. AFSC 

shall provide a final report within thirty 

days following resolution of comments 

on the draft report. 

(ii) These reports shall contain, at 

minimum, the following: 

(A) Annual line-kilometers surveyed 

during which the EK60, ME70, ES60, 

7111 (or equivalent sources) were 

predominant and associated pro-rated 

estimates of actual take; 

(B) Summary information regarding 

use of all longline, gillnet, and trawl 

gear, including number of sets, tows, 

etc., specific to each gear; 

(C) Accounts of all incidents of 

significant marine mammal interactions, 

including circumstances of the event 

and descriptions of any mitigation 

procedures implemented or not 

implemented and why; 

(D) A written evaluation of the 

effectiveness of AFSC mitigation 

strategies in reducing the number of 

marine mammal interactions with 

survey gear, including best professional 

judgment and suggestions for changes to 

the mitigation strategies, if any; 

(E) Final outcome of serious injury 

determinations for all incidents of 

marine mammal interactions where the 

animal(s) were released alive; and 

(F) A summary of all relevant training 

provided by AFSC and any coordination 

with NMFS’ Alaska Regional Office. 

(3) AFSC shall convey these reporting 

requirements to IPHC and shall provide 

IPHC reports to OPR subject to the same 

schedule. 

(f) Reporting of injured or dead 

marine mammals: 

(1) In the unanticipated event that the 

activity defined in § 219.51(a) of this 

chapter clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a prohibited manner, 

AFSC personnel engaged in the research 

activity shall immediately cease such 

activity until such time as an 

appropriate decision regarding activity 

continuation can be made by the AFSC 

Director (or designee). The incident 

must be reported immediately to OPR 

and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS. OPR will review 

the circumstances of the prohibited take 

and work with AFSC to determine what 

measures are necessary to minimize the 

likelihood of further prohibited take and 

ensure MMPA compliance. The 

immediate decision made by AFSC 

regarding continuation of the specified 

activity is subject to OPR concurrence. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

(ii) Description of the incident; 

(iii) Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility); 

(iv) Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(v) Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(vi) Status of all sound source use in 

the 24 hours preceding the incident; 

(vii) Water depth; 

(viii) Fate of the animal(s); and 

(ix) Photographs or video footage of 

the animal(s). 

(2) In the event that AFSC discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal and 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

relatively recent (e.g., in less than a 

moderate state of decomposition), AFSC 

shall immediately report the incident to 

OPR and the Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, NMFS. The report must 

include the information identified in 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section. 

Activities may continue while OPR 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. OPR will work with AFSC to 

determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

(3) In the event that AFSC discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal and 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

activities defined in § 219.51(a) of this 

chapter (e.g., previously wounded 

animal, carcass with moderate to 

advanced decomposition, scavenger 

damage), AFSC shall report the incident 

to OPR and the Alaska Regional 

Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, within 

24 hours of the discovery. AFSC shall 

provide photographs or video footage or 

other documentation of the stranded 

animal sighting to OPR. 

(4) AFSC shall convey these 

requirements to IPHC. 

§ 219.57 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

AFSC must apply for and obtain an 

LOA. 

(b) An LOA, unless suspended or 

revoked, may be effective for a period of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Proposed Rules 37699 

time not to exceed the expiration date 

of these regulations. 

(c) If an LOA expires prior to the 

expiration date of these regulations, 

AFSC may apply for and obtain a 

renewal of the LOA. 

(d) In the event of projected changes 

to the activity or to mitigation and 

monitoring measures required by an 

LOA, AFSC must apply for and obtain 

a modification of the LOA as described 

in § 219.58. 

(e) The LOA shall set forth: 

(1) Permissible methods of incidental 

taking; 

(2) Means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact (i.e., 

mitigation) on the species, its habitat, 

and on the availability of the species for 

subsistence uses; and 

(3) Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(f) Issuance of the LOA shall be based 

on a determination that the level of 

taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations. 

(g) Notice of issuance or denial of an 

LOA shall be published in the Federal 

Register within thirty days of a 

determination. 

§ 219.58 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of 

this chapter and § 219.57 for the activity 

identified in § 219.51(a) shall be 

renewed or modified upon request by 

the applicant, provided that: 

(1) The proposed specified activity 

and mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures, as well as the 

anticipated impacts, are the same as 

those described and analyzed for these 

regulations (excluding changes made 

pursuant to the adaptive management 

provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section), and 

(2) OPR determines that the 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures required by the previous LOA 

under these regulations were 

implemented. 

(b) For an LOA modification or 

renewal requests by the applicant that 

include changes to the activity or the 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

(excluding changes made pursuant to 

the adaptive management provision in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do 

not change the findings made for the 

regulations or result in no more than a 

minor change in the total estimated 

number of takes (or distribution by 

species or years), OPR may publish a 

notice of proposed LOA in the Federal 

Register, including the associated 

analysis of the change, and solicit 

public comment before issuing the LOA. 

(c) An LOA issued under § 216.106 of 

this chapter and § 219.57 for the activity 

identified in § 219.51(a) may be 

modified by OPR under the following 

circumstances: 

(1) Adaptive Management—OPR may 

modify (including augment) the existing 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures (after consulting with AFSC 

regarding the practicability of the 

modifications) if doing so creates a 

reasonable likelihood of more 

effectively accomplishing the goals of 

the mitigation and monitoring set forth 

in the preamble for these regulations. 

(i) Possible sources of data that could 

contribute to the decision to modify the 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures in an LOA: 

(A) Results from AFSC’s monitoring 

from the previous year(s). 

(B) Results from other marine 

mammal and/or sound research or 

studies. 

(C) Any information that reveals 

marine mammals may have been taken 

in a manner, extent or number not 

authorized by these regulations or 

subsequent LOAs. 

(ii) If, through adaptive management, 

the modifications to the mitigation, 

monitoring, or reporting measures are 

substantial, OPR will publish a notice of 

proposed LOA in the Federal Register 

and solicit public comment. 

(2) Emergencies—If OPR determines 

that an emergency exists that poses a 

significant risk to the well-being of the 

species or stocks of marine mammals 

specified in LOAs issued pursuant to 

§ 216.106 of this chapter and § 219.57, 

an LOA may be modified without prior 

notice or opportunity for public 

comment. Notice would be published in 

the Federal Register within thirty days 

of the action. 

§ § 219.59–219.60 [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2018–16114 Filed 7–31–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2