8166 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 219 

[Docket No. 121102600–5093–01] 

RIN 0648–BB87 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center Fisheries Research 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS’ Office of Protected 

Resources has received a request from 

NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center (SWFSC) 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, specific to each geographical 

region, and requests comments on the 

proposed regulations. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than March 16, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2015–0026, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov, enter 0648–BB87 

in the ‘‘Search’’ box, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the 

required fields, and enter or attach your 

comments. 

• Mail: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word or Excel or Adobe PDF file 

formats only. To help NMFS process 

and review comments more efficiently, 

please use only one method to submit 

comments. All comments received are a 

part of the public record and will 

generally be posted on 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter N/A in the 

required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

A copy of SWFSC’s application and 

any supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained by visiting 

the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental/research.htm. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Executive Summary 

These proposed regulations, under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), establish 

frameworks for authorizing the take of 

marine mammals incidental to the 

SWFSC’s fisheries research activities in 

three separate specified geographical 

regions (i.e., the California Current 

Ecosystem, the Eastern Tropical Pacific, 

and the Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources Ecosystem). 

The SWFSC collects a wide array of 

information necessary to evaluate the 

status of exploited fishery resources and 

the marine environment. SWFSC 

scientists conduct fishery-independent 

research onboard NOAA-owned and 

operated vessels or on chartered vessels. 

A few surveys are conducted onboard 

commercial fishing vessels, but the 

SWFSC designs and executes the 

studies and funds vessel time. 

Purpose and Need for This Regulatory 

Action 

We received an application from the 

SWFSC requesting five-year regulations 

and authorization to take multiple 

species of marine mammals. Take 

would occur by Level B harassment 

incidental to the use of active acoustic 

devices in each of the three specified 

geographical regions, as well as by 

visual disturbance of pinnipeds in the 

Antarctic only, and by Level A 

harassment, serious injury, or mortality 

incidental to the use of fisheries 

research gear in the California Current 

and Eastern Tropical Pacific only. For 

each specified geographical region, the 

regulations would be valid from 2015 to 

2019. Please see ‘‘Background’’ below 

for definitions of harassment. 

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

directs the Secretary of Commerce to 

allow, upon request, the incidental, but 

not intentional taking of small numbers 

of marine mammals by U.S. citizens 

who engage in a specified activity (other 

than commercial fishing) within a 

specified geographical region if, after 

notice and public comment, the agency 

makes certain findings and issues 

regulations. These proposed regulations 

would contain mitigation, monitoring, 

and reporting requirements. 

Legal Authority for the Regulatory 

Action 

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

the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 216, subpart I provide the legal 

basis for issuing the five-year 

regulations and any subsequent Letters 

of Authorization. 

Summary of Major Provisions Within 

the Proposed Regulations 

The following provides a summary of 

some of the major provisions within 

these proposed rulemakings for the 

SWFSC fisheries research activities in 

the three specified geographical regions. 

We have preliminarily determined that 

the SWFSC’s adherence to the proposed 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures listed below would achieve 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

the affected marine mammals. They 

include: 

• Required monitoring of the 

sampling areas to detect the presence of 

marine mammals before deployment of 

pelagic trawl nets or pelagic longline 

gear. 

• Required use of marine mammal 

excluder devices on one type of pelagic 

trawl net and required use of acoustic 

deterrent devices on all pelagic trawl 

nets. 

• Required implementation of the 

mitigation strategy known as the ‘‘moveon rule,’’ which incorporates best 

professional judgment, when necessary 

during pelagic trawl and pelagic 

longline operations. 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8167 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On April 25, 2013, we received an 

adequate and complete request from 

SWFSC for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to fisheries 

research activities. We received an 

initial draft of the request on February 

11, 2012, followed by revised drafts on 

June 29 and December 21, 2012. On May 

2, 2013 (78 FR 25703), we published a 

notice of receipt of SWFSC’s application 

in the Federal Register, requesting 

comments and information related to 

the SWFSC request for thirty days. We 

received comments from the Marine 

Mammal Commission, which we 

considered in development of this 

proposed rule and which are available 

on the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. 

SWFSC proposes to conduct fisheries 

research using pelagic trawl gear used at 

various levels in the water column, 

pelagic longlines with multiple hooks, 

bottom-contact trawls, and other gear. If 

a marine mammal interacts with gear 

deployed by SWFSC, the outcome could 

potentially be Level A harassment, 

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

likely result in mortality), or mortality. 

However, there is not sufficient 

information upon which to base a 

prediction of what the outcome may be 

for any particular interaction. Therefore, 

SWFSC has pooled the estimated 

number of incidents of take resulting 

from gear interactions, and we have 

assessed the potential impacts 

accordingly. SWFSC also uses various 

active acoustic devices in the conduct of 

fisheries research, and use of these 

devices has the potential to result in 

Level B harassment of marine mammals. 

Level B harassment of pinnipeds hauled 

out on ice may also occur, in the 

Antarctic only, as a result of visual 

disturbance from vessels conducting 

SWFSC research. The proposed 

regulations would be valid for five years 

from the date of issuance. 

The SWFSC conducts fisheries 

research surveys in the California 

Current Ecosystem (CCE), the Eastern 

Tropical Pacific (ETP), and the Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources Ecosystem 

(AMLR). As required by the MMPA, 

SWFSC’s request is considered 

separately for each specified 

geographical region. In the CCE, SWFSC 

requests authorization to take 

individuals of seventeen species by 

Level A harassment, serious injury, or 

mortality (hereafter referred to as M/SI 

+ Level A) and of 34 species by Level 

B harassment. In the ETP, SWFSC 

requests authorization to take 

individuals of eleven species by M/SI + 

Level A and of 31 species by Level B 

harassment. In the AMLR, SWFSC 

requests authorization to take 

individuals of seventeen species by 

Level B harassment. No takes by M/SI 

+ Level A are anticipated in the AMLR. 

Contents 

(1) Description of the Specified Activity 

(a) Overview 

(b) Dates and Duration 

(c) Specified Geographical Regions 

(i) California Current Ecosystem 

(ii) Eastern Tropical Pacific 

(iii) Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem 

(d) Detailed Description of Activities 

(i) Trawl Nets 

(ii) Conductivity, Temperature, and Depth 

Profilers (CTD) 

(iii) Expendable Bathythermographs (XBT) 

(iv) Other Nets 

(v) Longline 

(vi) Continuous, Underway Fish Egg 

Sampler (CUFES) 

(vii) Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) 

(viii) California Current Ecosystem 

(ix) Eastern Tropical Pacific 

(x) Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem 

(xi) Description of Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources 

(2) Proposed Mitigation 

(a) Development of Mitigation Measures 

(b) General Measures 

(i) Coordination and Communication 

(ii) Vessel Speed 

(iii) Other Gears 

(iv) Handling Procedures 

(c) Trawl Survey Visual Monitoring and 

Operational Protocols 

(i) Marine Mammal Excluder Devices 

(ii) Acoustic Deterrent Devices 

(iii) AMLR Bottom Trawl Surveys 

(d) Longline Survey Visual Monitoring and 

Operational Protocols 

(3) Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

(a) California Current Ecosystem 

(i) Take Reduction Planning 

(ii) Unusual Mortality Events (UME) 

(b) Eastern Tropical Pacific 

(c) Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem 

(4) Potential Effects of the Specified Activity 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

(a) Ship Strike 

(b) Research Gear 

(i) Trawl Nets 

(ii) Longlines 

(iii) Other Research Gear 

(c) Acoustic Effects 

(i) Marine Mammal Hearing 

(ii) Potential Effects of Underwater Sound 

1. Temporary Threshold Shift 

2. Behavioral Effects 

3. Stress Responses 

4. Auditory Masking 

(iii) Potential Effects of SWFSC Activity 

(d) Potential Effects of Visual Disturbance 

(e) Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

(i) Effects to Prey 

(ii) Acoustic Habitat 

(5) Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment, 

Serious Injury, or Mortality 

(a) Estimated Take Due to Gear Interaction 

(b) Historical Interactions 

(c) California Current Ecosystem 

(i) Midwater Trawl 

(ii) Pelagic Longline 

(d) Eastern Tropical Pacific 

(e) Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem 

(f) Estimated Take Due to Acoustic 

Harassment 

(i) Sound Source Characteristics 

(ii) Calculating Effective Line-Kilometers 

(iii) Calculating Volume of Water 

Ensonified 

(iv) Marine Mammal Densities 

(v) Using Area of Ensonification and 

Volumetric Density To Estimate 

Exposures 

(vi) California Current Ecosystem 

(vii) Eastern Tropical Pacific 

(viii) Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem 

(g) Estimated Take Due to Physical 

Disturbance, Antarctic 

(h) Summary of Estimated Incidental Take 

(6) Analyses and Preliminary Determinations 

(a) Negligible Impact Analyses 

(i) California Current Ecosystem 

(ii) Eastern Tropical Pacific 

(iii) Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem 

(b) Small Numbers Analyses 

(i) California Current Ecosystem 

(ii) Eastern Tropical Pacific 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8168 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem 

(7) Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

(a) Visual Monitoring 

(b) Acoustic Monitoring 

(c) Marine Mammal Excluder Device 

(d) Analysis of Bycatch Patterns 

(e) Training 

(f) Handling Procedures and Data 

Collection 

(g) Reporting 

(8) Adaptive Management 

(9) Impact on Availability of Affected Species 

for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

(10) Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

(11) National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

(12) Classification 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

The SWFSC collects a wide array of 

information necessary to evaluate the 

status of exploited fishery resources and 

the marine environment. SWFSC 

scientists conduct fishery-independent 

research onboard NOAA-owned and 

operated vessels or on chartered vessels. 

A few surveys are conducted onboard 

commercial fishing vessels, but the 

SWFSC designs and executes the 

studies and funds vessel time. The 

SWFSC proposes to administer and 

conduct approximately fourteen survey 

programs over the five-year period. The 

gear types used fall into several 

categories: Pelagic trawl gear used at 

various levels in the water column, 

pelagic longlines, bottom-contact trawls, 

and other gear. Only use of pelagic trawl 

and pelagic longline gears are likely to 

result in interaction with marine 

mammals. The majority of these surveys 

also use active acoustic devices. 

The federal government has a 

responsibility to conserve and protect 

living marine resources in U.S. waters 

and has also entered into a number of 

international agreements and treaties 

related to the management of living 

marine resources in international waters 

outside the United States. NOAA has 

the primary responsibility for managing 

marine fin and shellfish species and 

their habitats, with that responsibility 

delegated within NOAA to NMFS. 

In order to direct and coordinate the 

collection of scientific information 

needed to make informed fishery 

management decisions, Congress 

created six Regional Fisheries Science 

Centers, each a distinct organizational 

entity and the scientific focal point 

within NMFS for region-based federal 

fisheries-related research. This research 

is aimed at monitoring fish stock 

recruitment, abundance, survival and 

biological rates, geographic distribution 

of species and stocks, ecosystem process 

changes, and marine ecological 

research. The SWFSC is the research 

arm of NMFS in the southwest region of 

the U.S. The SWFSC conducts research 

and provides scientific advice to 

manage fisheries and conserve protected 

species in the three geographic research 

areas described below and provides 

scientific information to support the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

and numerous other domestic and 

international fisheries management 

organizations. 

Dates and Duration 

The specified activity may occur at 

any time during the five-year period of 

validity of the proposed regulations. 

Dates and duration of individual 

surveys are inherently uncertain, based 

on congressional funding levels for the 

SWFSC, weather conditions, or ship 

contingencies. In addition, the 

cooperative research program 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. SWFSC 

survey activity does occur during most 

months of the year; however, trawl 

surveys occur during May through June 

and September and longline surveys are 

completed during June-July and 

September. 

Specified Geographical Regions 

Please see Figure 1 for a map of the 

three research areas described below. In 

addition to general knowledge and other 

citations contained herein, this section 

relies upon the descriptions found in 

Sherman and Hempel (2009) and 

Wilkinson et al. (2009). As referred to 

here, productivity refers to fixated 

carbon (i.e., g C/m2/yr) and can be 

related to the carrying capacity of an 

ecosystem. 

California Current Ecosystem—The 

SWFSC conducts research surveys off 

the Pacific coast within the California 

Current Research Area (CCRA). This 

area extends outside of both the 

California Current Large Marine 

Ecosystem (LME) and the U.S. Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ), from the Mexican 

Baja Peninsula north to waters off of 

Washington (see Figure 2.1 of SWFSC’s 

application). This region is considered 

to be of moderately high productivity. 

Sea surface temperature (SST) is fairly 

consistent, ranging from 9–14 °C in 

winter and 13–15 °C in summer. Major 

biogeographic breaks are found at Point 

Conception and Cape Mendocino, and 

the region includes major estuaries such 

as San Francisco Bay, the Columbia 

River, and Puget Sound. The shelf is 

generally narrow in this region, and 

shelf-break topography (e.g., underwater 

canyons) creates localized upwelling 

conditions that concentrate nutrients 

into areas of high topographic relief. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8169 

The California Current determines the 

general hydrography off the coast of 

California. The current is part of the 

North Pacific Gyre, related to the 

anticyclonic circulation of the central 

North Pacific, and brings cool waters 

southward. In general, an area of 

divergence parallels the coast of 

California, with a zone of convergence 

200–300 km from the coastline. The 

current moves south along the western 

coast of North America, beginning off 

southern British Columbia and flowing 

southward past Washington, Oregon 

and California, before ending off 

southern Baja California (Bograd et al., 

2010). Extensive seasonal upwelling of 

colder, nutrient-rich subsurface waters 

is predominant in the area south of Cape 

Mendocino, and supports large 

populations of whales, seabirds and 

important fisheries. Significant 

interannual variation in productivity 

results from the effects of this coastal 

upwelling as well as from the El Nin ̃ oSouthern Oscillation and the Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation. Both oscillations 

involve transitions from cooler, more 

productive conditions to warmer, less 

productive conditions, but over 

different timescales. 

On the shoreward side of the 

California Current, the California 

Current Front separates cold, lowsalinity upwelled waters from the 

warmer, saltier waters close to shore. 

Offshore frontal filaments transport the 

frontal water across the entire 

ecosystem. In winter, the wind-driven 

Davidson Current is the dominant 

nearshore system, and its associated 

front forms along the boundary between 

inshore subtropical waters and colder 

offshore temperate and subarctic waters. 

Surface flow of the California Current 

appears to be diverted offshore at Point 

Conception and again at Punta Eugenia, 

while semi-permanent eddies exist 

south of these headlands. 

Eastern Tropical Pacific—The SWFSC 

conducts a separate suite of research 

surveys within the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific Research Area (ETPRA), a 

portion of the Pacific Ocean extending 

from San Diego west to Hawaii and 

south to Peru (see Figure 2.2 of 

SWFSC’s application). There is some 

overlap between the ETPRA and CCRA 

in nearshore and offshore waters of Baja 

California. The SWFSC’s ETPRA spans 

the boundaries of several LMEs, from 

the California Current LME in the north 

to the Humboldt Current LME in the 

south, and also includes a large amount 

of offshore waters outside of coastal 

LME boundaries. The eastern, coastal 

boundaries of the ETP to the north and 

south are regions of mixing, 

characterized by relatively high species 

diversity and biogeographic transition 

zones for fish and invertebrates. These 

areas transition through the furthest 

extent of influence of south- and northflowing cool currents into year-round 

tropical seas. 

Located generally within the Pacific 

Trade Wind Biome, between the 

subtropical gyres of the North and South 

Pacific, the ETP contains some of the 

most productive tropical ocean waters 

in the world. Cool, low-salinity eastern 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13FE15.003</GPH>
8170 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

boundary current waters flow into the 

ETP from the north and south via the 

California Current and Peru Current, 

respectively, while warm, high-salinity 

subtropical surface waters flow into the 

ETP after being subducted into the 

thermocline primarily in the southern 

Subtropical Convergence. As a result of 

upwelling, the surface layer has 

relatively cool temperatures, high 

salinity, and high nutrient 

concentrations along the equator, 

coastal Peru and Baja California, and at 

the Costa Rica Dome. Nutrient-rich 

thermocline waters lie close to the 

surface along the countercurrent 

thermocline ridge between the North 

Equatorial Countercurrent and the North 

Equatorial Current. Deep and bottom 

waters formed in the Antarctic and 

North Atlantic are relatively 

homogeneous in the ETP (Fiedler and 

Lavin, 2006). 

This region is considered to be of 

moderate to high productivity in coastal 

regions, as a result of equatorial 

upwelling, open ocean and coastal 

upwellings, and nutrient inputs from 

river runoff in more tropical areas, 

while the open ocean portions of the 

ETP are considered to be of low 

productivity (Longhurst et al., 1995). 

SST varies considerably, reflecting the 

region’s range across subtropical to 

tropical waters. Mean SST ranges 

around 15–18 °C during winter and 19– 

22 °C during summer at higher latitudes 

to 26–28 °C and 29.5 °C, respectively, at 

lower latitudes. 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem—The AMLR region includes 

the waters encircling Antarctica and 

coincides with the Antarctic LME, 

which is defined by the Antarctic 

Convergence (or Polar Front). The 

convergence, which separates colder 

Antarctic surface waters from the 

warmer sub-Antarctic waters to the 

north, fluctuates seasonally between 48– 

60 °C. The SWFSC’s Antarctic Research 

Area in particular is located generally 

within the Scotia Sea between South 

America and the Antarctic Peninsula 

and encompassing survey areas in the 

South Shetland Islands and South 

Orkney Islands (see Figure 2.3 of 

SWFSC’s application). Research is 

generally conducted in the extended 

area around the South Shetland and 

South Orkney archipelagos in the Scotia 

Sea, the eastern section of the 

Bellingshausen Sea (on the western side 

of the Antarctic Peninsula), and the 

northwestern section of the Weddell 

Sea. 

Cold waters flowing north from 

Antarctica mix with warm sub-Antarctic 

waters in the Antarctic Ocean. The 

Antarctic Circumpolar Current moves 

eastward around Antarctica, providing a 

partial return of water to northern ocean 

basins. There are only limited areas of 

shallow waters in the Southern Ocean, 

where the average depth is between 

4,000 and 5,000 m over most of its 

extent, although the southern Weddell 

Sea is one of the largest shelf areas 

around the Antarctic continent. 

Antarctic waters are considered of 

moderate productivity. Seasonal 

production is linked with extreme 

weather conditions and limited light 

penetration of winter ice and is strongly 

influenced by ice formation in the fall 

and melting in the spring and summer. 

Antarctic krill is the keystone species of 

the Antarctic ecosystem, providing an 

important food source for marine 

mammals, seabirds, and fishes. Mean 

SST is approximately ¥1 °C (Locarnini 

et al., 2006). 

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 U.S. EEZ (i.e., the 

high seas). To carry out its 

responsibilities over U.S. and 

international waters, Congress has 

enacted several statutes authorizing 

certain federal agencies to administer 

programs to manage and protect living 

marine resources. Among these federal 

agencies, NOAA has the primary 

responsibility for protecting marine 

finfish and shellfish species and their 

habitats. Within NOAA, NMFS has been 

delegated primary responsibility for the 

science-based management, 

conservation, and protection of living 

marine resources under statutes 

including the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (MSA), the Tuna Conventions Act, 

the Endangered Species Act, the 

International Dolphin Conservation 

Program Act, and the Antarctic Marine 

Living Resources Convention Act. 

Within NMFS, six Regional Fisheries 

Science Centers direct and coordinate 

the collection of scientific information 

needed to inform fisheries management 

decisions. Each Fisheries Science Center 

is a distinct entity and is the scientific 

focal point for a particular region. 

SWFSC conducts research and provides 

scientific advice to manage fisheries and 

conserve protected species along the 

U.S. west coast, throughout the eastern 

tropical Pacific Ocean, and in the 

Southern Ocean off Antarctica. SWFSC 

provides scientific information to 

support the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council and other domestic and 

international fisheries management 

organizations. 

The SWFSC collects a wide array of 

information necessary to evaluate the 

status of exploited fishery resources and 

the marine environment. SWFSC 

scientists conduct fishery-independent 

research onboard NOAA-owned and 

operated vessels or on chartered vessels. 

A few surveys are conducted onboard 

commercial fishing vessels, but the 

SWFSC designs and executes the 

studies and funds vessel time. The 

SWFSC proposes to administer and 

conduct approximately fourteen survey 

programs over the five-year period. 

The gear types used fall into several 

categories: Pelagic trawl gear used at 

various levels in the water column, 

pelagic longlines with multiple hooks, 

bottom-contact trawls, and other gear. 

Only pelagic trawl and pelagic longline 

gears are likely to interact with marine 

mammals. The majority of these surveys 

also use active acoustic devices. These 

surveys may be conducted aboard 

NOAA-operated research vessels (R/V), 

including the McArthur II, Bell M. 

Shimada, Miller Freeman, and Reuben 

Lasker, aboard vessels owned and 

operated by cooperating agencies and 

institutions, or aboard charter vessels. 

In the following discussion, we first 

summarily describe various gear types 

used by SWFSC and then describe 

specific fisheries and ecosystem 

research activities conducted by the 

SWFSC, separated by specified 

geographical region. This is not an 

exhaustive list of gear and/or devices 

that may be utilized by SWFSC 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 SWFSC survey activities, are 

described separately in a subsequent 

section. 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8171 

the net, called the mouth, is extended 

horizontally by large panels of wide 

mesh called wings. The mouth of the 

net is held open by hydrodynamic force 

exerted on the trawl doors attached to 

the wings of the net. As the net is towed 

through the water, the force of the water 

spreads the trawl doors horizontally 

apart. The top of a net is called the 

headrope, and the bottom is called the 

footrope. 

The trawl net is usually deployed 

over the stern of the vessel and attached 

with two cables (or warps) to winches 

on the deck of the vessel. The cables are 

played out until the net reaches the 

fishing depth. Commercial trawl vessels 

travel at speeds of 2–5 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 

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 must be 

standardized to allow meaningful 

comparisons of data collected at 

different times and locations. Active 

acoustic devices (described later) 

incorporated into the research vessel 

and the trawl gear monitor the position 

and status of the net, speed of the tow, 

and other variables important to the 

research design. Most SWFSC research 

trawling activities utilize pelagic (or 

midwater) trawls, which are designed to 

operate at various depths within the 

water column but not to contact the 

seafloor. 

1. NETS Nordic 264—Several SWFSC 

research programs utilize a Nordic 264 

two-warp rope trawl, manufactured by 

Net Systems, Inc. (Bainbridge Island, 

WA). The forward portion of this large 

two-warp rope trawl is constructed of a 

series of ropes that function to gather 

fish into the body of the net. The 

effective mouth opening of the Nordic 

264 is approximately 380 m2, spread by 

a pair of 3-m Lite trawl doors 

(Churnside et al., 2009). For surface 

trawls, used to capture fish at or near 

the surface of the water, clusters of 

polyfoam buoys are attached to each 

wing tip of the headrope and additional 

polyfoam floats are clipped onto the 

center of the headrope. Mesh sizes range 

from approximately 163 cm in the throat 

of the trawl to 9 cm in the codend 

(Churnside et al. 2009). For certain 

research activities, a liner may be sewn 

into the codend to minimize the loss of 

small fish. 

2. Modified-Cobb—A modified-Cobb 

midwater trawl net has a headrope 

length of approximately 26 m, a mouth 

of 80 m2 and uses a 0.95-cm codend 

liner to catch juvenile fish. The net is 

towed for periods of approximately 

fifteen minutes at depth at a speed of 

approximately 2–2.5 kn. The target 

headrope depth is 30 m for the vast 

majority of stations but is 10 m for some 

of the more nearshore (shallow) stations. 

There are historical and infrequently 

occupied depth-stratified stations that 

are also sampled to 100 m depth. The 

fishing depth is monitored using an 

electronic net monitoring system and is 

adjusted by varying the length of trawl 

line connecting the net to the boat. 

3. NETS Hard-Bottom Snapper 

Trawl—The lower edge of this bottom 

trawl net is normally protected by a 

thick footrope ballasted with heavy 

rubber discs or bobbins, often called 

roller gear or tire gear. Flotation devices 

attached to the headrope hold the net 

open vertically as it is towed through 

the water. Bottom trawl nets used for 

commercial purposes can be up to 100 

m wide. This net has a headrope length 

of 28 m and a footrope length of 

approximately 39 m (Stauffer, 2004). 

Please see Figure A–2 of SWFSC’s EA 

for a schematic diagram of the net. 

Conductivity, temperature, and depth 

profilers (CTD)—A CTD profiler is the 

primary research tool for determining 

chemical and physical properties of 

seawater (see Figure A–12 of SWFSC’s 

EA for a photograph). 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 and are 

plotted with the value of the variable of 

interest on the x-axis and the water 

depth on the y-axis. Depth profiles for 

different variables can be compared in 

order to glean information about 

physical, chemical, and biological 

processes occurring in the water 

column. 

Conductivity is measured as a proxy 

for salinity, which is expressed in 

practical salinity units representing the 

sum of the concentrations of several 

different ions. Temperature is generally 

measured using a high-sensitivity 

thermistor protected inside a thinwalled stainless steel tube. The 

resistance across the thermistor is 

measured as the CTD profiler is lowered 

through the water column to give a 

continuous profile of the water 

temperature at all water depths. The 

depth of the CTD sensor array is 

continuously monitored using an 

electronic pressure sensor. Salinity, 

temperature, and depth data measured 

by the CTD instrument are essential for 

characterization of seawater properties. 

Expendable bathythermographs 

(XBT)—SWFSC also uses Lockheed 

Martin Sippican’s XBT to provide ocean 

temperature versus depth profiles. A 

standard XBT system consists of an 

expendable probe, a data processing/

recording system, and a launcher. An 

electrical connection between the probe 

and the processor/recorder is made 

when the canister containing the probe 

is placed within the launcher and the 

launcher breech door is closed. 

Following launch, wire de-reels from 

the probe as it descends vertically 

through the water. Simultaneously, wire 

de-reels from a spool within the probe 

canister, compensating for any 

movement of the ship and allowing the 

probe to freefall from the sea surface 

unaffected by ship motion or sea state. 

The XBT probes consist of a metal 

weight surrounding a temperature 

probe, attached to a copper wire that 

conducts the signal to the vessel. The 

copper wire is protected within a plastic 

housing (see Figure A–13 of SWFSC’s 

EA for a photograph). Probes are 

generally launched from the leeward 

side of the vessel and as far aft as 

possible. Launching from these 

locations helps obtain high reliability 

and minimizes the chances that the fine 

copper probe wire will come in contact 

with the ship’s hull which may cause 

spikes in the data or a catastrophic wire 

break. A portable shipboard data 

acquisition system records, processes, 

and interprets the data the probes 

collect. 

XBT drops occur at predetermined 

times along with surface chlorophyll 

sampling. Opportunistic drops may also 

occur. Typically, three XBT drops are 

made per survey day. XBT drops may be 

repeated if the displayed profile does 

not show a well-defined mixed layer 

and thermocline. Deep Blue probes are 

preferred, as they survey to a depth of 

760 m and take approximately two 

minutes per drop. Probes are launched 

using a hand-held launcher. As the XBT 

probes are expendable, they are not 

retrieved and are left on the seafloor 

after data collection. 

Other nets—SWFSC surveys in all of 

the research areas utilize various small, 

fine-mesh, towed nets designed to 

sample small fish and pelagic 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8172 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

invertebrates. These nets can be broadly 

categorized as small trawls (which are 

separated from large trawl nets due to 

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 Oozeki net is a frame trawl 

with a 5 m2 mouth area used for 

quantitative sampling of larval and 

juvenile pelagic fishes (see Figure A–3 

of SWFSC’s EA for a photograph). 

Towing depth of the net is easily 

controlled by adjusting the warp length, 

and the net samples a large size range 

of juvenile fishes and micronekton 

(Oozeki et al., 2004). 

2. The Isaacs-Kidd midwater trawl 

(IKMT) is used to collect deepwater 

biological specimens larger than those 

taken by standard plankton nets. The 

mouth of the net is approximately 1.5 × 

1.8 m, and is attached to a wide, Vshaped, rigid diving vane that keeps the 

mouth of the net open and maintains 

the net at depth for extended periods. 

The IKMT is a long, round net 

approximately 6.5 m long, with a series 

of hoops decreasing in size from the 

mouth of the net to the codend, which 

maintain the shape of the net during 

towing (Yasook et al., 2007). While most 

trawls must be towed at speeds of 1–2 

kn because of the high level of drag 

exerted by the net in the water, an IKMT 

can be towed at speeds as high as 5 kn. 

3. 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. 

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

pelagic fish and zooplankton. The 

Tucker trawl, similar to the MOCNESS, 

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, CTD, and pitch 

sensor. 

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. Bongo nets are towed through the 

water at an oblique angle to sample 

plankton over a range of depths. The 

Bongo nets used by SWFSC have 

openings 71 cm in diameter and employ 

a 505-mm mesh. The nets are 3 m in 

length with a 1.5 m cylindrical section 

coupled to a 1.5 m conical portion that 

tapers to a detachable codend 

constructed of 333-mm or 505-mm nylon 

mesh (see Figure A–6 of SWFSC’s EA 

for a schematic diagram). During each 

plankton tow, the bongo nets are 

deployed to a depth of approximately 

210 m and are then retrieved at a 

controlled rate so that the volume of 

water sampled is uniform across the 

range of depths. In shallow areas, 

sampling protocol is adjusted to prevent 

contact between the bongo nets and the 

seafloor. A collecting bucket, attached to 

the codend of the net, is used to contain 

the plankton sample. When the net is 

retrieved, the collecting bucket can be 

detached and easily transported to a 

laboratory. 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. 

6. The Pairovet is a bongo-type device 

consisting of two nets. The Pairovet 

frame was designed to facilitate 

comparison of nets constructed of 

various materials and to provide 

replicate observations when using 

similar nets. The frame is constructed of 

aluminum with stainless steel fittings. 

The nets are nylon mesh attached to the 

frame with adjustable stainless steel 

strapping. 

7. Manta nets are towed horizontally 

at the surface of the water to sample 

neuston (organisms living at or near the 

water surface). The frame of the Manta 

net is supported at the ocean surface by 

aquaplanes (wings) that provide lift as 

the net is towed horizontally through 

the water (see Figure A–7 of SWFSC’s 

EA for a schematic diagram). To ensure 

repeatability between samples, the 

towing speed, angle of the wire, and tow 

duration must be carefully controlled. 

The Manta nets used by SWFSC employ 

505-mm nylon mesh in the body of the 

net and 303-mm mesh in the codend. 

The frame has a mouth area of 0.13 m2. 

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. 

A commercial pelagic longline can be 

over 100 km long and have thousands 

of hooks attached, although longlines 

used for research surveys are shorter. 

The pelagic longline gear used for 

SWFSC research surveys typically use 

200–400 hooks attached to a steel or 

monofilament mainline from 3–19 km 

long. For SWFSC research the gangions 

are 3–11 m long and are attached to the 

mainline at intervals of 15–30 m. There 

are no internationally recognized 

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). Because pelagic longline 

gear is not anchored to the seafloor, it 

floats freely in the water and may drift 

considerable distances between the time 

of deployment and the time of retrieval. 

Please see Figure A–4 of SWFSC’s EA 

for a schematic diagram. Bottom 

longlines used for commercial fishing 

can be up to several miles long, but 

those used for SWFSC research use 

shorter lines with approximately 75 

hooks per line. 

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. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8173 

1. Deep-set buoy gear is a particular 

type of pelagic longline, targeting 

swordfish (Xiphias gladius), that 

includes a buoy flotation system (i.e., a 

strike-indicator float/flag, a large, noncompressible buoy and a float affixed 

with a radar reflector). A set of gear 

consists of 500-lb (227-kg) test mainline 

monofilament rigged with a 1–2 kg drop 

sinker to orient the mainline and 

terminal fishing gear vertically in the 

water column. Other pelagic longline 

gear typically uses a long monofilament 

mainline suspended horizontally near 

the surface of the water. However, deepset buoy gear uses a vertically-oriented 

mainline with two monofilament 

gangions that branch from the mainline 

at a target depth below the thermocline 

(250–400 m for SWFSC) and are 

constructed of 400-lb (181-kg) test 

monofilament leader containing a 

crimped 14/0 circle hook (see Figure A– 

5 of SWFSC’s EA for a schematic 

diagram). 

Continuous, Underway Fish Egg 

Sampler (CUFES)—The CUFES is used 

to collect pelagic fish eggs from the 

water column while the vessel is 

underway. The CUFES device consists 

of a water intake approximately 3 m 

below the surface of the water 

connected to a high capacity pump 

capable of pumping approximately 640 

L/min through the device. Particles in 

the bulk water stream are concentrated 

by an oscillating mesh. Samples are 

transferred to a collecting device at a 

rate of approximately 20 L/min, while 

the bulk water is discharged overboard 

(see Figure A–8 of SWFSC’s EA for a 

schematic diagram). Samples are 

collected and preserved on mesh net 

over sequential sampling intervals. 

Ancillary data including temperature, 

salinity, chlorophyll-a fluorescence, 

time, and location are also collected 

automatically. The fish eggs within each 

sequential sample are identified and 

counted, and the preserved sample is 

cataloged for future reference. 

Remotely operated vehicles (ROV)— 

The SWFSC maintains and deploys two 

ROVs (see Figures A–9 and A–10 of the 

SWFSC’s EA for a photograph and 

schematic diagram, respectively). The 

ROVs are used to count fish and 

shellfish, photograph fish for 

identification, and provide views of the 

bottom for habitat-type classification 

studies via still and video camera 

images. Precise georeferenced data from 

ROV platforms also enables SCUBA 

divers to utilize bottom time more 

effectively for collection of brood stock 

and other specimens. 

SWFSC operates a Phantom DS4 ROV 

to collect video and still camera images. 

The Phantom DS4 platform is driven 

horizontally by four 1⁄2-hp thrusters and 

vertically by two 1⁄4-hp thrusters, and 

can operate at a maximum depth of 600 

m. Standard instrumentation on the 

ROV includes a directional hydrophone, 

a CTD, a differential GPS, pitch and roll 

sensors, still cameras, and video 

cameras; additional instrumentation can 

be added to the platform as needed. The 

ROV platform also includes a reference 

laser system to facilitate in situ 

specimen measurements and to 

determine the distance of the ROV 

platform from underwater objects. 

The SWFSC has also designed and 

constructed a custom high-definition 

high-voltage (HDHV) ROV for surveying 

deepwater environments. The HDHV 

ROV is powered by six 300–V brushless 

DC thrusters, which are efficient and 

quiet to maximize bottom time while 

minimizing behavioral disturbance to 

target species. The HDHV ROV platform 

is equipped with video and still 

cameras, an illumination system, 

scanning sonar, CTD, a dissolved 

oxygen sensor, laser rangefinding and 

laser caliper systems, and has the 

capability to process data while 

underway to facilitate real-time 

georeferenced collection of 

oceanographic data. 

California Current Ecosystem—Here 

we describe all surveys planned by 

SWFSC in the CCE. Please see Table 1.1 

of SWFSC’s application for a detailed 

summary of these surveys. 

1. California Cooperative Oceanic 

Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) 

Surveys—CalCOFI is a partnership 

founded in 1949 between NMFS, the 

California Department of Fish and 

Game, and Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography (SIO) to study the 

ecological aspects of the sardine 

population collapse off California. 

CalCOFI’s focus today is more generally 

the study of the marine environment off 

the coast of California, the management 

of its living resources, and monitoring 

the indicators of El Nin ̃ o and climate 

change. CalCOFI conducts quarterly 

cruises off southern and central 

California, collecting a suite of 

hydrographic and biological data on 

station and underway. The four annual 

CalCOFI surveys are designed to 

describe the physical and biological 

characteristics of the southern portion of 

the California Current epipelagic habitat 

and require a total of approximately 

ninety survey days per year. More detail 

may be found in SWFSC documents or 

at www.calcofi.org. 

Winter—This survey is conducted 

annually during January and February, 

extending from San Diego to San 

Francisco, and is designed to capture 

early spawning hake (Merluccius 

productus) and some rockfish (Family 

Scorpaenidae). It is usually conducted 

on a NOAA ship and protocols include 

use of multi-frequency active acoustic 

devices, CUFES, various plankton nets, 

CTD with an array of vertically profiling 

instruments and bottles to collect water 

samples at discrete depths, marine 

mammal and bird observations, 

meteorological observations using a 

wide-range of passive sensors, and 

small, fine-mesh trawls for sampling 

mesopelagic organisms at selected 

stations. 

Spring—This survey is conducted 

annually in April. It also extends from 

San Diego to San Francisco but is 

designed to capture spring spawning 

fishes (e.g., anchovy [Engraulis mordax], 

sardine [Sardinops sagax], jack 

mackerel [Trachurus symmetricus]). It is 

usually conducted on a NOAA ship and 

the survey protocols are the same as 

described for the winter survey. 

Summer—This survey is conducted 

annually in July in the Southern 

California Bight solely on a SIO 

University-National Oceanographic 

Laboratory System (UNOLS) vessel. 

Protocols are the same as for the winter 

and spring surveys. 

Fall—This survey is conducted 

annually in October in the Southern 

California Bight, usually on a UNOLS 

vessel. Protocols are the same as for the 

other surveys. 

2. Coastal Pelagic Species Surveys— 

These surveys, also known as sardine 

surveys, are conducted annually or 

biennially in the spring (April–May) or 

the summer (July–August) and extend 

from San Diego, CA, to Cape Flattery, 

WA. The survey is broken into southern 

and northern portions on two survey 

vessels (either two NOAA ships or a 

NOAA ship and a charter vessel), with 

the southern portion done in 

conjunction with the spring or summer 

CalCOFI survey. Midwater trawling for 

sardines informs the annual assessment 

of sardine and the corresponding 

harvest guidelines. The survey requires 

about seventy survey days per year. 

The protocol for the sardine survey 

includes deployment of the NETS 

Nordic 264 two-warp rope trawl in the 

upper 10 m of the water column at night 

in order to sample adult sardines. The 

trawl is deployed for thirty-minute tows 

at the target depth at 3 kn during dark 

hours when sardines are dispersed and 

near the surface. Estimates of daily 

fecundity are derived from the samples 

and combined with estimates of daily 

egg production to produce an estimate 

of spawning stock biomass. Additional 

protocols for this survey are similar to 

the CalCOFI surveys described 

previously. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8174 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3. Juvenile Salmon Survey—This 

survey is conducted annually in June 

and September, extending from central 

California to southern Oregon, and is 

designed to complement similar surveys 

conducted by NMFS’ Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center. The survey 

measures ocean survival of juvenile 

salmon (coho [Oncorhynchus kisutch] 

and chinook [O. tshawytscha]) and 

produces early estimates of adult 

salmon returns. The juvenile salmon 

survey is usually conducted on a charter 

vessel and requires about thirty survey 

days. The protocols for this survey 

include deployment of the NETS Nordic 

264 midwater trawl for thirty-minute 

tows at the target depth during daylight 

hours at 15–30 m depth. Depending on 

vessel capabilities, additional 

operations may include multi-frequency 

active acoustic devices, CTD profiles, 

plankton tows, and single-warp Tucker 

midwater trawls. 

4. Juvenile Rockfish Survey—This 

survey, conducted annually from May to 

mid-June from southern California to 

Washington, targets the pelagic phase of 

juvenile rockfish. Results of the survey 

inform assessments of several rockfish 

populations and may be used in 

assessments of central California salmon 

productivity. It is either conducted on a 

NOAA ship or a charter vessel and 

requires about 45 survey days. The 

protocols for this survey include 

underway multi-frequency active 

acoustic devices, modified-Cobb 

midwater trawls, various plankton tows, 

and CTD profiles at fixed stations. The 

modified-Cobb trawl is deployed for 

fifteen-minute tows at 2 kn during dark 

hours at 15–30 m depth. 

5. Pacific Coast Ocean Observing 

System (PaCOOS) Central California— 

This survey is conducted annually in 

July and October and involves the 

extension of CalCOFI observation 

protocols to established CalCOFI 

transect lines off Monterey Bay and San 

Francisco during summer and fall 

surveys when the CalCOFI sampling 

grid is confined to the Southern 

California Bight. Surveys are conducted 

in conjunction with the Monterey Bay 

Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI); 

the University of California, Santa Cruz; 

and the Naval Postgraduate School, and 

are usually conducted on the Moss 

Landing Marine Laboratories R/V Point 

Sur, lasting about six survey days. 

Protocols include the use of various 

plankton nets, CTD profiles, marine 

mammal and bird observations, and 

meteorological observations using a 

wide-range of passive sensors. 

6. PaCOOS Northern California— 

These are monthly plankton and 

oceanographic surveys of a single line of 

stations off of Eureka, CA conducted in 

conjunction with Humboldt State 

University (HSU) and usually 

conducted on the HSU R/V Coral Sea. 

The surveys require about twelve survey 

days per year. Protocols are generally 

the same as those described for PaCOOS 

Central California. 

7. Highly Migratory Species (HMS) 

Survey—This survey is conducted 

annually from June through July and 

extends from southern to central 

California, targeting blue sharks 

(Prionace glauca), shortfin mako sharks 

(Isurus oxyrinchus) and swordfish as 

well as other HMS as a basis for stock 

assessments and support for HMS 

Fishery Management Plans. Sharks are 

caught, measured, tagged, and released. 

The survey, which requires about thirty 

survey days, has historically been 

conducted on a NOAA ship but in 

recent years has been conducted on a 

charter vessel. Primary research 

methodology involves a pelagic longline 

deployed at fixed stations with two to 

four hour soak times. Length of the 

mainline is 3.2–6.4 km with 200–400 

hooks spaced 15–30 m apart, 5.5-m 

gangions, and 9/0 J-type hooks. When 

targeting swordfish, the mainline may 

be up to 19 km in length with 11-m 

gangions and 16/0 circle-type hooks and 

soak times may last up to eight hours. 

Typical bait used is whole mackerel or 

market squid. Depending on vessel 

capabilities, additional protocols may 

include multi-frequency active acoustic 

devices, CTD profiles, and plankton 

tows. 

8. Thresher Shark Survey—This 

survey is conducted annually in 

September, targeting common thresher 

shark (Alopias vulpinus) pupping areas 

from the Southern California Bight up to 

central California. Results of this survey 

are used to support stock assessment 

and management of thresher sharks, 

which are subject to commercial and 

recreational fisheries. Sharks are caught, 

measured, sampled, tagged, and 

released. The survey is usually 

conducted on a charter vessel and 

requires about twenty survey days. 

Primary research methodology involves 

deployment of an anchored pelagic 

longline at fixed stations with two to 

four hour soak times. Length of the 

mainline is 3.2–6.4 km with 200–400 

hooks spaced 15–30 m apart, 5.5-m 

gangions and 16/0 circle-type hooks. 

Typical bait used is whole mackerel or 

market squid. Depending on vessel 

capabilities, additional protocols may 

include the use of multi-frequency 

active acoustic devices, CTD profiles, 

and plankton tows. 

9. Survey to Research Reproductive 

Life History Analysis of Sablefish—This 

survey to research reproductive life 

history analysis of sablefish 

(Anoplopoma fimbria) is conducted 

monthly each year near Bodega Bay off 

the central California coast. The primary 

objective of the survey is to collect adult 

sablefish for reproductive studies using 

small-scale bottom longline gear. The 

gear uses 75 hooks per line that are 

baited with squid and set at or near the 

bottom, usually at depths between 360– 

450 m. Two to three sets are made per 

trip over the course of thirty days per 

year. 

10. Swordfish Tagging Deep-Set Buoy 

Survey—The swordfish tagging deep-set 

buoy survey is conducted annually from 

June through November in the Southern 

California Bight. The survey’s main 

objective is to investigate the use of this 

gear to capture swordfish while 

minimizing bycatch of non-target 

species. Approximately 300–600 sets are 

made annually. 

11. Marine Mammal Ecosystem 

Surveys—These large-scale surveys are 

conducted annually from August to 

December, and require substantial 

blocks of continuous time on two 

NOAA ships (about 60–120 survey 

days). Results inform status assessments 

of marine mammal populations. Surveys 

rotate among geographic areas and do 

not occur in all specified geographical 

regions in every year. In the CCE and 

other offshore waters of the northern 

Pacific, these projects include the 

Oregon, California and Washington 

Line-transect and Ecosystem survey 

(ORCAWALE) and the Structure of 

Populations, Levels of Abundance, and 

Status of Humpbacks survey (SPLASH; 

located outside the CCE in the northern 

Pacific). 

Primary effort of these surveys 

includes line transect surveys of marine 

mammals and seabirds. Observations 

are made of schools or aggregations of 

marine mammals and, for a subset of 

observations, survey effort is suspended 

and aggregations are approached for 

estimation of aggregation size and 

species composition. This work 

constitutes research directed at marine 

mammals, meaning that any take of 

marine mammals resulting from the 

survey effort would not be considered 

incidental. Separate scientific research 

permits are obtained from NMFS under 

the MMPA for this component of these 

surveys; this directed research is 

therefore not considered further in this 

document. 

However, additional scientific effort 

during marine mammal ecosystem 

surveys (e.g., environmental 

observation) is not directed at marine 

mammals and take of marine mammals 

resulting from that effort would be 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8175 

considered incidental take. Therefore, 

these additional components of marine 

mammal ecosystem surveys are 

considered in this document. 

Additional research protocols include 

use of multi-frequency active acoustic 

devices, single-warp IKMT with 1-mm 

mesh net for sampling macrozooplankton, 3-m2 dip net with 2-mm 

mesh for sampling flying fish (Family 

Exocoetidae), CTD profiles, XBTs, and 

meteorological observations using a 

wide-range of passive sensors. 

12. White Abalone Survey—This 

survey utilizes still and video camera 

observations via ROV to monitor 

population recovery in deep-water 

habitat for the endangered white 

abalone (Haliotis sorenseni). It is 

usually conducted on a charter vessel 

for about 25 survey days. The surveys 

are confined to offshore banks and 

island margins, 30–150 m depth, in the 

Southern California Bight. Since 2002, 

over 1,000 ROV transects have been 

conducted along the entire U.S. west 

coast. The average and maximum speed 

of the ROV was 0.5 and 2.4 kn, 

respectively. The tether that connects 

the ROV to the ship is 19-mm diameter 

and is securely attached to a stainless 

steel cable and down-weight to 

minimize slack in the tether and to 

prevent any loops. 

13. Collaborative Optical Acoustical 

Survey Technology (COAST) Survey— 

These are surveys of offshore banks 

conducted in collaboration with the 

charter boat fishing industry to monitor 

the recovery of rockfish. The COAST 

surveys are usually conducted on a 

NOAA ship augmented by a charter 

vessel and require about forty survey 

days. Protocols include the use of multifrequency active acoustic devices and 

still and video camera observations 

using an ROV. 

14. Habitat Surveys—The focus of 

these surveys includes adult rockfish 

Essential Fish Habitat (MSA; see 16 

U.S.C. 1802 sec. 3(10)) and habitat use 

of a variety of other species. They are 

usually conducted on a NOAA ship for 

about fifty survey days. The protocols 

may include use of the Nordic 264 

midwater trawl, pelagic longlines, 

plankton and other small mesoplankton 

trawls, CTD profiles, and visual 

observations from ships and 

submersibles. 

15. Small Boats—Numerous field 

operations use small boats (e.g., for 

attaching tags to fish). These operations 

require a total of about 75 survey days 

per year. 

Eastern Tropical Pacific—Here we 

describe all surveys planned by SWFSC 

in the ETP. Please see Table 1.1 of 

SWFSC’s application for a detailed 

summary of these surveys. 

1. Marine Mammal Ecosystem 

Surveys—These surveys, conducted 

annually during August to December 

and requiring 60–120 annual survey 

days, follow the description provided 

under CCE. Surveys rotate among 

geographic areas and do not occur in all 

specified geographical regions in every 

year. In the ETP and other tropical 

Pacific waters, these projects include 

the Stenella Abundance Research 

survey (STAR) and the Hawaiian Islands 

Cetacean and Ecosystem Assessment 

Survey (HICEAS). The STAR surveys 

are designed to monitor the recovery of 

several dolphin stocks (i.e., Stenella 

spp.) that were depleted by the 

yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) 

purse-seine fishery in the ETP. 

2. HMS Surveys—To date, these 

surveys have not been conducted in the 

ETP; however, the SWFSC believes they 

will likely occur during the five-year 

period of validity of this proposed rule. 

They may be conducted up to thirty 

days annually during June–July. 

Protocols follow those described for 

HMS surveys in CCE. 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem—Here we describe all 

surveys planned by SWFSC in the 

AMLR. Please see Table 1.1 of SWFSC’s 

application for a detailed summary of 

these surveys. Surveys occurring in 

AMLR during austral winter (i.e., June– 

August) may encounter pinnipeds 

hauled out on ice. We anticipate that the 

presence of vessels engaged in SWFSC 

survey activities may result in 

behavioral disturbance of these animals. 

These reactions could result from 

airborne sound or from visual 

disturbance alone. It should be noted 

that these activities do not entail 

intentional approaches to pinnipeds on 

ice (i.e., any incidents of behavioral 

disturbance would constitute incidental 

take). Behavioral disturbance of this 

nature is expected only in the AMLR. 

1. Antarctic Survey—These surveys 

are conducted annually during January 

through March or in August, are usually 

conducted on a charter vessel, and 

require about seventy survey days 

annually. Shipboard surveys are 

designed to map the distribution of 

Antarctic krill relative to the 

distributions of krill predators (e.g., 

penguins, pinnipeds, and flying birds) 

as well as to estimate krill biomass 

within the survey area. The physical 

and biological environment is also 

characterized. Every two to three years 

a bottom trawl is used to assess benthic 

invertebrates and fish on the continental 

shelf. Gear used is a towed camera array 

and the two-warp NET Systems Hard 

Bottom Snapper Trawl. Additional 

protocols include the use of a singlewarp IKMT, multi-frequency active 

acoustic devices, CTD profiles, marine 

mammal and bird observations, and 

meteorological observations using a 

wide-range of passive sensors. SWFSC 

is also currently investigating use of a 

single-warp Tucker trawl on these 

surveys. 

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 SWFSC’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 SWFSC. 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in hertz 

(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is 

the distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the decibel 

(dB). A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB 

is described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal [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 

duration of an impulse. Rms is 

calculated by squaring all of the sound 

amplitudes, averaging the squares, and 

then taking the square root of the 

average (Urick, 1983). Rms accounts for 

both positive and negative values; 

squaring the pressures makes all values 

positive so that they may be accounted 

for in the summation of pressure levels 

(Hastings and Popper, 2005). This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8176 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 contained within a 

pulse, and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. For a single pulse, 

the numerical value of the SEL 

measurement is usually 5–15 dB lower 

than the rms sound pressure in dB re 1 

mPa, with the comparative difference 

between measurements of rms and SEL 

measurements often tending to decrease 

with increasing range (Greene, 1997; 

McCauley et al., 1998). Peak sound 

pressure is the maximum instantaneous 

sound pressure measurable in the water 

at a specified distance from the source, 

and is represented in the same units as 

the rms sound pressure. Another 

common metric is peak-to-peak sound 

pressure (p-p), which is the algebraic 

difference between the peak positive 

and peak negative sound pressures. 

Peak-to-peak pressure is typically 

approximately 6 dB higher than peak 

pressure (Southall et al., 2007). 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be either directed in a beam or 

beams (as for the sources considered 

here) or may radiate in all directions 

(omnidirectional sources). The 

compressions and decompressions 

associated with sound waves are 

detected as changes in pressure by 

aquatic life and man-made sound 

receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the 

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric 

sound), biological (e.g., sounds 

produced by marine mammals, fish, and 

invertebrates), and anthropogenic (e.g., 

vessels, dredging, construction) sound. 

A number of sources contribute to 

ambient sound, including the following 

(Richardson et al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Surf sound becomes 

important near shore, with 

measurements collected at a distance of 

8.5 km from shore showing an increase 

of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 

during heavy surf conditions. 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient 

sound levels, as can some fish and 

shrimp. The frequency band for 

biological contributions is from 

approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

sound related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels), 

dredging and construction, oil and gas 

drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically 

dominates the total ambient sound for 

frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In 

general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly. 

Sound from identifiable anthropogenic 

sources other than the activity of 

interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is 

sometimes termed background sound, as 

opposed to ambient sound. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

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

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from the specified 

activity may be a negligible addition to 

the local environment or could form a 

distinctive signal that may affect marine 

mammals. Details of source types are 

described in the following text. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: Pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

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

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

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

discussion of these concepts. 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., 

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 non-continuous (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 

(such as those used by the U.S. Navy). 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

We use generic sound exposure 

thresholds (see Table 1) to determine 

when an activity that produces sound 

might result in impacts to a marine 

mammal such that a take by harassment 

might occur. These thresholds should be 

considered guidelines for estimating 

when harassment may occur (i.e., when 

an animal is exposed to levels equal to 

or exceeding the relevant criterion) in 

specific contexts; however, useful 

contextual information that may inform 

our assessment of effects is typically 

lacking and we consider these 

thresholds as step functions. NMFS is 

currently revising these acoustic 

guidelines; for more information on that 

process, please visit 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8177 

guidelines.htm. NMFS has determined 

that the 160-dB threshold for impulsive 

sources is most appropriate for use in 

considering the potential effects of the 

SWFSC’s activities. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Criterion Definition Threshold 

Level A harassment (underwater).Injury (PTS—any level above that which is 

known to cause TTS).

180 dB (cetaceans)/190 dB (pinnipeds) (rms) 

Level B harassment (underwater).Behavioral disruption ........................................ 160 dB (impulsive source)/120 dB (continuous source) (rms) 

A wide range of active acoustic 

devices are used in SWFSC 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. SWFSC 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. SWFSC 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, 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. Therefore, 

Category 1 sources are not expected to 

have any effect on marine mammals and 

are not considered further in this 

document. 

Category 2 acoustic sources, which 

are present on most SWFSC 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 SWFSC. The acoustic 

system used during a particular survey 

is optimized for surveying under 

specific environmental conditions (e.g., 

depth and bottom type). Lower 

frequencies of sound travel further in 

the water (i.e., good range) but provide 

lower resolution (i.e., are less precise). 

Pulse width and power may also be 

adjusted in the field to accommodate a 

variety of environmental conditions. 

Signals with a relatively long pulse 

width travel further and are received 

more clearly by the transducer (i.e., 

good signal-to-noise ratio) but have a 

lower range resolution. Shorter pulses 

provide higher range resolution and can 

detect smaller and more closely spaced 

objects in the water. Similarly, higher 

power settings may decrease the utility 

of collected data. Power level is also 

adjusted according to bottom type, as 

some bottom types have a stronger 

return and require less power to 

produce data of sufficient quality. 

Power is typically set to the lowest level 

possible in order to receive a clear 

return with the best data. Survey vessels 

may be equipped with multiple acoustic 

systems; each system has different 

advantages that may be utilized 

depending on the specific survey area or 

purpose. In addition, many systems may 

be operated at one of two frequencies or 

at a range of frequencies. Characteristics 

of these sources are summarized in 

Table 2. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8178 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(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 SWFSC 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. The SWFSC operates 

Simrad EK500 and EK60 systems, which 

transmit and receive at six frequencies 

ranging from 18–333 kHz. 

(2) Multibeam Echosounder and 

Sonar—Multibeam echosounders and 

sonars operate similarly to the devices 

described above. However, the use of 

multiple acoustic ‘‘beams’’ allows 

coverage of a greater area compared to 

single beam sonar. The sensor arrays for 

multibeam echosounders and sonars are 

usually mounted on the keel of the 

vessel and have the ability to look 

horizontally in the water column as well 

as straight down. Multibeam 

echosounders and sonars are used for 

mapping seafloor bathymetry, 

estimating fish biomass, characterizing 

fish schools, and studying fish behavior. 

The SWFSC operates the Simrad ME70 

and MS70 systems, which are mounted 

to the hull of the research vessels and 

emit frequencies in the 70–120 kHz 

range. 

(3) Single-Frequency Omnidirectional 

Sonar—Low-frequency, high-resolution, 

long range fishery sonars operate with 

user selectable frequencies between 20– 

30 kHz, which provide longer range and 

prevent interference from other vessels. 

These sources provide omnidirectional 

imaging around the source with three 

different vertical beamwidths available 

(single or dual vertical view and 180° 

tiltable). At the 30-kHz operating 

frequency, the vertical beamwidth is 

less than 7° and can be electronically 

tilted from +10 to ¥80°, which results 

in differential transmitting beam 

patterns. The cylindrical multi-element 

transducer allows the omnidirectional 

sonar beam to be electronically tilted 

down to ¥60°, allowing automatic 

tracking of schools of fish within the 

entire water volume around the vessel. 

SWFSC operates the Simrad SX90 

system. 

(4) Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

(ADCP)—An ADCP is a type of sonar 

used for measuring water current 

velocities simultaneously at a range of 

depths. Whereas current depth profile 

measurements in the past required the 

use of long strings of current meters, the 

ADCP enables measurements of current 

velocities across an entire water 

column. The ADCP measures water 

currents with sound, using the Doppler 

effect. A sound wave has a higher 

frequency when it moves towards the 

sensor (blue shift) than when it moves 

away (red shift). The ADCP works by 

transmitting ‘‘pings’’ of sound at a 

constant frequency into the water. As 

the sound waves travel, they ricochet off 

particles suspended in the moving 

water, and reflect back to the 

instrument. Due to the Doppler effect, 

sound waves bounced back from a 

particle moving away from the profiler 

have a slightly lowered frequency when 

they return. Particles moving toward the 

instrument send back higher frequency 

waves. The difference in frequency 

between the waves the profiler sends 

out and the waves it receives is called 

the Doppler shift. The instrument uses 

this shift to calculate how fast the 

particle and the water around it are 

moving. Sound waves that hit particles 

far from the profiler take longer to come 

back than waves that strike close by. By 

measuring the time it takes for the 

waves to return to the sensor, and the 

Doppler shift, the profiler can measure 

current speed at many different depths 

with each series of pings. 

An ADCP anchored to the seafloor can 

measure current speed not just at the 

bottom, but at equal intervals to the 

surface. An ADCP instrument may be 

anchored to the seafloor or can be 

mounted to a mooring or to the bottom 

of a boat. ADCPs that are moored need 

an anchor to keep them on the bottom, 

batteries, and a data logger. 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. SWFSC uses 

the Simrad ITI Catch Monitoring 

System, which allows monitoring of the 

exact position of the gear and of what 

is happening in and around the trawl, 

and the Simrad FS70 Third Wire Net 

Sonde, which allows monitoring of the 

trawl opening. 

TABLE 2—OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF SWFSC ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SOURCES

Active acoustic system Operating frequencies Maximum source 

level 

Single ping duration 

(ms) and repetition 

rate (Hz) 

Orientation/

directionality Nominal beamwidth 

Simrad EK500 and 

EK60 narrow beam 

echosounders.

18, 38, 70, 120, 200, 

333 kHz; primary 

frequencies 

italicized.

224 dB ...................... Variable; most common settings are 1 

ms and 0.5 Hz.

Downward looking .... 7°. 

Simrad ME70 

multibeam 

echosounder.

70–120 kHz ............... 205 dB ...................... 0.06–5 ms; 1–4 Hz ... Primarily downward 

looking.

130°. 

Simrad MS70 

multibeam sonar.

75–112 kHz ............... 206 dB ...................... 2–10 ms; 1–2 Hz ...... Primarily side-looking 60°. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8179 

TABLE 2—OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF SWFSC 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 SX90 narrow 

beam sonar.

20–30 kHz ................. 219 dB ...................... Variable ..................... Omnidirectional ......... 4–5° (variable for tilt 

angles from 0–45° 

from horizontal). 

Teledyne RD Instruments ADCP, 

Ocean Surveyor.

75 kHz ....................... 224 dB ...................... 0.2 Hz ....................... Downward looking .... 30°. 

Simrad ITI Catch Monitoring System.27–33 kHz ................. 214 dB ...................... 0.05–0.5 Hz .............. Downward looking .... 40°. 

Simrad FS70 Third 

Wire Net Sonde.

120 kHz ..................... Unknown, maximum 

transmit power is 1 

kW.

Variable ..................... Downward looking .... 40°. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) 

of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the 

permissible methods of taking pursuant 

to such activity, ‘‘and other means of 

effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact on such species or stock and its 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

subsistence uses.’’ Note that taxonomic 

information for certain species 

mentioned in this section is provided in 

the following section (‘‘Description of 

Marine Mammals in the Area of the 

Specified Activity’’). 

Since 2008, the SWFSC 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 SWFSC has determined to be 

feasible and has implemented since 

2009 as a standard part of sampling 

protocols. These measures include the 

‘‘move-on rule,’’ protected species 

visual watches and use of acoustic 

pingers on trawl gear, as well as use of 

a marine mammal excluder device 

(MMED) in Nordic 264 midwater trawls. 

Development of Mitigation Measures 

In survey year 2008 in the CCE, there 

were dramatically more incidental takes 

of marine mammals in research gear, in 

terms of both interactions and animals 

captured, than in any other year 

(historical incidents are detailed below 

in ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment, Serious Injury, or 

Mortality’’). The SWFSC had previously 

conducted over a thousand midwater 

trawl survey tows over more than 25 

years, with very few incidents of marine 

mammal interactions (Hewitt, 2009), but 

the number of incidental takes in 2008 

exceeded the aggregate total over all 

preceding years. Following the first 

SWFSC survey cruise in April 2008, 

during which a number of marine 

mammals were captured in trawl gear, 

the SWFSC convened a workshop 

involving SWFSC staff with expertise in 

survey design and operations and 

marine mammal bycatch mitigation 

(Hewitt, 2009). Participants worked to 

determine appropriate mitigation 

measures and to consider changes to 

sampling protocols in an effort to reduce 

marine mammal interactions, and the 

SWFSC subsequently implemented an 

expanded mitigation protocol. The 

SWFSC also allocated resources towards 

the design, construction, and testing of 

a MMED that could be incorporated into 

the Nordic 264 trawl net. 

During the 2008 meeting, survey 

results were reviewed, including all 

known circumstances associated with 

instances of marine mammal bycatch 

(e.g., time of day, distance offshore, 

forage fish catch, sea conditions), but no 

obvious association with any factor was 

noted. Consensus recommendations 

from this expert working group 

included altering the survey protocol to 

approach the sample station at full 

speed and conduct trawl operations as 

soon as possible, in order to avoid 

attracting marine mammals to the 

survey activity, and to deploy acoustic 

deterrent devices (pingers) on the trawl 

nets. In 2009, the MMED was tested and 

use of the device added to standard 

survey protocol for the Nordic 264 net 

(Dotson et al., 2010). It is unclear to 

what extent mitigation measures have 

played a role, but incidental marine 

mammal interactions have not 

approached 2008 levels in the years 

since implementation of expanded 

mitigation protocols (see Tables 10 and 

11). 

General Measures 

Coordination and communication— 

When SWFSC 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 

SWFSC 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 

SWFSC survey effort is conducted 

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

and decision authority again rests with 

non-SWFSC 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 SWFSC 

survey effort is composed, in part or 

whole, of SWFSC staff and is led by a 

Chief Scientist (CS). Therefore, because 

the SWFSC—not OMAO or any other 

entity that may have authority over 

survey platforms used by SWFSC—is 

the applicant to whom any incidental 

take authorization issued under the 

authority of these proposed regulations 

would be issued, we require that the 

SWFSC 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 eventVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:28 Feb 12, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\13FEP2.SGM 13FEP2

Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8180 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

contingent decision-making processes, 

are clearly understood and agreed-upon. 

This may involve description of all 

required measures when submitting 

cruise instructions to OMAO or when 

completing contracts with external 

entities. SWFSC 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. 

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). At any time during a survey 

or in transit, if a crew member standing 

watch or dedicated marine mammal 

observer sights marine mammals that 

may intersect with the vessel course that 

individual will immediately 

communicate the presence of marine 

mammals to the bridge for appropriate 

course alteration or speed reduction, as 

possible, to avoid incidental collisions. 

Other gears—The SWFSC deploys a 

wide variety of gear to sample the 

marine environment during all of their 

research cruises. Many of these types of 

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

and ROV deployments) are not 

considered to pose any risk to marine 

mammals and are therefore not subject 

to specific mitigation measures. In 

addition, specific aspects of gear design, 

survey protocols (e.g., number of hooks), 

and frequency of use indicate that 

certain types of gears that may 

otherwise be expected to have the 

potential to result in take of marine 

mammals (e.g., bottom longline used in 

sablefish life history surveys) do not 

pose significant risk to marine mammals 

and are not subject to specific mitigation 

measures. However, at all times when 

the SWFSC is conducting survey 

operations at sea, the OOD and/or CS 

and crew will monitor for any unusual 

circumstances that may arise at a 

sampling site and use best professional 

judgment to avoid any potential risks to 

marine mammals during use of all 

research equipment. 

Handling procedures—The SWFSC 

will implement a number of handling 

protocols to minimize potential harm to 

marine mammals that are incidentally 

taken during the course of fisheries 

research activities. In general, protocols 

have already been prepared for use on 

commercial fishing vessels. Because 

incidental take of marine mammals in 

fishing gear is similar for commercial 

fisheries and research surveys, SWFSC 

proposes to adopt these protocols, 

which are expected to increase postrelease survival. In general, following a 

‘‘common sense’’ approach to handling 

captured or entangled marine mammals 

will present the best chance of 

minimizing injury to the animal and of 

decreasing risks to scientists and vessel 

crew. Handling or disentangling marine 

mammals carries inherent safety risks, 

and using best professional judgment 

and ensuring human safety is 

paramount. 

SWFSC staff will be provided with a 

guide to ‘‘Identification, Handling and 

Release of Protected Species’’ (see 

Appendix B.1 of the SWFSC’s 

application) for more specific guidance 

on protected species handling and will 

be required to follow the protocols 

described therein. SWFSC 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. 

Trawl Survey Visual Monitoring and 

Operational Protocols 

The mitigation requirements 

described here are applicable to all 

midwater trawl operations conducted by 

the SWFSC (currently conducted using 

the Nordic 264 and modified-Cobb 

nets). Marine mammal watches (visual 

observation) will be initiated no less 

than thirty minutes prior to arrival on 

station to determine if marine mammals 

are in the vicinity of the planned sample 

location. Marine mammal watches will 

be conducted by scanning the 

surrounding waters with the naked eye 

and rangefinding binoculars (or 

monocular). During nighttime 

operations, visual observation will be 

conducted using the naked eye and 

available vessel lighting. The visual 

observation period typically occurs 

during transit leading up to arrival at 

the sampling station, rather than upon 

arrival on station. However, in some 

cases it may be necessary to conduct a 

bongo plankton tow or other small net 

cast prior to deploying trawl gear. In 

these cases, the visual watch will 

continue until trawl gear is ready to be 

deployed. Aside from this required 

thirty-minute minimum pre-trawl 

monitoring period, the OOD/CS and 

crew standing watch will visually scan 

for marine mammals during all daytime 

operations. 

The primary purpose of conducting 

the pre-trawl visual monitoring period 

is to implement the ‘‘move-on rule.’’ If 

marine mammals are sighted within 1 

nm of the planned set location in the 

thirty minutes before setting the trawl 

gear, the vessel will transit to a different 

section of the sampling area to maintain 

a minimum set distance of 1 nm from 

the observed marine mammals. If, after 

moving on, marine mammals remain 

within the 1 nm exclusion zone, the CS 

or watch leader may decide to move 

again or to skip the station. However, 

the effectiveness of visual monitoring 

may be limited depending on weather 

and lighting conditions, and it may not 

always be possible to conduct visual 

observations out to 1 nm radial distance. 

The OOD, CS or watch leader will 

determine the best strategy to avoid 

potential takes of marine mammals 

based on the species encountered and 

their numbers and behavior, position, 

and vector relative to the vessel, as well 

as any other factors. For example, a 

whale transiting through the sampling 

area in the distance may only require a 

short move from the designated station, 

whereas a pod of dolphins in close 

proximity to the vessel may require a 

longer move from the station or possibly 

cancellation of the planned tow if the 

group follows the vessel. In any case, no 

trawl gear will be deployed if marine 

mammals have been sighted within 1 

nm of the planned set location during 

the thirty-minute watch period. 

In general, trawl operations will be 

conducted immediately upon arrival on 

station (and on conclusion of the thirtyminute pre-watch period) in order to 

minimize the time during which marine 

mammals (particularly pinnipeds) may 

become attracted to the vessel. However, 

in some cases it will be necessary to 

conduct small net tows (e.g., bongo net) 

prior to deploying trawl gear in order to 

avoid trawling through extremely high 

densities of gelatinous zooplankton that 

can damage trawl gear. 

Once the trawl net is in the water, the 

OOD, CS, and/or crew standing watch 

will continue to visually monitor the 

surrounding waters and will maintain a 

lookout for marine mammal presence as 

far away as environmental conditions 

allow. If marine mammals are sighted 

before the gear is fully retrieved, the 

most appropriate response to avoid 

marine mammal interaction will be 

determined by the professional 

judgment of the CS, watch leader, OOD 

and other experienced crew as 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8181 

necessary. This judgment will be based 

on past experience operating trawl gears 

around marine mammals (i.e., best 

professional judgment) and on SWFSC 

training sessions that will facilitate 

dissemination of expertise operating in 

these situations (e.g., factors that 

contribute to marine mammal gear 

interactions and those that aid in 

successfully avoiding such events). Best 

professional judgment takes into 

consideration the species, numbers, and 

behavior of the animals, the status of the 

trawl net operation (e.g., net opening, 

depth, and distance from the stern), the 

time it would take to retrieve the net, 

and safety considerations for changing 

speed or course. We recognize that it is 

not possible to dictate in advance the 

exact course of action that the OOD or 

CS should take in any given event 

involving the presence of marine 

mammals in proximity to an ongoing 

trawl tow, given the sheer number of 

potential variables, combinations of 

variables that may determine the 

appropriate course of action, and the 

need to consider human safety in the 

operation of fishing gear at sea. 

Nevertheless, we require a full 

accounting of factors that shape both 

successful and unsuccessful decisions 

and these details will be fed back into 

SWFSC 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 

believed to have departed the 1 nm 

exclusion zone. 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 tow durations of not 

more than thirty minutes at the target 

depth will be implemented, excluding 

deployment and retrieval time (which 

may require an additional thirty 

minutes, depending on target depth), to 

reduce the likelihood of attracting and 

incidentally taking marine mammals. 

Short tow durations decrease the 

opportunity for marine mammals to find 

the vessel and investigate. Trawl tow 

distances will be less than 3 nm— 

typically 1–2 nm, depending on the 

specific survey and trawl speed—which 

is expected to reduce the likelihood of 

attracting and incidentally taking 

marine mammals. In addition, care will 

be taken when emptying the trawl to 

avoid damage to marine mammals that 

may be caught in the gear but are not 

visible upon retrieval. The gear will be 

emptied as quickly as possible after 

retrieval in order to determine whether 

or not marine mammals are present. The 

vessel’s crew will clean trawl nets prior 

to deployment to remove prey items that 

might attract marine mammals. Catch 

volumes are typically small with every 

attempt made to collect all organisms 

caught in the trawl. 

Marine mammal excluder devices— 

Excluder devices are specialized 

modifications, typically used in trawl 

nets, which are designed to reduce 

bycatch by allowing non-target taxa to 

escape the net. These devices generally 

consist of a grid of bars fitted into the 

net that allow target species to pass 

through the bars into the codend while 

larger, unwanted taxa (e.g., turtles, 

sharks, mammals) strike the bars and are 

ejected through an opening in the net. 

Marine turtle bycatch in the commercial 

shrimp trawl industry led to the 

development of turtle excluder devices 

(TED) (e.g., Mitchell et al., 1995) in the 

1970s. TEDs are perhaps the most 

commonly used excluder devices, but 

devices designed specifically for the 

exclusion of marine mammals have also 

been developed for various fisheries 

around the world where marine 

mammal interactions are problematic 

(e.g., Gibson and Isakssen, 1998; 

Northridge, 2003). 

Similar to TEDs, MMEDs generally 

consist of a large aluminum grate 

positioned in the intermediate portion 

of the net forward of the codend and 

below an escape opening constructed 

into the upper net panel above the grate. 

These devices enable target species to 

pass through a grid or mesh barrier and 

into the codend while preventing the 

passage of marine mammals, which are 

ejected out through an escape opening 

or swim back out of the mouth of the 

net. The angled aluminum grate is 

intended to guide marine mammals 

through the escape opening. For full 

details of design and testing of the 

SWFSC MMED designed for the Nordic 

264 net, please see Dotson et al. (2010). 

All Nordic 264 trawl nets will be fitted 

with MMEDs to allow marine mammals 

caught during trawling operations an 

opportunity to escape. 

MMEDs have not been proven to be 

fully effective at preventing marine 

mammal capture in trawl nets (e.g., 

Chilvers, 2008) and are not expected to 

prevent marine mammal capture in 

SWFSC trawl surveys. It is difficult to 

effectively test such devices, in terms of 

effectiveness in excluding marine 

mammals as opposed to effects on target 

species catchability, because realistic 

field trials would necessarily involve 

marine mammal interactions with trawl 

nets. Use of artificial surrogates in field 

trials has not been shown to be a 

realistic substitute (Gibson and Isakssen, 

1998). Nevertheless, we believe it 

reasonable to assume that use of 

MMEDs may reduce the likelihood of a 

given marine mammal interaction with 

trawl gear resulting in mortality. We do 

not infer causality, but note that annual 

marine mammal interactions with the 

Nordic 264 trawl net have been much 

reduced (relative to 2008) since use of 

the MMED began (see Table 10). 

Two types of nets are used in SWFSC 

pelagic trawl surveys: The Nordic 264 

and the modified-Cobb midwater trawls. 

As noted, all Nordic 264 nets are 

outfitted with excluder devices 

developed specifically for SWFSC 

survey operations. Modified-Cobb trawl 

nets are considerably smaller than 

Nordic 264 trawl nets (80 m2 versus 380 

m2 net opening), are fished at slower 

speeds, and have a different shape and 

functionality than the Nordic 264. Very 

few marine mammal interactions with 

SWFSC pelagic trawl gear have involved 

the modified-Cobb net (five of thirty 

total incidents from 2006–14; Table 10). 

Due to the smaller size and different 

functionality of the modified-Cobb, 

there is no suitable MMED yet available. 

However, the SWFSC plans to perform 

research and design work to develop an 

effective excluder, if possible, which 

will not appreciably affect the 

catchability of the net and therefore 

maintain continuity of the fisheries 

research dataset. Please see ‘‘Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting’’ for 

additional discussion. 

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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8182 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 (which are 

historically one of the most frequently 

captured species in SWFSC surveys; see 

Table 10) 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., 2014) coincident with a 

decline in fishery effort are responsible 

for the increased rate of capture. Despite 

these potential limitations on the 

effectiveness of pingers, and while 

effectiveness has not been tested on 

trawl gear, we believe that the available 

evidence supports an assumption that 

use of pingers is likely to reduce the 

potential for marine mammal 

interactions with SWFSC trawl gear. 

If one assumes that use of a pinger is 

effective in deterring marine mammals 

from interacting with fishing gear, one 

must therefore assume that receipt of 

the acoustic signal has a disturbance 

effect on those marine mammals (i.e., 

Level B harassment). However, Level B 

harassment that may be incurred as a 

result of SWFSC 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.’’ SWFSC use of 

pingers as a deterrent device, which 

may cause Level B harassment of marine 

mammals, is intended solely for the 

avoidance of potential marine mammal 

interactions with SWFSC 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 SWFSC 

use of pingers is not discussed further 

in this document. 

Pingers will be deployed during all 

pelagic trawl operations and on all types 

of midwater trawl nets (i.e., the Nordic 

264 and modified-Cobb nets), with two 

to four pingers placed along the footrope 

and/or headrope. The vessel’s crew will 

ensure that pingers are operational prior 

to deployment. Pingers are 

manufactured by STM Products (Model 

DDD–03H), with the following 

attributes: (1) Operational depth of 10– 

200 m; (2) tones range from 100 ms to 

seconds in duration; (3) variable 

frequency of 5–500 kHz; and (4) 

maximum source level of 176 dB rms re 

1 mPa at 30–80 kHz. Please see ‘‘Marine 

Mammal Hearing’’ below for reference 

to functional and best hearing ranges for 

marine mammals present in the CCE. 

AMLR bottom trawl surveys—The 

SWFSC has no documented interactions 

with marine mammals in bottom trawl 

gear used periodically in the AMLR, and 

standard trawl protocols described 

above are not required for these surveys. 

Please see ‘‘Potential Effects of the 

Specified Activity on Marine Mammals 

and Their Habitat’’ for further 

discussion of this gear. However, 

SWFSC staff conduct visual and 

acoustic surveys prior to deploying 

bottom trawl gear to assess the 

bathymetry and whether marine 

mammals are present in the area. These 

visual and acoustic surveys have 

resulted in very few detections of 

marine mammals during trawling 

operations. Visual and acoustic 

monitoring will continue as a regular 

part of future bottom trawl surveys in 

the AMLR study area, and if detections 

increase, indicating a higher potential 

for marine mammal interactions, we 

will consider the need to implement the 

standard trawl protocols described 

above during AMLR bottom trawl 

surveys. 

Longline Survey Visual Monitoring and 

Operational Protocols 

Visual monitoring requirements for all 

pelagic longline surveys are the same as 

those described above for trawl surveys. 

Please see that section for full details of 

the visual monitoring and ‘‘move-on’’ 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8183 

protocols. These protocols are not 

required for bottom longline or vertical 

longline operations, as there have been 

no documented marine mammal 

interactions for SWFSC use of these 

gears and because we believe there is 

very little risk of interaction even 

without these measures. Please see 

‘‘Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat’’ for further discussion of these 

gears. In summary, requirements for 

pelagic longline surveys are to: (1) 

Conduct visual monitoring for a period 

not less than thirty minutes prior to 

arrival on station; (2) implement the 

‘‘move-on rule’’ if marine mammals are 

observed within a 1-nm exclusion zone 

around the vessel; (3) deploy gear as 

soon as possible upon arrival on station 

(contingent on clearance of the 

exclusion zone); 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 1-nm exclusion zone. If 

marine mammals are detected during 

retrieval operations and are considered 

to be at risk, haul-back may be 

postponed. These decisions are at the 

discretion of the OOD/CS and are 

dependent on the situation. 

We propose one exception to these 

requirements for longline gear. If five or 

fewer California sea lions are sighted 

within the 1-nm exclusion zone during 

the thirty-minute pre-clearance period, 

longline gear may be deployed 

(observations of more than five 

California sea lions would trigger the 

‘‘move-on rule’’ or suspension of gear 

deployment or retrieval, as appropriate 

and, for the latter, as indicated by best 

professional judgment). This exception 

has been defined in an effort to strike a 

balance between the rarity of past 

interactions between longline gear and 

California sea lions and the increasing 

abundance of the species in order to 

preserve practicability of 

implementation. Given the anecdotallyobserved density of California sea lions 

in the areas where longline surveys are 

conducted, the SWFSC believes that 

implementation of, for example, the 

‘‘move-on rule’’ upon observation of five 

or fewer California sea lions would 

preclude sampling in some areas and 

introduce significant bias into survey 

results. The SWFSC believes that a 

group size threshold of six represents a 

reasonable trigger that would allow 

sampling in areas where target species 

are likely to be caught without 

increasing the number of interactions 

between California sea lions and 

longline gear. 

As for trawl surveys, some standard 

survey protocols are expected to 

minimize the potential for marine 

mammal interactions. Typical soak 

times are two to four hours, measured 

from the time the last hook is in the 

water to when the first hook is brought 

out of the water (but may be as long as 

eight hours when targeting swordfish). 

SWFSC longline protocols specifically 

prohibit chumming (releasing additional 

bait to attract target species to the gear). 

However, spent bait may be discarded 

during gear retrieval while gear is still 

in the water. SWFSC believes from prior 

experience that this practice increases 

survey efficiency and notes that it has 

not resulted in marine mammal 

interactions. Anecdotal observations 

indicate that pinnipeds do not gather 

immediately aft of the survey vessel as 

a result of discarding spent bait. 

However, if marine mammal 

interactions with longline gear increase 

or if SWFSC staff observe that this 

practice may contribute to increased 

potential for interactions, we will 

consider the need to retain spent bait 

until all gear is retrieved. 

We have carefully evaluated the 

SWFSC’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. Our evaluation 

of potential measures included 

consideration of the following factors in 

relation to one another: (1) The manner 

in which, and the degree to which, the 

successful implementation of the 

measure is expected to minimize 

adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) 

the proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and (3) the 

practicability of the measure for 

applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) we 

prescribe should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(1) Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

(2) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of 

individual marine mammals exposed to 

stimuli expected to result in incidental 

take (this goal may contribute to 1, 

above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only). 

(3) A reduction in the number (total 

number or number at biologically 

important time or location) of times any 

individual marine mammal would be 

exposed to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing takes by 

behavioral harassment only). 

(4) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposure to stimuli expected to result in 

incidental take (this goal may contribute 

to 1, above, or to reducing the severity 

of behavioral harassment only). 

(5) Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

the prey base, blockage or limitation of 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary disturbance of 

habitat during a biologically important 

time. 

(6) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation, an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

SWFSC’s proposed measures, as well as 

other measures we considered, we have 

preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on marine 

mammal species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

We have reviewed SWFSC’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 SWFSC’s 

application, as well as to NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of 

reprinting the information here. Tables 

3–5 list all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the specified 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8184 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

geographical regions where SWFSC 

proposes to conduct the specified 

activity and summarize information 

related to the population or stock, 

including potential biological removal 

(PBR). For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (2014). PBR, 

defined by the MMPA as the maximum 

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population, is 

discussed in greater detail later in this 

document (see ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analyses’’). Species that could 

potentially occur in the proposed 

research areas but are not expected to 

have the potential for interaction with 

SWFSC research gear or that are not 

likely to be harassed by SWFSC’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. 

For status of species, we provide 

information regarding U.S. regulatory 

status under the MMPA and ESA but 

also provide International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) status for 

some species in the ETP and AMLR, 

where stocks are generally not defined 

by NMFS. The IUCN systematically 

assesses the relative risk of extinction 

for terrestrial and aquatic plant and 

animal species via a classification 

scheme using five designations, 

including three threatened categories 

(Critically Endangered, Endangered, and 

Vulnerable) and two non-threatened 

categories (Near Threatened and Least 

Concern) (IUCN, 2014). These 

assessments are generally made relative 

to the species’ global status, and 

therefore may have limited applicability 

when marine mammal stocks are 

defined because we analyze the 

potential population-level effects of the 

specified activity to the relevant stock. 

However, where stocks are not defined, 

IUCN status can provide a useful 

reference. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study area. NMFS’ stock abundance 

estimates for most species represent the 

total estimate of individuals within the 

geographic area, if known, that 

comprises that stock. For some species, 

this geographic area may extend beyond 

U.S. waters. Survey abundance (as 

compared to stock or species 

abundance) is the total number of 

individuals estimated within the survey 

area, which may or may not align 

completely with a stock’s geographic 

range as defined in the SARs. These 

surveys may also extend beyond U.S. 

waters. 

California Current Ecosystem 

In the CCE, 34 species (with forty 

managed stocks) are considered to have 

the potential to co-occur with SWFSC 

activities. Extralimital species or stocks 

in the CCE include the Bryde’s whale 

(Balaenoptera edeni brydei) and the 

North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena 

japonica). In addition, the sea otter is 

found in coastal waters of the CCE, with 

the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris 

nereis) found in California and the 

northern (or eastern) sea otter (E. l. 

kenyoni; Washington stock only) found 

in Washington. However, sea otters are 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and are not considered further 

in this document. Most survey activity 

occurs offshore and is therefore less 

likely to interact with coastal species 

such as harbor porpoise, the coastal 

stock of bottlenose dolphin, or gray 

whales (during the northbound 

migration), although these species are 

considered further in this document. All 

managed stocks in the CCE are assessed 

in NMFS’ U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., 

Carretta et al., 2014), with the exception 

of the west coast transient stock of killer 

whales, the eastern North Pacific stock 

of the northern fur seal, and the eastern 

stock of the Steller sea lion, which are 

considered in the U.S. Alaska SARs 

(e.g., Allen and Angliss, 2014). All 

values presented in Table 3 are from the 

most recent SARs (i.e., 2013). 

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, recent data from satellitetracked 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), and WNP animals 

comprised 8.1 percent of gray whales 

identified during a recent field season 

off of Vancouver Island (Weller et al., 

2012). In addition, two genetic matches 

of WNP whales have been recorded off 

of Santa Barbara, CA (Lang et al., 2011). 

More recently, 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 SWFSC does not believe 

that any gray whale (WNP or ENP) 

would be likely to interact with its 

research gear, and the likelihood of a 

WNP gray whale being exposed to 

underwater sound produced by the 

specified activity is so low as to be 

discountable. For example, of the 

approximately 20,000 gray whales 

migrating annually through the 

Southern California Bight, it is 

extremely unlikely that one in close 

proximity to SWFSC research activity 

would be one of the approximately 

twenty WNP whales that have been 

documented in the eastern Pacific (less 

than one percent probability). The 

likelihood that a WNP whale would 

interact with SWFSC research gear or be 

exposed to elevated levels of sound 

from the specified activities is 

insignificant and discountable, and 

WNP gray whales are omitted from 

further analysis. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8185 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF SWFSC RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE CCE 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae 

Gray whale ................ Eschrichtius robustus Eastern North Pacific —; N 19,126 (0.071; 

18,017; 2007).

558 13 127 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

Humpback whale ....... Megaptera 

novaeangliae 

kuzira.

California/Oregon/ 

Washington (CA/ 

OR/WA).

E/D; Y 1,918 (0.03; 1,855; 

2011).

12 22 ≥5.5 

Minke whale ............... Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata 

scammoni.

CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 478 (1.36; 202; 2008) 2 0 

Sei whale ................... B. borealis borealis ... Eastern North Pacific E/D; Y 126 (0.53; 83; 2008) 0.17 0 

Fin whale ................... B. physalus physalus CA/OR/WA ................ E/D; Y 3,051 (0.18; 2,598; 

2008).

16 2.2 

Blue whale ................. B. musculus 

musculus.

Eastern North Pacific E/D; Y 1,647 (0.07; 1,551; 

2011).

12 9.3 1.9 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae 

Sperm whale .............. Physeter 

macrocephalus.

CA/OR/WA ................ E/D; Y 971 (0.31; 751; 2008) 1.5 4 

Family Kogiidae 

Pygmy sperm whale .. Kogia breviceps ........ CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 579 (1.02; 271; 2008) 2.7 0 

Dwarf sperm whale .... K. sima ...................... CA/OR/WA5 .............. —; N Unknown ................... Unk. 0 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales) 

Cuvier’s beaked 

whale.

Ziphius cavirostris ..... CA/OR/WA ................ —; Y 6,590 (0.55; 4,481; 

2008).

45 0 

Baird’s beaked whale Berardius bairdii ........ CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 847 (0.81; 466; 2008) 4.7 0 

Hubbs’ beaked whale Mesoplodon 

carlhubbsi.

CA/OR/WA6 .............. —; Y 694 (0.65; 389; 2008) 3.9 0 

Blainville’s beaked 

whale.

M. densirostris.

Ginkgo-toothed 

beaked whale.

M. ginkgodens.

Perrin’s beaked whale M. perrini.

Lesser (pygmy) 

beaked whale.

M. peruvianus.

Stejneger’s beaked 

whale.

M. stejnegeri.

Family Delphinidae 

Common bottlenose 

dolphin.

Tursiops truncatus 

truncatus.

CA/OR/WA Offshore —; N 1,006 (0.48; 684; 

2008).

5.5 ≥2 

California Coastal ..... —; N 323 (0.13; 290; 2005) 2.4 0.2 

Striped dolphin ........... Stenella coeruleoalba CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 10,908 (0.34; 8,231; 

2008).

82 0 

Long-beaked common 

dolphin.

Delphinus capensis 

capensis.

California ................... —; N 107,016 (0.42; 

76,224; 2009).

610 13.8 

Short-beaked common dolphin.D. delphis delphis ..... CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 411,211 (0.21; 

343,990; 2008).

3,440 64 

Pacific white-sided 

dolphin.

Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens.

CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 26,930 (0.28; 21,406; 

2008).

171 14 17.8 

Northern right whale 

dolphin.

Lissodelphis borealis CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 8,334 (0.4; 6,019; 

2008).

48 14 4.8 

Risso’s dolphin .......... Grampus griseus ...... CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 6,272 (0.3; 4,913; 

2008).

39 1.6 

Killer whale ................ Orcinus orca 4 ........... West Coast Transient 7.—; N 243 (n/a; 2006) ......... 2.4 0 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8186 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF SWFSC RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE CCE— 

Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

Strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent abundance 

survey) 2

PBR Annual M/SI 3

Eastern North Pacific 

Offshore.

—; N 240 (0.49; 162; 2008) 1.6 0 

Eastern North Pacific 

Southern Resident.

E/D; Y 85 (n/a; 2012) ........... 0.14 0 

Short-finned pilot 

whale.

Globicephala 

macrorhynchus.

CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 760 (0.64; 465; 2008) 4.6 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise ......... Phocoena phocoena 

vomerina.

Morro Bay ................. —; N 2,917 (0.41; 2,102; 

2012).

21 ≥0.6 

Monterey Bay ............ —; N 3,715 (0.51; 2,480; 

2011).

25 0 

San Francisco-Russian River.—; N 9,886 (0.51; 6,625; 

2011).

66 0 

Northern CA/Southern OR.—; N 35,769 (0.52; 23,749; 

2011).

475 ≥0.6 

Northern OR/WA 

Coast.

—; N 21,487 (0.44; 15,123; 

2011).

151 ≥3 

Washington Inland 

Waters 8 9.

—; N 10,682 (0.38; 7,841; 

2003).

Undet. ≥2.2 

Dall’s porpoise ........... Phocoenoides dalli 

dalli.

CA/OR/WA ................ —; N 42,000 (0.33; 32,106; 

2008).

257 ≥0.4 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Guadalupe fur seal .... Arctocephalus 

philippii townsendi.

(8) ........................... T/D; Y 7,408 (n/a; 3,028; 

1993).

Undet. 15 0 

Northern fur seal ........ Callorhinus ursinus ... Pribilof Islands/Eastern Pacific.D; Y 639,545 (n/a; 

541,317; 2008–11).

11,638 471 

California ................... —; N 12,844 (n/a; 6,722; 

2011).

403 14 2.6 

California sea lion ...... Zalophus 

californianus.

United States ............ —; N 296,750 (n/a; 

153,337; 2008).

9,200 14 ≥431 

Steller sea lion ........... Eumetopias jubatus 

monteriensis.

Eastern U.S. 10 .......... D; N 63,160–78,198 (n/a; 

34,485; 2008–11) 11.

1,552 65.1 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal ................ Phoca vitulina 

richardii.

California ................... —; N 30,196 (n/a; 26,667; 

2009).

1,600 31 

OR/WA Coast 8 ......... —; N 24,732 (0.12; 22,380; 

1999).

Undet. 10.6 

Washington Inland 

Waters 8 9.

—; N 14,612 (0.15; 12,844; 

1999).

Undet. 13.4 

Northern elephant 

seal.

Mirounga 

angustirostris.

California Breeding ... —; N 124,000 (n/a; 74,913; 

2005).

4,382 ≥10.4 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (—) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. 

Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate 

of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For two stocks of killer whales, the abundance values represent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, 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 history 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. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., 

commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a 

minimum value. 4Transient and resident killer whales are considered unnamed subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2014). 

5 No information is available to estimate the population size of dwarf sperm whales off the U.S. west coast, as no sightings of this species have 

been documented despite numerous vessel surveys of this region (Carretta et al., 2014). Dwarf and pygmy 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. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8187 

6The six species of Mesoplodont beaked whales occurring in the CCE 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 bycatch and stranding records, it appears that M. carlhubbsi is the most 

commonly encountered of these species (Carretta et al., 2008; Moore and Barlow, 2013). Additional managed stocks in the Pacific include M. 

stejnegeri in Alaskan waters and M. densirostris in Hawaiian waters. 7The abundance estimate for this stock includes only animals from the ‘‘inner 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. 8Abundance estimates for these stocks are greater than eight years old and are not considered current. PBR is therefore considered undetermined for 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 for use in this document. 9Based on location of SWFSC research, no take is likely to occur for Washington inland waters stocks. Therefore, such stocks of harbor porpoise and harbor seal are excluded from further analysis. 10The eastern distinct population segment of the Steller sea lion, previously listed as threatened, was delisted under the ESA on December 4, 

2013 (78 FR 66140; November 4, 2013). 11Best abundance is calculated as the product of pup counts and a factor based on the birth rate, sex and age structure, and growth rate of 

the population. A range is presented because the extrapolation factor varies depending on the vital rate parameter resulting in the growth rate 

(i.e., high fecundity or low juvenile mortality). 12These stocks are known to spend a portion of their time outside the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, only a portion of the PBR presented here is allocated for U.S. waters. U.S. PBR allocation is one-quarter of the total for blue whales (2.3) and half the total for humpback whales (11). Annual 

M/SI presented for these species is for U.S. waters only. 13 Includes annual Russian harvest of 123 whales. 14These species have been historically taken in SWFSC research surveys (see Tables 10 and 11). Values for total annual human-caused M/ 

SI include 6.0 Pacific white-sided dolphins, 1.2 northern right whale dolphins, 1.0 northern fur seals (California stock), and 3.0 California sea lions 

taken annually in SWFSC research surveys. Two northern fur seals from the eastern Pacific stock were taken in SWFSC research surveys between 2007–11, but these mortalities are not accounted for in the total annual M/SI value presented in the SAR. 15This represents annual M/SI in U.S. waters. However, the vast majority of M/SI for this stock—the level of which is unknown—would likely 

occur in Mexican waters. 

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. 

For marine mammals in the California 

Current Ecosystem, 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 all CCE 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, and none of these 

species were taken in the fishery in 

2012–13. More information is available 

on the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

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

stocks of concern, the SWFSC has 

requested the authorization of 

incidental M/SI + Level A for the shortfinned pilot whale only (see ‘‘Estimated 

Take by Incidental Harassment’’ later in 

this document). The most recent 

reported average annual human-caused 

mortality for short-finned pilot whales 

(2004–08) is zero animals. The SWFSC 

does not use drift gillnets in its fisheries 

research program; therefore, take 

reduction measures applicable to the CA 

DGN fisheries are not relevant to the 

SWFSC. 

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 fifteen formally 

recognized UMEs on the U.S. west coast 

involving species under NMFS’ 

jurisdiction. The most recent of these, 

and the only one involving a currently 

ongoing investigation, involved 

California sea lions. 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. The causes 

and mechanisms of this UME remain 

under investigation 

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

mmume/californiasealions2013.htm; 

accessed May 8, 2014). 

Additional UMEs in the past ten years 

include those involving 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 the Internet at: 

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

mmume/. 

Eastern Tropical Pacific 

In the ETP, 32 species—including 

multiple stocks for some species—are 

considered to have the potential to cooccur with SWFSC activities. As in the 

CCE, an undifferentiated stock of 

Mesoplodont beaked whales 

(Mesoplodon spp.) is present, but is not 

defined in the sense that the U.S.- 

managed CCE stock is. In the ETP, 

Mesoplodont beaked whales likely 

include Blainville’s, ginkgo-toothed, 

and lesser (pygmy) beaked whales, but 

would encompass any Mesoplodont 

species occurring in the ETP. Although 

some of the ETP species are the same as 

those found in the CCE, in many cases 

different stocks or populations are 

present than those found in the CCE. 

However, because the majority of these 

do not constitute stocks under U.S. 

jurisdiction, the stocks are not managed 

by NMFS and there are no SARs. 

Therefore, substantially less information 

is available for these species in relation 

to the stocks or populations and their 

occurrence in the ETP (e.g., PBR is 

generally not calculated for ETP stocks, 

and strategic designations are not 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8188 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

made). Extralimital species in the ETP 

include the pygmy sperm whale, 

southern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon 

planifrons), long-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas), Burmeister’s 

porpoise (Phocoena spinipinnis), and 

Dall’s porpoise. 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF SWFSC RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE ETP 

Common name Scientific name Stock 2 ESA/MMPA/

IUCN status 3

Abundance (CV, 

Nmin) 5 PBR 16

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

Humpback whale ............ Megaptera novaeangliae CA/OR/WA & Breeding 

Stock G.

E/D/LC 6 2,566 ................ ........................................

Minke whale .................... Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata 

scammoni.

........................................ —/LC 6 115 ................... ........................................

Bryde’s whale ................. B. edeni brydei ............... Eastern North Pacific & 

Peruvian.

—/DD 7 10,411 (0.20) ... ........................................

Sei whale ........................ B. borealis borealis ........ ........................................ E/D/EN 6 0 ....................... ........................................

Fin whale ........................ B. physalus physalus ..... ........................................ E/D/EN 6 574 ................... ........................................

Blue whale ...................... B. musculus musculus ... Eastern North Pacific ..... E/D/EN 8 1,415 (0.24) ..... ........................................

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae 

Sperm whale ................... Physeter macrocephalus ........................................ E/D/VU 7 4,145 (0.73) ..... ........................................

Family Kogiidae 

Dwarf sperm whale ......... Kogia sima ..................... ........................................ —/DD 8 11,200 (0.29; 

8,789).

88 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales) 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ... Ziphius cavirostris .......... ........................................ —/LC 8 9 20,000 (0.27) ........................................

Longman’s beaked whale Indopacetus pacificus .... ........................................ —/DD 10 1,007 (1.26) .... ........................................

Blainville’s beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris ........................................ —/DD 8 25,300 (0.20) ... ........................................

Ginkgo-toothed beaked 

whale.

M. ginkgodens.

Lesser (pygmy) beaked 

whale.

M. peruvianus.

Family Delphinidae 

Rough-toothed dolphin ... Steno bredanensis ......... ........................................ —/LC 11 107,663 (0.22; 

89,653).

897 

Common bottlenose dolphin.Tursiops truncatus 

truncatus.

........................................ —/LC 11 335,834 (0.20; 

284,952).

2,850 

Striped dolphin ................ Stenella coeruleoalba .... ........................................ —/LC 11 964,362 (0.21; 

811,592).

8,116 

Pantropical spotted dolphin.S. attenuata attenuata ... Northeastern Offshore ... 4—/D 11 857,884 (0.23) 12,334 

Western and Southern 

Offshore.

— 11 439,208 (0.29) ........................................

S. a. graffmani ............... Coastal ........................... 4—/D 11 278,155 (0.59) ........................................

Spinner dolphin ............... S. longirostris ................. Whitebelly ...................... — 734,837 (0.61) 11 ........................................

S. l. orientalis ................. Eastern ........................... 4—/D 11 1,062,879 

(0.26).

........................................

S. l. centroamericana ..... Central American ........... — Unknown ............ ........................................

Long-beaked common 

dolphin.

Delphinus capensis 

capensis.

........................................ —/DD 6 372,429 (0.36; 

278,651).

2,787 

Short-beaked common 

dolphin.

D. delphis delphis .......... Northern 

Central 

Southern 

— 11 3,127,203 

(0.26; 

2,513,269).

25,133 

Fraser’s dolphin .............. Lagenodelphis hosei ...... ........................................ —/LC 8 289,300 (0.34) ........................................

Dusky dolphin ................. Lagenorhynchus 

obscurus posidonia.

........................................ —/DD 6 40,211 .............. ........................................

Risso’s dolphin ............... Grampus griseus ........... ........................................ —/LC 11 110,457 (0.35; 

83,092).

831 

Melon-headed whale ...... Peponocephala electra .. ........................................ —/LC 8 45,400 (0.47) ... ........................................

Pygmy killer whale .......... Feresa attenuata ............ ........................................ —/DD 8 38,990 (0.31) ... ........................................

False killer whale ............ Pseudorca crassidens ... ........................................ —/DD 8 39,800 (0.64) ... 244 

Killer whale ..................... Orcinus orca 1 ................ ........................................ —/DD 8 8,500 (0.37; 

24,365).

........................................


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8189 

TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF SWFSC RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE ETP— 

Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 2 ESA/MMPA/

IUCN status 3

Abundance (CV, 

Nmin) 5 PBR 16

Short-finned pilot whale .. Globicephala 

macrorhynchus.

........................................ —/DD 7 589,315 (0.26; 

475,141).

4,751 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Guadalupe fur seal ......... Arctocephalus philippii 

townsendi.

........................................ T/D/NT 12 13 Unknown ..... ........................................

California sea lion ........... Zalophus californianus ... ........................................ —/LC 12 14 105,000 ....... 1,050 

South American sea lion Otaria byronia ................ ........................................ —/LC 12 15 150,000 ....... 1,500 

Northern elephant seal ... Mirounga angustirostris ........................................ —/LC 12 13 Unknown ..... ........................................

1 Defined ecotypes have not yet been recognized for the ETP, although available evidence (e.g., observed predation on marine mammals, genetic analysis) indicates that observed animals may be of the transient ecotype (e.g., Pitman et al., 2007; Olson and Gerrodette, 2008). 2For most species in the ETP, stocks are not delineated and entries refer generally to individuals of the species occurring in the ETP. Coastal 

regions of the ETP include wintering areas for humpback whales from both the northern (CA/OR/WA [i.e., U.S.-managed] stock; M. n. kuzira) 

and southern (Breeding Stock G, which feeds off the Antarctic Peninsula and southern Chile; M. n. australis) hemispheres. The IWC recognizes 

eastern North Pacific and Peruvian stocks of Bryde’s whale (Carretta et al., 2007), although Wade and Gerrodette (1993) suggested that Bryde’s 

whales in the ETP may comprise two stocks based on a gap in distribution between 7°N and 9°N. The offshore form of the pantropical spotted 

dolphin is found in oceanic tropical waters worldwide, while the coastal form is found only in coastal waters of the ETP. These two forms are recognized as subspecies. Offshore spotted dolphins occurring in the ETP are divided into a northeastern and combined western/southern stock. 

Whitebelly spinner dolphins are considered hybrids of the eastern spinner and the Gray’s spinner (S. l. longirostris; Gray’s spinner is a subspecies found in oceanic tropical waters worldwide), and is considered a stock for management purposes. The Central American subspecies is 

restricted to coastal waters over the ETP shelf, from southern Mexico to Costa Rica. The eastern subspecies is found in pelagic waters of the 

ETP east of 145°W, from 24°N off Baja California to 10°S off Peru, exclusive of the range of S. l. centroamericana. Short-beaked common dolphins are divided into northern, central and southern stocks, although no recent stock-specific abundance estimates are available. A hiatus at 

13–20°N and at about 3°N divide the offshore populations into the respective stocks. The central form occurs at 3–18°N and the southern common dolphin ranges from 3°N to at least 13°S (Dizon et al. 1994). 3Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (—) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Any species listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the 

MMPA as depleted. IUCN status: Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD). IUCN 

status not provided for species with defined stocks in the ETP. 4These stocks of the genus Stenella are designated as depleted under the MMPA due to high levels of bycatch in the yellowfin tuna purseseine fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific beginning in the 1950s. 5 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV and/or Nmin is not available. These 

metrics are not applicable to either species of sea lion because population estimates were made based on counts of animals in aerial photographs. These counts are considered as actual population size so there is no associated error. 6 Unpublished abundance estimates derived by SWFSC from 1998–2000, 2003, and 2006 ETP survey data reported in Kinzey et al. (1999; 

2000; 2001) and Jackson et al. (2004; 2008). NMFS’ policy is that abundance estimates greater than eight years old are not considered current; 

however, these data represent the best available information for these species. CVs were not calculated for these species. Wade and Gerrodette 

(1993) provide a CV of 0.64 for false killer whales; it is the highest CV reported in that paper or that we are aware of for the ETP. We suggest 

here that this is an appropriate conservative proxy for species for which there is no calculated CV. 7Abundance estimates derived from 2000 ETP survey data, as reported in Gerrodette and Forcada (2002). 

8Abundance estimates derived from 1986–1990 ETP survey data, as reported in Wade and Gerrodette (1993). 

9Abundance estimate for Cuvier’s beaked whale is considered to be an underestimate, as it is not corrected for animals missed along the survey track line. The abundance estimate for unidentified Ziphiids was prorated between Cuvier’s beaked whales and Mesoplodon spp. 10Abundance estimate derived from 2002 Hawaiian EEZ survey data, as reported in Barlow (2006). 11Abundance estimates derived from 2006 ETP survey data, as reported in Gerrodette et al. (2008). 12With the exception of the South American sea lion, which is generally observed along the Peruvian coast, all pinniped species are typically 

sighted only at the northern end of the ETPRA along the coast of Baja California. 13The best abundance estimates for all Guadalupe fur seals and for the California breeding population of northern elephant seals are 7,408 

and 124,000, respectively, as reported in NMFS’ SARs. However, no estimate specific to the ETP exists for either species. 14Abundance estimate is the sum of estimates for western Baja California, Mexico (75,000–87,000; Lowry and Maravilla-Chavez, 2005) and 

the Gulf of California (24,062–31,159; Szteren et al. 2006). We used the lower bound for Baja California and rounded down the upper bound for 

the Gulf of California for an approximate total abundance of 105,000. Because abundance is based on actual counts, there is no error associated 

with the estimate. 15Abundance estimate is the sum of estimates for Peru (60,000) and Chile (90,000–100,000) (Campagna, 2008). Although it is unlikely that 

this entire population would occur in the ETPRA, we assume here that it would. Because abundance is based on actual counts, there is no error 

associated with the estimate. 16PBR calculated for this analysis by SWFSC for species anticipated to be taken by M/SI + Level A only using accepted calculations for minimum population estimates and PBR (NMFS, 2005) and assuming Fr = 0.5 and Rmax = 0.04 for cetaceans and 0.12 for pinnipeds. A pooled PBR 

was calculated for all stocks of the pantropical spotted dolphin. 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem 

The SWFSC’s Antarctic Research Area 

(ARA) comprises a portion of the AMLR 

ecosystem. In the ARA, seventeen 

species are considered to have the 

potential to co-occur with SWFSC 

activities. Marine mammals in the 

AMLR do not constitute stocks under 

U.S. jurisdiction; therefore, the stocks 

are not managed by NMFS, there are no 

SARs, and substantially less information 

is available for these species in relation 

to the stocks or populations and their 

occurrence in the ARA than is available 

for CCE stocks (e.g., PBR is not 

calculated for AMLR stocks, and 

strategic designations are not made). 

Extralimital species in the ARA include 

the pygmy right whale (Caperea 

marginata), sei whale, Cuvier’s beaked 

whale, Shepherd’s beaked whale 

(Tasmacetus shepherdi), Gray’s beaked 

whale (Mesoplodon grayi), and straptoothed beaked whale (M. layardii), 

which have distributions that only 

border the northernmost edge of the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8190 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ARA. The Ross seal (Ommatophoca 

rossii) is also considered extralimital to 

the ARA due to its preference for dense 

pack ice, which is not typically present 

in the ARA. 

TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF SWFSC RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN THE AMLR 

Common name Scientific name Stock 2 ESA/MMPA 

status 3 Abundance (CV) 4

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae (right whales) 

Southern right whale .............. Eubalaena australis ............... ................................................ E/D/LC 5 1,755 (0.62) 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

Humpback whale .................... Megaptera novaeangliae 

australis.

................................................ E/D/LC 5 9,484 (0.28) 

Antarctic minke whale ............ Balaenoptera bonaerensis ..... ................................................ —/DD 5 18,125 (0.28) 

Fin whale ................................ B. physalus quoyi .................. ................................................ E/D/EN 5 4,672 (0.42) 

Blue whale .............................. B. musculus intermedia ......... ................................................ E/D/EN 6 1,700 (95% CI 860–2,900) 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae 

Sperm whale .......................... Physeter macrocephalus ....... ................................................ E/D/VU 7 12,069 (0.17) 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales) 

Arnoux’ beaked whale ............ Berardius arnuxii .................... ................................................ —/DD Unknown. 

Southern bottlenose whale .... Hyperoodon planifrons ........... ................................................ —/LC 8 53,743 (0.12) 

Family Delphinidae 

Hourglass dolphin .................. Lagenorhynchus cruciger ...... ................................................ —/LC 9 144,300 (0.17) 

Killer whale ............................. Orcinus orca 1 ........................ ................................................ —/DD 8 24,790 (0.23) 

Long-finned pilot whale .......... Globicephala melas edwardii ................................................ —/DD 9 200,000 (0.35) 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Spectacled porpoise ............... Phocoena dioptrica ................ ................................................ —/DD Unknown. 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

Antarctic fur seal .................... Arctocephalus gazella ............ South Georgia ........................ —/LC 10 2,700,000 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Southern elephant seal .......... Mirounga leonina ................... South Georgia ........................ —/LC 11 401,572 

Weddell seal ........................... Leptonychotes weddellii ......... ................................................ —/LC 12 500,000–1,000,000 

Crabeater seal ........................ Lobodon carcinophaga .......... ................................................ —/LC 12 5,000,000–10,000,000 

Leopard seal .......................... Hydrurga leptonyx .................. ................................................ —/LC 12 222,000–440,000 

1Three distinct forms of killer whale have been described from Antarctic waters; referred to as types A, B, and C, they are purported prey specialists on Antarctic minke whales, seals, and fish, respectively (Pitman and Ensor, 2003). 2For most species in the AMLR, stocks are not delineated and entries refer generally to individuals of the species occurring in the ARA. 

3Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (—) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Any species listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the 

MMPA as depleted. IUCN status: Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD). 4 CV is coefficient of variation. All abundance estimates, except for those from Reilly et al. (2004) (right, humpback, minke, and fin whales), are 

for entire Southern Ocean (i.e., waters south of 60°S) and not the smaller area comprising the SWFSC ARA. 5Abundance estimates reported in Reilly et al. (2004) for the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

(CCAMLR) survey area from 2000. Surveys include Antarctic Peninsula (473,300 km2) and Scotia Sea (1,109,800 km2) strata, which correspond 

roughly to ARA, as reported by Hewitt et al. (2004). 6Southern Ocean abundance estimate (Branch et al., 2007). CI is confidence interval. 7Southern Ocean abundance estimate (IWC, 2001 in Whitehead, 2002). 

8Southern Ocean abundance estimate from circumpolar surveys covering 68 percent of waters south of 60°S from 1991–98 (Branch and 

Butterworth, 2001). 9Southern Ocean abundance estimate derived from surveys conducted from 1976–88 (Kasamatsu and Joyce, 1995). 

10South Georgia abundance estimate; likely >95 percent of range-wide abundance (Forcada and Staniland, 2009). Genetic evidence shows 

two distinct population regions, likely descended from surviving post-sealing populations at South Georgia, Bouvet<ya, and Kerguelen Islands 

(Wynen et al., 2000; Forcada and Staniland, 2009). Individuals from the South Georgia population (including breeding populations at the South 

Orkney and South Shetland Islands, which are within the ARA) are likely to occur in the ARA. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8191 

11Four genetically distinct populations are recognized: The Peninsula Valde ́s population in Argentina, the South Georgia population in the 

South Atlantic Ocean, the Kerguelen population in the South Indian Ocean and the Macquarie population in the South Pacific Ocean (Slade et 

al., 1998; Hoelzel et al., 2001). Animals occurring in ARA are likely to belong to South Georgia population, which includes subpopulations at 

South Georgia Island (≥99% of population) and at the South Orkney and South Shetland Islands; South Georgia population abundance estimate 

from 2001 (McMahon et al., 2005). 12 Range-wide abundance estimates (Thomas and Terhune, 2009; Bengtson, 2009; Rogers, 2009). 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and Their 

Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity (e.g., gear 

deployment, use of active acoustic 

sources, visual disturbance) may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’ section will include an 

analysis of how this specific activity 

will impact marine mammals and will 

consider the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of this activity on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and from that on the affected marine 

mammal populations or stocks. In the 

following discussion, we consider 

potential effects to marine mammals 

from ship strike, physical interaction 

with the gear types described 

previously, use of active acoustic 

sources, and visual disturbance of 

pinnipeds. 

Ship Strike 

Vessel collisions with marine 

mammals, or ship strikes, can result in 

death or serious injury of the animal. 

Wounds resulting from ship strike may 

include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, 

broken bones, or propeller lacerations 

(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal 

at the surface may be struck directly by 

a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the 

bottom of a vessel, or an animal just 

below the surface may be cut by a 

vessel’s propeller. More superficial 

strikes may not kill or result in the 

death of the animal. These interactions 

are typically associated with large 

whales (e.g., fin whales), which are 

occasionally found draped across the 

bulbous bow of large commercial ships 

upon arrival in port. Although smaller 

cetaceans or pinnipeds are more 

maneuverable in relation to large vessels 

than are large whales, they may also be 

susceptible to strike. The severity of 

injuries typically depends on the size 

and speed of the vessel, with the 

probability of death or serious injury 

increasing as vessel speed increases 

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

2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; 

Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact forces 

increase with speed, as does the 

probability of a strike at a given distance 

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

Pace and Silber (2005) found that the 

probability of death or serious injury 

increased rapidly with increasing vessel 

speed. Specifically, the predicted 

probability of serious injury or death 

increased from 45 to 75 percent as 

vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn, 

and exceeded ninety percent at 17 kn. 

Higher speeds during collisions result in 

greater force of impact, but higher 

speeds also appear to increase the 

chance of severe injuries or death 

through increased likelihood of 

collision by pulling whales toward the 

vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton et al., 

1995). In a separate study, Vanderlaan 

and Taggart (2007) analyzed the 

probability of lethal mortality of large 

whales at a given speed, showing that 

the greatest rate of change in the 

probability of a lethal injury to a large 

whale as a function of vessel speed 

occurs between 8.6 and 15 kn. The 

chances of a lethal injury decline from 

approximately eighty percent at 15 kn to 

approximately twenty 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 

eighty to ninety percent. 

For vessels used in SWFSC research 

activities, transit speeds average 10 kn 

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

speed during active sampling 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 fifty percent. 

However, the likelihood of a strike 

actually happening is again 

discountable. Ship strikes, as analyzed 

in the studies cited above, generally 

involve commercial shipping, which is 

much more common in both space and 

time than is research activity. Jensen 

and Silber (2004) summarized ship 

strikes of large whales worldwide from 

1975–2003 and found that most 

collisions occurred in the open ocean 

and involved large vessels (e.g., 

commercial shipping). Commercial 

fishing vessels were responsible for 

three percent of recorded collisions, 

while only one such incident (0.75 

percent) was reported for a research 

vessel during that time period. 

It is possible for ship strikes to occur 

while traveling at slow speeds. For 

example, a NOAA-chartered survey 

vessel traveling at low speed (5.5 kn) 

while conducting multi-beam mapping 

surveys off the central California coast 

struck and killed a blue whale in 2009. 

The State of California determined that 

the whale had suddenly and 

unexpectedly surfaced beneath the hull, 

with the result that the propeller 

severed the whale’s vertebrae, and that 

this was an unavoidable event. This 

strike represents the only such incident 

in approximately 540,000 hours of 

similar coastal mapping activity (p = 1.9 

× 10¥6; 95% CI = 0–5.5 × 10¥6; NMFS, 

2013). In addition, a research vessel 

reported a fatal strike in 2011 of a 

dolphin in the Atlantic, demonstrating 

that it is possible for strikes involving 

smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds to occur. 

In that case, the incident report 

indicated that an animal apparently was 

struck by the vessel’s propeller as it was 

intentionally swimming near the vessel. 

While indicative of the type of unusual 

events that cannot be ruled out, neither 

of these instances represents a 

circumstance that would be considered 

reasonably foreseeable or that would be 

considered preventable. 

In summary, we anticipate that vessel 

collisions involving SWFSC 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 SWFSC in 

any of the three research areas. Given 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8192 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the relatively slow speeds of research 

vessels, the presence of bridge crew 

watching for obstacles at all times 

(including marine mammals), the 

presence of marine mammal observers 

on some surveys, and the small number 

of research cruises, we believe that the 

possibility of ship strike is discountable 

and, further, that were a strike of a large 

whale to occur, it would be unlikely to 

result in serious injury or mortality. No 

incidental take resulting from ship 

strike is anticipated, and this potential 

effect of research will not be discussed 

further in the following analysis. 

Research Gear 

The types of research gear used by 

SWFSC were described previously 

under ‘‘Detailed Description of 

Activity.’’ Here, we broadly categorize 

these gears into those whose use we 

consider to have extremely unlikely 

potential to result in marine mammal 

interaction and those whose use we 

believe may result in marine mammal 

interaction. Gears in the 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 midwater trawls, 

used in the CCE only, and pelagic 

longlines, used in the CCE and ETP. 

Bottom trawls, used in the AMLR only, 

and bottom longlines, used in the CCE 

only, are not considered to have the 

likely potential for marine mammal 

interaction and are addressed in the 

general trawl and longline sections 

below. 

Trawl nets and longline gears 

deployed by SWFSC 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 (a gear type not used by 

SWFSC), 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). Although interactions are less 

common for use of trawl nets and 

longlines (gear used by SWFSC), they do 

occur with sufficient frequency to 

necessitate the establishment of 

required mitigation measures for 

multiple U.S. fisheries using both types 

of gear (NMFS, 2014). It is likely that no 

species of marine mammal can be 

definitively excluded from the potential 

for interaction with fishing gear (e.g., 

Northridge, 1984); however, the extent 

of interactions is likely dependent on 

the biology, ecology, and behavior of the 

species involved and the type, location, 

and nature of the fishery. 

Trawl nets—As described previously, 

trawl nets are towed nets (i.e., active 

fishing) consisting of a cone-shaped net 

with a codend or bag for collecting the 

fish and can be designed to fish at the 

bottom, surface, or any other depth in 

the water column. Here we refer to 

bottom trawls and midwater trawls (i.e., 

any net not designed to tend the bottom 

while fishing). Trawl nets in general 

have the potential to capture or entangle 

marine mammals, which have been 

known to be caught in bottom trawls, 

presumably when feeding on fish caught 

therein, and in midwater trawls, which 

may or may not be coincident with their 

feeding (Northridge, 1984). 

Capture or entanglement may occur 

whenever marine mammals are 

swimming near the gear, intentionally 

(e.g., foraging) or unintentionally (e.g., 

migrating), and any animal captured in 

a net is at significant risk of drowning 

unless quickly freed. Animals can also 

be captured or entangled in netting or 

tow lines (also called lazy lines) other 

than the main body of the net; animals 

may become entangled around the head, 

body, flukes, pectoral fins, or dorsal fin. 

Interaction that does not result in the 

immediate death of the animal by 

drowning can cause injury (i.e., Level A 

harassment) or serious injury. 

Constricting lines wrapped around the 

animal can immobilize the animal or 

injure by cutting into or through 

blubber, muscles and bone (i.e., 

penetrating injuries) or constricting 

blood flow to or severing appendages. 

Immobilization of the animal, if it does 

not result in immediate drowning, can 

cause internal injuries from prolonged 

stress and/or severe struggling and/or 

impede the animal’s ability to feed 

(resulting in starvation or reduced 

fitness) (Andersen et al., 2008). 

Marine mammal interactions with 

trawl nets, through capture or 

entanglement, are well-documented. 

Dolphins are known to attend operating 

nets 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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8193 

foraging bottlenose dolphins. However, 

midwater trawls have greater potential 

to capture cetaceans, because the nets 

may be towed at faster speeds, these 

trawls are more likely to target species 

that are important prey for marine 

mammals (e.g., squid, mackerel), and 

the likelihood of working in deeper 

waters means that a more diverse 

assemblage of species could potentially 

be present (Hall et al., 2000). 

Globally, at least seventeen cetacean 

species are known to feed in association 

with trawlers and individuals of at least 

25 species are documented to have been 

killed by trawl nets, including several 

large whales, porpoises, and a variety of 

delphinids (Karpouzli and Leaper, 2004; 

Hall et al., 2000; Fertl and Leatherwood, 

1997; Northridge, 1991). At least 

eighteen species of seals and sea lions 

are known to have been killed in trawl 

nets (Wickens, 1995). Generally, direct 

interaction between trawl nets and 

marine mammals (both cetaceans and 

pinnipeds) has been recorded wherever 

trawling and animals co-occur. Tables 6 

and 7 display records of interactions 

between marine mammals and trawl 

nets by taxonomy and geography; please 

note that this should not be considered 

exhaustive. A lack of recorded 

interactions where animals are present 

may indicate that trawling is absent or 

an insignificant component of fisheries 

in that region or that interactions were 

not observed, recorded, or reported. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13FE15.004</GPH>
8194 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Tables 6 and 7 are intended to illustrate 

the general vulnerability of marine 

mammals to interaction with trawl nets, 

without considering the specific type of 

net or the manner in which that risk 

may be mitigated. Some of the records 

supporting development of these tables 

are from discontinued fisheries or from 

fisheries where management measures 

have subsequently mitigated the risk of 

interaction to a substantial degree. Table 

13 (below) displays more recent 

information regarding interactions 

specifically in U.S. fisheries and is more 

relevant to the development of take 

estimates for this proposed rule. In 

evaluating risk relative to a specific 

fishery (or comparable research survey), 

one must consider the size of the net as 

well as frequency, timing, and location 

of deployment. These considerations 

inform determinations of whether 

interaction with marine mammals is 

likely. 

Of the three net types described 

previously under ‘‘Trawl Nets’’, SWFSC 

has recorded marine mammal 

interactions with both midwater nets 

(NETS Nordic 264 and modified Cobb), 

which are used only in the CCE. No 

marine mammal interactions have been 

recorded for the bottom trawl (NETS 

Hard-Bottom Snapper Trawl), which is 

deployed only in the Antarctic. While a 

lack of historical interactions does not 

in and of itself indicate that future 

interactions are unlikely, we believe 

that the historical record for SWFSC 

operations in AMLR, considered in 

context with the frequency and timing 

of these bottom trawl surveys, as well as 

mitigation measures employed provide 

substantial support for a determination 

that future marine mammal interactions 

with this gear are extremely unlikely. In 

addition, as described above, bottom 

trawls generally involve less risk of 

interaction than do midwater trawls. 

Incidental takes of fur seals have been 

documented in Antarctic krill fisheries 

using midwater trawls (Hooper et al., 

2005) and rarely in demersal trawls for 

Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus 

eleginoides) near Australian 

subantarctic islands (Wienecke and 

Robertson, 2002), but there are no 

documented takes of any species in any 

other gear by U.S. vessels in the region. 

We are not aware of any such takes in 

bottom trawls deployed anywhere in 

Antarctic waters. Further, fisheries 

using bottom trawl gear are known to 

typically interact with cetaceans such as 

porpoises and bottlenose dolphins, 

which are not present in the AMLR. 

SWFSC researchers conduct visual and 

acoustic surveys prior to deploying 

bottom trawl gear to assess the 

bathymetry and whether marine 

mammals are present in the area; these 

surveys have resulted in very few 

detections of marine mammals during 

trawling operations, indicating that 

there is likely little spatio-temporal 

overlap between bottom trawl surveys 

and significant densities of marine 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13FE15.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8195 

mammals. This survey is conducted 

infrequently—only every two to three 

years—and at low volume relative to 

similar commercial fisheries, involving 

approximately one hundred tows of 

thirty-minutes each when it does occur. 

SWFSC use of bottom trawl nets, which 

are deployed only in AMLR, is not 

discussed further in this document. 

Longlines—Longlines are basically 

strings of baited hooks that are either 

anchored to the bottom, for targeting 

groundfish, or are free-floating, for 

targeting pelagic species and represent a 

passive fishing technique. Pelagic 

longlines, which notionally fish near the 

surface with the use of floats, may be 

deployed in such a way as to fish at 

different depths in the water column. 

For example, deep-set longlines 

targeting tuna may have a target depth 

of 400 m, while a shallow-set longline 

targeting swordfish is set at 30–90 m 

depth. We refer here to bottom and 

pelagic longlines. Any longline 

generally consists of a mainline from 

which leader lines (gangions) with 

baited hooks branch off at a specified 

interval, and is left to passively fish, or 

soak, for a set period of time before the 

vessel returns to retrieve the gear. 

Longlines are marked by two or more 

floats that act as visual markers and may 

also carry radio beacons; aids to 

detection are of particular importance 

for pelagic longlines, which may drift a 

significant distance from the 

deployment location. Pelagic longlines 

are generally composed of various 

diameter monofilament line and are 

generally much longer, and with more 

hooks, than are bottom longlines. 

Bottom longlines may be of 

monofilament or multifilament natural 

or synthetic lines. 

Marine mammals may be hooked or 

entangled in longline gear, with 

interactions potentially resulting in 

death due to drowning, strangulation, 

severing of carotid arteries or the 

esophagus, infection, an inability to 

evade predators, or starvation due to an 

inability to catch prey (Hofmeyr et al., 

2002), although it is more likely that 

animals will survive being hooked if 

they are able to reach the surface to 

breathe. Injuries, which may include 

serious injury, include lacerations and 

puncture wounds. Animals may attempt 

to depredate either bait or catch, with 

subsequent hooking, or may become 

accidentally entangled. As described for 

trawls, entanglement can lead to 

constricting lines wrapped around the 

animals and/or immobilization, and 

even if entangling materials are removed 

the wounds caused may continue to 

weaken the animal or allow further 

infection (Hofmeyr et al., 2002). Large 

whales may become entangled in a 

longline and then break free with a 

portion of gear trailing, resulting in 

alteration of swimming energetics due 

to drag and ultimate loss of fitness and 

potential mortality (Andersen et al., 

2008). Weight of the gear can cause 

entangling lines to further constrict and 

further injure the animal. Hooking 

injuries and ingested gear are most 

common in small cetaceans and 

pinnipeds, but have been observed in 

large cetaceans (e.g., sperm whales). The 

severity of the injury depends on the 

species, whether ingested gear includes 

hooks, whether the gear works its way 

into the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, 

whether the gear penetrates the GI 

lining, and the location of the hooking 

(e.g., embedded in the animal’s stomach 

or other internal body parts) (Andersen 

et al., 2008). Bottom longlines pose less 

of a threat to marine mammals due to 

their deployment on the ocean bottom, 

but can still result in entanglement in 

buoy lines or hooking as the line is 

either deployed or retrieved. The rate of 

interaction between longline fisheries 

and marine mammals depends on the 

degree of overlap between longline 

effort and species distribution, hook 

style and size, type of bait and target 

catch, and fishing practices (such as 

setting/hauling during the day or at 

night). 

Tables 8 and 9 display records of 

interactions between marine mammals 

and longlines by taxonomy and 

geography; please note this should not 

be considered exhaustive. A lack of 

recorded interactions where animals are 

present may indicate that longlining is 

absent or an insignificant component of 

fisheries in that region or that 

interactions were not observed, 

recorded, or reported. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8196 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Tables 8 and 9 are intended to 

illustrate the general vulnerability of 

marine mammals to interaction with 

longlines, without considering the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP13FE15.006</GPH>

Table 8. Taxonomic and geographic distribution of cetacean-longline interactions. Please see footnotes below Table 9. 

Cetaceans NW NE WC 

ATL ATL ATL 

EC 

ATL 

SW SE 

ATL ATL 

NW 

PAC 

Table 9. Taxonomic and geographic distribution ofpinniped-longline interactions. 

S PAC/ 

ATL 

Sources: Northridge, 1984, 1991; Wickens, 1995; Perez, 2006; Young and Iudicello, 2007. 

NE 

PAC 

SATL! 

IND 

we 

PAC 

EC SW SE 

PAC PAC PAC 

SIND/ 

PAC S. Ocean 

Geography: NW, NE, SW, SE refer to ordinal directions. WC/EC refer to eastern or western central. A TL Atlantic; PAC 

Pacific; IND Indian; MED Mediterranean. Geographical regions follow Northridge ( 1984) and Wickens ( 1995) for cetaceans 

and pinnipeds, respectively. Southern hemisphere geography differs for pinnipeds to better ret1ect distribution around mainland 

sites in South America, Africa, Australia, and \lew Zealand. 

Taxonomy: Species are grouped by genus where possible. Shaded boxes indicate the genus or species is not present in that 

geographic region. There are numerous records of interactions with unidentified cetaceans and pinnipeds. 
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8197 

specific type of gear or the manner in 

which that risk may be mitigated. Some 

of the records supporting development 

of these tables are from discontinued 

fisheries or from fisheries where 

management measures have 

subsequently mitigated the risk of 

interaction to a substantial degree. Table 

13 (see ‘‘Estimated Take Due to Gear 

Interaction’’) displays more recent 

information regarding interactions 

specifically in U.S. fisheries and is more 

relevant to the development of take 

estimates for this proposed rule. 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. 

SWFSC has recorded marine mammal 

interactions with traditional pelagic 

longlines, which are used in the CCE 

and planned for use in the ETP, but not 

with vertical pelagic longlines or with 

bottom longlines (CCE only). 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 provide substantial 

support for a determination that future 

marine mammal interactions with these 

gears are extremely unlikely. In 

addition, as described above, bottom 

longlines generally involve less risk of 

interaction than do pelagic longlines. 

Vertical longline gear, planned for use 

in the deep-set buoy gear surveys, is 

similar to gear used in the Atlantic, and 

there are no recorded marine mammal 

interactions in either location. The only 

known U.S. fishery using similar gear is 

the Hawaii vertical longline fishery, 

which has nine participants (meaning 

there is likely greater effort than the 

minimal 54 sets and 2,200 hook hours 

logged by SWFSC), and is categorized as 

a Category III fishery (i.e., remote 

likelihood of or no known M/SI) with 

no documented incidental M/SI. The 

gear has been designed specifically to 

eliminate protected species interactions, 

with minimal visual and/or sensory 

attractants to the gear in the upper water 

column (e.g., no surface chumming or 

offal discharge, no visual cues from 

multiple hooks that are sinking to depth 

slowly), and with a single weighted 

monofilament line with virtually no 

slack or sag. These features minimize 

the risk of hooking or entanglement. 

The SWFSC deploys bottom longlines 

at an extremely limited scale for one 

survey (Sablefish Life History) in one 

location (near Bodega Bay in central 

California). The survey is conducted 

once per month, with approximately 

two to three sets of 75 hooks each per 

trip (approximately two hundred hooks 

per month). Commercial fisheries 

involving bottom longlines that have 

documented incidental M/SI operate at 

much larger spatio-temporal scales with 

much greater hook hours than this 

survey, which we consider de minimis. 

Neither vertical longlines nor bottom 

longlines are discussed further in this 

document. 

Other research gear—The only 

SWFSC research gears with any record 

of marine mammal interactions are 

midwater trawls (NETS Nordic 264 and 

modified-Cobb) and pelagic longline 

gear. Bottom trawls and other types of 

longlines were discussed in the 

preceding sections. All other gears used 

in SWFSC fisheries research (e.g., a 

variety of plankton nets, CTDs, ROVs) 

do not have the expected potential for 

marine mammal interactions, and are 

not known to have been involved in any 

marine mammal interaction anywhere. 

Specifically, we consider CTDs, XBTs, 

CUFES, ROVs, small trawls (Oozeki, 

IKMT, MOCNESS, and Tucker trawls), 

plankton nets (Bongo, Pairovet, and 

Manta nets), and vertically deployed or 

towed imaging systems to be no-impact 

gear types. 

Unlike trawl nets and longline gear, 

which are used in both scientific 

research and commercial fishing 

applications, these other gears are not 

considered similar or analogous to any 

commercial fishing gear and are not 

designed to capture any commercially 

salable species, or to collect any sort of 

sample in large quantities. They are not 

considered to have the potential to take 

marine mammals primarily because of 

their design 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 SWFSC 

(see ‘‘Description of Active Acoustic 

Sound Sources’’). Here, we first provide 

background information on marine 

mammal hearing before discussing the 

potential effects of SWFSC use of active 

acoustic sources on marine mammals. 

Marine mammal hearing—Hearing is 

the most important sensory modality for 

marine mammals underwater, and 

exposure to anthropogenic sound can 

have deleterious effects. To 

appropriately assess the potential effects 

of exposure to sound, it is necessary to 

understand the frequency ranges marine 

mammals are able to hear. Current data 

indicate that not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into functional 

hearing groups based on directly 

measured or estimated hearing ranges 

on the basis of available behavioral 

response data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for lowfrequency cetaceans. The functional 

groups and the associated frequencies 

are indicated below (note that these 

frequency ranges correspond to the 

range for the composite group, with the 

entire range not necessarily reflecting 

the capabilities of every species within 

that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): functional hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 25 kHz (up to 

30 kHz in some species), with best 

hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 

8 kHz (Watkins, 1986; Ketten, 1998; 

Houser et al., 2001; Au et al., 2006; 

Lucifredi and Stein, 2007; Ketten et al., 

2007; Parks et al., 2007a; Ketten and 

Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012); 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): functional hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, 

with best hearing from 10 to less than 

100 kHz (Johnson, 1967; White, 1977; 

Richardson et al., 1995; Szymanski et 

al., 1999; Kastelein et al., 2003; 

Finneran et al., 2005a, 2009; Nachtigall 

et al., 2005, 2008; Yuen et al., 2005; 

Popov et al., 2007; Au and Hastings, 

2008; Houser et al., 2008; Pacini et al., 

2010, 2011; Schlundt et al., 2011); 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

including the hourglass dolphin, on the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8198 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

basis of recent echolocation data and 

genetic data [May-Collado and 

Agnarsson, 2006; Kyhn et al. 2009, 

2010; Tougaard et al. 2010]): functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz 

(Popov and Supin, 1990a, b; Kastelein et 

al., 2002; Popov et al., 2005); and 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): functional hearing is estimated to 

occur between approximately 75 Hz to 

100 kHz, with best hearing between 1– 

50 kHz (M<hl, 1968; Terhune and 

Ronald, 1971, 1972; Richardson et al., 

1995; Kastak and Schusterman, 1999; 

Reichmuth, 2008; Kastelein et al., 2009); 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): functional hearing is estimated to 

occur between 100 Hz and 40 kHz for 

Otariidae, with best hearing between 2– 

48 kHz (Schusterman et al., 1972; Moore 

and Schusterman, 1987; Babushina et 

al., 1991; Richardson et al., 1995; Kastak 

and Schusterman, 1998; Kastelein et al., 

2005a; Mulsow and Reichmuth, 2007; 

Mulsow et al., 2011a, b). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth et al., 2013). 

Within the CCE, 34 marine mammal 

species (28 cetacean and six pinniped 

[four otariid and two phocid] species) 

have the potential to co-occur with 

SWFSC research activities. Please refer 

to Tables 3–5. Of the 28 cetacean 

species that may be present, six 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.). Within 

the ETP, 32 marine mammal species (28 

cetacean and four pinniped [three 

otariid and one phocid] species) have 

the potential to co-occur with SWFSC 

research activities. Of the 28 cetacean 

species that may be present, six are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all mysticete species), 21 are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species 

and the sperm whale), and one is 

classified as a high-frequency cetacean 

(i.e., dwarf sperm whale). Within the 

AMLR, seventeen marine mammal 

species (twelve cetacean and five 

pinniped [one otariid and four phocid] 

species) have the potential to co-occur 

with SWFSC research activities. Of the 

twelve cetacean species that may be 

present, five are classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete 

species), five are classified as midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid 

and ziphiid species [excluding the 

hourglass dolphin] and the sperm 

whale), and two are classified as highfrequency cetaceans (i.e., the hourglass 

dolphin and spectacled porpoise). 

Potential effects of underwater 

sound—Please refer to the information 

given previously (‘‘Description of Active 

Acoustic Sources’’) regarding sound, 

characteristics of sound types, and 

metrics used in this document. 

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 

range of frequencies and sound levels 

and can have a range of highly variable 

impacts on marine life, from none or 

minor to potentially severe responses, 

depending on received levels, duration 

of exposure, behavioral context, and 

various other factors. The potential 

effects of underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can potentially result 

in one or more of the following: 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects, behavioral 

disturbance, stress, and masking 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 

2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

al., 2007; 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 SWFSC’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 SWFSC 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 

(Kastak et al., 1999; Schlundt et al., 

2000; Finneran et al., 2002, 2005b). TS 

can be permanent (PTS), in which case 

the loss of hearing sensitivity is not 

fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 

which case the animal’s hearing 

threshold would recover over time 

(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound 

exposure that leads to TTS could cause 

PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can 

be total or partial deafness, while in 

most cases the animal has an impaired 

ability to hear sounds in specific 

frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

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

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

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

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

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

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals—PTS data exists only 

for a single harbor seal (Kastak et al., 

2008)—but are assumed to be similar to 

those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several decibels 

above (a 40-dB threshold shift 

approximates PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et 

al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing 

mild TTS (a 6-dB threshold shift 

approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall 

et al. 2007). Based on data from 

terrestrial mammals, a precautionary 

assumption is that the PTS thresholds 

for impulse sounds (such as impact pile 

driving pulses as received close to the 

source) are at least 6 dB higher than the 

TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis 

and PTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher 

than TTS cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). 

Given the higher level of sound or 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8199 

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). 

SWFSC 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, and none of the data 

published at the time of this writing 

concern TTS elicited by exposure to 

multiple pulses of sound. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale [Delphinapterus 

leucas], harbor porpoise, and Yangtze 

finless porpoise [Neophocoena 

asiaeorientalis]) and three species of 

pinnipeds (northern elephant seal, 

harbor seal, and California sea lion) 

exposed to a limited number of sound 

sources (i.e., mostly tones and octaveband noise) in laboratory settings (e.g., 

Finneran et al., 2002; Nachtigall et al., 

2004; Kastak et al., 2005; Lucke et al., 

2009; Popov et al., 2011). In general, 

harbor seals (Kastak et al., 2005; 

Kastelein et al., 2012a) and harbor 

porpoises (Lucke et al., 2009; Kastelein 

et al., 2012b) have a lower TTS onset 

than other measured pinniped or 

cetacean species. Additionally, the 

existing marine mammal TTS data come 

from a limited number of individuals 

within these species. There are no data 

available on noise-induced hearing loss 

for mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Southall et al. (2007) and 

Finneran and Jenkins (2012). 

2. Behavioral effects—Behavioral 

disturbance may include a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance 

of an area or changes in vocalizations), 

more conspicuous changes in similar 

behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

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

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

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

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

depending on characteristics associated 

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

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

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

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

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

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic airguns or 

acoustic harassment devices) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

suggesting discomfort (Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et 

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

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8200 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). However, there are broad 

categories of potential response, which 

we describe in greater detail here, that 

include alteration of dive behavior, 

alteration of foraging behavior, effects to 

breathing, interference with or alteration 

of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely, and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

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

Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et 

al.; 2004). Variations in dive behavior 

may reflect interruptions in biologically 

significant activities (e.g., foraging) or 

they may be of little biological 

significance. The impact of an alteration 

to dive behavior resulting from an 

acoustic exposure depends on what the 

animal is doing at the time of the 

exposure and the type and magnitude of 

the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

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

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

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

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

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

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

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

while right whales have been observed 

to shift the frequency content of their 

calls upward while reducing the rate of 

calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 

2007b). In some cases, animals may 

cease sound production during 

production of aversive signals (Bowles 

et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

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

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

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

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

Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et 

al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

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

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and 

England, 2001). However, it should be 

noted that response to a perceived 

predator does not necessarily invoke 

flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and 

whether individuals are solitary or in 

groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

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

Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

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

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

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday 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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8201 

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). 

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., 

2007b; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

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

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

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

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 

shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

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

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Potential effects of SWFSC activity— 

As described previously (see 

‘‘Description of Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources’’), the SWFSC 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 

SWFSC 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 SWFSC. There has 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8202 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

been relatively little attention given to 

the potential impacts of high-frequency 

sonar systems on marine life, largely 

because their combination of high 

output frequency and relatively low 

output power means that such systems 

are less likely to impact many marine 

species. However, some marine 

mammals do hear and produce sounds 

within the frequency range used by 

these sources and ambient noise is 

much lower at high frequencies, 

increasing the probability of signal 

detection relative to other sounds in the 

environment. 

As noted above, relatively high levels 

of sound are likely required to cause 

TTS in most pinnipeds and odontocete 

cetaceans. While dependent on sound 

exposure frequency, level, and duration, 

NMFS’ acoustics experts believe that 

existing studies indicate that for the 

kinds of relatively brief exposures 

potentially associated with transient 

sounds such as those produced by the 

active acoustic sources used by the 

SWFSC, SPLs in the range of 

approximately 180–220 dB rms might be 

required to induce onset TTS levels for 

most species (SWFSC, 2013). 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 (SWFSC, 2013). 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 SWFSC 

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 SWFSC 

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 SWFSC, 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 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° × 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 

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 beam width is small and the 

pulse length very short, so the risk of 

ensonification above TTS levels is still 

considered quite small and the 

likelihood of auditory or other injuries 

low. In general, the authors reached the 

same conclusions described for the 

single-beam systems, but note that more 

severe impacts—including fatalities 

resulting from herding of sensitive 

species in narrow sea ways—are at least 

possible (i.e., may occur in exceptional 

circumstances). However, the 

probability of herding remains low not 

just because of the rarity of the 

necessary confluence of species, 

bathymetry, and likely other factors, but 

because the restricted beam shape 

makes it unlikely that an animal would 

be exposed more than briefly during the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8203 

passage of the vessel (Boebel et al., 

2005). 

We have, however, considered the 

potential for severe behavioral 

responses such as stranding and 

associated indirect injury or mortality 

from SWFSC use of the multibeam 

echosounder, on the basis of a 2008 

mass stranding of approximately one 

hundred melon-headed whales in a 

Madagascar lagoon system. An 

investigation of the event indicated that 

use of a high-frequency mapping system 

(12-kHz multibeam echosounder; it is 

important to note that all SWFSC 

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 SWFSC 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 highfrequency specialists such as porpoises) 

but are unlikely to be audible to 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans) and most pinnipeds. While 

low-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds 

have been observed to respond 

behaviorally to low- and mid-frequency 

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

little evidence of behavioral responses 

in these species to high-frequency 

sound exposure (e.g., Jacobs and 

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

a marine mammal does perceive a signal 

from a SWFSC active acoustic source, it 

is likely that the response would be, at 

most, behavioral in nature. Behavioral 

reactions of free-ranging marine 

mammals to scientific sonars are likely 

to vary by species and circumstance. For 

example, Watkins et al. (1985) note that 

sperm whales did not appear to be 

disturbed by or even aware of signals 

from scientific sonars and pingers (36– 

60 kHz) despite being very close to the 

transducers, but Gerrodette and Pettis 

(2005) report that, when a 38-kHz 

echosounder and ADCP were on (1) the 

average size of detected schools of 

spotted dolphins and pilot whales was 

decreased; (2) perpendicular sighting 

distances increased for spotted and 

spinner dolphins; and (3) sighting rates 

decreased for beaked whales. As 

described above, behavioral responses 

of marine mammals are extremely 

variable, depending on multiple 

exposure factors, with the most common 

type of observed response being 

behavioral avoidance of areas around 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8204 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

aversive sound sources. Certain 

odontocete cetaceans (particularly 

harbor porpoises and beaked whales) 

are known to avoid high-frequency 

sound sources in both field and 

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

2000, 2005b, 2008a, b; Culik et al., 2001; 

Johnston, 2002; Olesiuk et al., 2002; 

Carretta et al., 2008). There is some 

additional, low probability for masking 

to occur for high-frequency specialists, 

but similar factors (directional beam 

pattern, transient signal, moving vessel) 

mean that the significance of any 

potential masking is probably 

inconsequential. 

Potential Effects of Visual Disturbance 

During AMLR surveys conducted 

during the southern hemisphere winter, 

pinnipeds are expected to be hauled out 

on ice and at times experience 

incidental close approaches by the 

survey vessel during the course of its 

fisheries research activities. SWFSC 

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. However, AMLR surveys that 

have the potential to disturb pinnipeds 

on ice occur during austral winter and 

are unlikely to overlap in time with the 

periods when pups would be vulnerable 

to extended separation or trampling. 

While data on Antarctic pinniped 

phenology are limited, available 

information supports the intuitive 

conclusion that winter surveys would 

not overlap with pupping or lactation 

periods. The range of earliest to latest 

phocid pup observation over the course 

of five research voyages in east 

Antarctica from 1985–1999 was October 

2, while the latest was December 25 

(Southwell et al., 2003). Given the 

nature of potential disturbance—which 

would entail the gradual and highly 

visible approach of a large vessel—we 

would expect that pinnipeds would 

exhibit a gradual response escalation, 

and that stampeding would likely not be 

an issue. 

Disturbance of pinnipeds caused by 

SWFSC survey activities—which are 

sparsely distributed in space and time— 

would be expected to last for only short 

periods of time, separated by significant 

amounts of time in which no 

disturbance occurred. Because such 

disturbance is sporadic, rather than 

chronic, and of low intensity, individual 

marine mammals are unlikely to incur 

any detrimental impacts to vital rates or 

ability to forage and, thus, loss of 

fitness. Correspondingly, even local 

populations, much less the overall 

stocks of animals, are extremely 

unlikely to accrue any significantly 

detrimental impacts. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

Effects to prey—In addition to direct, 

or operational, interactions between 

fishing gear and marine mammals, 

indirect (i.e., biological or ecological) 

interactions occur as well, in which 

marine mammals and fisheries both 

utilize the same resource, potentially 

resulting in competition that may be 

mutually disadvantageous (e.g., 

Northridge, 1984; Beddington et al., 

1985; Wickens, 1995). Marine mammal 

prey varies by species, season, and 

location and, for some, is not well 

documented. There is some overlap in 

prey of marine mammals in the CCE and 

the species sampled and removed 

during SWFSC research surveys, with 

primary species of concern being small, 

energy-rich, schooling species such as 

Pacific sardine, anchovies, and jack 

mackerel. 

However, the total amount of these 

species taken in research surveys is very 

small relative to their overall biomass in 

the area (See Section 4.2.3 of the 

SWFSC EA for more information on fish 

catch during research surveys). For 

example, the average annual catch of 

Pacific sardines in the course of all 

SWFSC research surveys during 2007– 

11 was approximately 1.6 metric tons 

(mt). Research catch is therefore a very 

small fraction of the estimated biomass 

for Pacific sardines (157 million mt; Hill 

et al., 2011), and is negligible compared 

to the combined commercial harvest for 

sardines (145,861 mt) in the CCE (2010 

data; Hill et al., 2011). The average 

annual catch of anchovies in the course 

of all SWFSC research surveys in the 

past five years is about 1.2 mt. Biomass 

estimates are not available for this 

species, but the overfishing level has 

been set at 139,000 mt and commercial 

harvests off the U.S. Pacific coast are 

about 2,093 mt per year (2010 data, Hill 

et al., 2011). For jack mackerel, average 

combined SWFSC research catch (0.4 

mt) compares to an overfishing level of 

126,000 mt and commercial harvests of 

about 309 mt (2010 data, Hill et al., 

2011). Other species of fish and 

invertebrates that are used as prey by 

marine mammals are taken in research 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8205 

surveys as well but, as exemplified by 

these three predominant species, the 

proportions of research catch compared 

to biomass and commercial harvest is 

very small. 

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 rockfish are 

typically only centimeters long) and 

these small size classes are not known 

to be prey of marine mammals in the 

CCE. Research catches are also 

distributed over a wide area because of 

the random sampling design covering 

large sample areas. Fish removals by 

research are therefore highly localized 

and unlikely to affect the spatial 

concentrations and availability of prey 

for any marine mammal species. This is 

especially true for pinnipeds in the CCE, 

which are opportunistic predators that 

consume a wide assortment of fish and 

squid, and judging by their increasing 

populations throughout their range and 

expanding range into the Pacific 

Northwest (Caretta et al., 2014), food 

availability does not appear to be a 

limiting factor (Baraff and Loughlin, 

2000; Scordino, 2010). The overall effect 

of research catches on marine mammals 

through competition for prey may 

therefore be considered insignificant for 

all species in the CCE. 

SWFSC research catches in the ETP 

are currently limited to tiny amounts of 

plankton (about 20 kg total) and juvenile 

fish (about 1 kg total) collected over vast 

areas of the ocean. The effects on marine 

mammals are therefore insignificant for 

all species in the ETP. The addition of 

a few longline sets would likely take 

some species and size classes used as 

prey by marine mammals, but the effort 

would be so small and distributed over 

such a large area that it would not 

change this conclusion. 

In the AMLR, SWFSC surveys are 

primarily focused on Antarctic krill, 

which are a key component of the food 

web for numerous marine mammals 

(including fur seals and baleen whales) 

as well as penguins and other birds. 

Acoustic data are used to measure 

abundance and distribution of krill but 

very small amounts of krill and 

zooplankton are also captured in smallmesh nets (e.g., IKMT) for biometric 

data. Krill abundance and distribution is 

driven by weather and oceanographic 

forces and varies tremendously over 

space (patchy distribution) and over 

time. Biomass estimates are only 

available in the few places where 

research occurs (South Shetland Islands 

and Elephant Island). Estimates of krill 

biomass in each of three monitored 

areas have averaged between 0.5–2.5 

million mt in the past few years (e.g., 

Van Cise, 2009). The amount of krill and 

other zooplankton collected during 

research is an insignificant fraction of 

overall biomass and would not affect the 

abundance or availability of prey for any 

marine mammals. The SWFSC also 

conducts periodic bottom trawl surveys 

in the South Orkney Islands area to 

monitor the recovery of several finfish 

that were overfished in the 1970s-80s. 

These surveys are only conducted every 

two or three years as funds and 

appropriate charter vessels become 

available. During one recent survey, a 

total of 7.7 mt of fish were collected 

from 65 species (Van Cise, 2009). This 

data has been used to estimate densities 

of the different species in the area, with 

the most common species caught having 

densities up to 7 mt/nm2. It is not 

known how important these species or 

size classes taken during research are to 

marine mammals in the area. However, 

given the periodic nature of the surveys 

and the relatively small amount of fish 

removed from the system over a large 

area, it is unlikely to affect the 

distribution or availability of prey for 

any marine mammal 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 SWFSC’s use of 

active acoustic sources). Anthropogenic 

noise varies widely in its frequency 

content, duration, and loudness and 

these characteristics greatly influence 

the potential habitat-mediated effects to 

marine mammals (please see also the 

previous discussion on masking under 

‘‘Acoustic Effects’’), which may range 

from local effects for brief periods of 

time to chronic effects over large areas 

and for long durations. Depending on 

the extent of effects to habitat, animals 

may alter their communications signals 

(thereby potentially expending 

additional energy) or miss acoustic cues 

(either conspecific or adventitious). For 

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

Barber et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 

2011; Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et 

al., 2014. 

Problems arising from a failure to 

detect cues are more likely to occur 

when noise stimuli are chronic and 

overlap with biologically relevant cues 

used for communication, orientation, 

and predator/prey detection (Francis 

and Barber, 2013). As described above 

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

by SWFSC active acoustic sources are 

generally high frequency, of short 

duration, and transient. These factors 

mean that the signals will attenuate 

rapidly (not travel over great distances), 

may not be perceived or affect 

perception even when animals are in 

the vicinity, and would not be 

considered chronic in any given 

location. SWFSC 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 SWFSC use of these 

sources would, on their own, have any 

appreciable effect on acoustic habitat. 

Sounds emitted by SWFSC vessels 

would be of lower frequency and 

continuous, but would also be widely 

dispersed in both space and time. 

SWFSC 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. 

Aside from bottom trawling in the 

AMLR—which is conducted only every 

two to three years in a relatively limited 

portion of the overall region, and 

therefore represents an insignificant 

impact—SWFSC activities would not be 

expected to have any impact on 

physical habitat in any specified 

geographical region. As described in the 

preceding, the potential for SWFSC 

research to affect the availability of prey 

to marine mammals or to meaningfully 

impact the quality of acoustic habitat is 

considered to be insignificant for all 

species, in all three specified 

geographical regions. Effects to habitat 

will not be discussed further in this 

document. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8206 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment, Serious Injury, or Mortality 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. Serious injury means any 

injury that will likely result in mortality 

(50 CFR 216.3). 

Take of marine mammals incidental 

to SWFSC research activities could 

occur as a result of (1) injury or 

mortality due to gear interaction (CCE 

and ETP only; 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 on ice 

resulting from close proximity of 

research vessels (AMLR only; Level B 

harassment only). 

Estimated Take Due to Gear Interaction 

Historical Interactions 

In order to estimate the number of 

potential incidents of take that could 

occur by M/SI + Level A through gear 

interaction, we first consider SWFSC’s 

record of past such incidents, and then 

consider in addition other species that 

may have similar vulnerabilities to 

SWFSC midwater trawl and pelagic 

longline gear as those species for which 

we have historical interaction records. 

Historical interactions with SWFSC 

research gear are described in Tables 10 

and 11. Available records are for the 

years 2006 through present. All 

historical interactions have taken place 

in the California Current Ecosystem. 

Please see Figures 4.2–1 and 4.2–2 in 

the SWFSC EA for specific locations of 

these incidents. 

TABLE 10—HISTORICAL INTERACTIONS WITH TRAWL GEAR

Gear 1 Survey Date Species Number 

killed 

Number released alive Total 

Midwater trawl ........ Coastal Pelagic 

Species (CPS).

4/24/2006 Northern fur seal (CA stock) .................. 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/29/2007 Northern fur seal (CA stock) .................. 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl 2 ...... Juvenile Rockfish ... 5/30/2007 Northern fur seal (eastern Pacific stock) 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/18/2008 California sea lion ................................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/21/2008 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/26/2008 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 2 .................... 2 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/27/2008 California sea lion ................................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/27/2008 Northern fur seal (eastern Pacific stock) 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl 2 ...... Juvenile Rockfish ... 6/15/2008 California sea lion ................................... 1 2 3 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 7/19/2008 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 7/28/2008 California sea lion ................................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 7/31/2008 Northern fur seal (CA stock) .................. 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 8/3/2008 Northern fur seal (CA stock) .................. 1 .................... 1

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 8/9/2008 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 11 .................... 11 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 8/9/2008 Northern right whale dolphin .................. 6 .................... 6

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 8/14/2008 California sea lion ................................... 9 .................... 9 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 5/1/2009 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... .................... 3 3 

Midwater trawl 2 ...... Juvenile Rockfish ... 5/25/2009 California sea lion ................................... .................... 1 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/18/2010 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... .................... 1 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/25/2010 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl 2 ...... Juvenile Rockfish ... 9/10/2010 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 4/3/2011 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 1 .................... 1

Midwater trawl ........ Juvenile Salmon ..... 9/9/2011 California sea lion ................................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ Juvenile Salmon ..... 9/10/2011 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 6 .................... 6 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 6/29/2012 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... .................... 1 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 8/18/2012 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 1 .................... 1 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 8/24/2012 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 2 .................... 2 

Midwater trawl ........ CPS ........................ 8/1/2013 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 1 2 3 

Midwater trawl ........ Juvenile Salmon ..... 9/14/2013 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 3 .................... 3 

Midwater trawl 2 ...... Juvenile Rockfish ... 6/1/2014 Pacific white-sided dolphin ..................... 1 .................... 1 

Total individuals captured (total number of interactions given in parentheses).Northern fur seal (6) ...............................

California sea lion (7) .............................

Pacific white-sided dolphin (16) .............

Northern right whale dolphin (1) .............

6 

14 

32 

6 

3 

7 

6 

17 

39 

6 

1All incidents involved use of the NETS Nordic 264 midwater trawl, except as noted below. 

2These incidents involved use of the modified-Cobb midwater trawl. 

TABLE 11—HISTORICAL INTERACTIONS WITH LONGLINE GEAR

Gear Survey Date Species Number 

killed 

Number released alive Total 

Pelagic longline ...... Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS).

9/6/2008 California sea lion ................................... .................... 1 1 

Pelagic longline ...... HMS ....................... 9/15/2008 California sea lion ................................... .................... 1 1 

Pelagic longline ...... Thresher Shark ...... 9/18/2009 California sea lion ................................... .................... 1 1 

Pelagic longline ...... HMS ....................... 7/27/2010 California sea lion ................................... .................... 1 1 

Pelagic longline ...... HMS ....................... 6/23/2012 California sea lion ................................... .................... 1 1 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8207 

TABLE 11—HISTORICAL INTERACTIONS WITH LONGLINE GEAR—Continued 

Gear Survey Date Species Number 

killed 

Number released alive Total 

Pelagic longline ...... HMS ....................... 7/10/2013 California sea lion ................................... .................... 1 1 

Pelagic longline ...... HMS ....................... 7/2/2014 California sea lion ................................... .................... 1 1 

Total ................ ................................ .................... ................................................................. .................... 7 7 

The SWFSC has no recorded 

interactions with any gear other than 

midwater trawl and pelagic longline. As 

noted previously in ‘‘Potential Effects of 

the Specified Activity on Marine 

Mammals,’’ we do not anticipate any 

future interactions in any other gears, 

including the bottom trawl gear 

periodically employed by the SWFSC in 

the AMLR. Although some historical 

interactions resulted in the animal(s) 

being released alive, no serious injury 

determinations (NMFS, 2012a; 2012b) 

were made, and it is possible that some 

of these animals later died. In order to 

use these historical interaction records 

in a precautionary manner as the basis 

for the take estimation process, and 

because we have no specific information 

to indicate whether any given future 

interaction might result in M/SI versus 

Level A harassment, we conservatively 

assume that all interactions equate to 

mortality. 

During trawl surveys, SWFSC has 

recorded interactions with northern fur 

seals (California and eastern Pacific 

stocks; six total interactions with six 

individual animals); California sea lions 

(seven total interactions with seventeen 

animals); Pacific white-sided dolphins 

(sixteen interactions with 39 animals); 

and northern right whale dolphins (one 

interaction with six animals). No 

northern fur seal has been captured 

since 2008, and northern right whale 

dolphins have been involved in only 

one incident, also in 2008. Therefore, 

California sea lions and Pacific whitesided dolphins are the species most 

likely to interact with SWFSC trawl 

gear. Averages of 2.4 sea lions and 2.4 

dolphins have been captured per 

interaction; however, these numbers are 

skewed by separate, single incidents in 

which nine sea lions and eleven 

dolphins were captured. The latter of 

these was the same trawl in which six 

northern right whale dolphins were 

captured and is the only incident in 

which more than one species was 

captured. Excluding these likely outliers 

leaves an average of 1.3 sea lions and 

1.8 dolphins captured per event. For 

longline gear, only California sea lions 

have been captured. Each longline 

incident involved a single animal and 

all animals have been released alive; 

however, as for incidents involving 

trawl gear, no serious injury 

determinations were made. 

In order to produce the most 

precautionary take estimates possible, 

we use here the most recent five years 

of data that includes 2008 (e.g., 2008– 

12). As previously noted, there were 

dramatically more of both interactions 

and animals captured (41 animals 

captured in fourteen interactions across 

both longline and trawl gear) in the year 

2008 than in any other year (an average 

of 4.3 animals captured in 2.8 

interactions in all other years). We 

believe a five-year time frame provides 

enough data to adequately capture yearto-year variation in take levels, while 

reflecting recent environmental 

conditions and survey protocols that 

may change over time. 

California Current Ecosystem 

In order to estimate the potential 

number of incidents of M/SI + Level A 

that could occur incidental to the 

SWFSC’s use of midwater trawl and 

pelagic longline gear in the CCE over the 

five-year period from 2015–19, we first 

look at the four species described that 

have been taken historically and then 

evaluate the potential vulnerability of 

additional species to these gears. Table 

12 shows the five-year annual average 

captures of these four species and the 

projected five-year totals for this 

proposed rule, for both trawl and 

longline gear. In order to produce 

precautionary estimates, we calculate 

the annual average for the designated 

five-year period (2008–12), round up to 

the nearest whole number, and assume 

that this number may be taken in each 

future year. This is precautionary in part 

because we include 2008 in the fiveyear average, which skews the data for 

all species captured in trawl gear 

(though not for longline). These 

estimates are based on the assumption 

that annual effort (e.g., total annual 

trawl tow time) over the proposed fiveyear authorization period will not 

exceed the annual effort during the 

period 2008–12. 

TABLE 12—ANNUAL AVERAGE CAPTURES (2008–12) AND PROJECTED FIVE-YEAR TOTAL FOR HISTORICALLY CAPTURED

SPECIES

Gear Species 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Maximum 

for any set 1

Average per 

year 

Projected 5- 

year total 2

Trawl ................. Pacific white-sided dolphin ......... 15 3 3 7 4 11 6 .4 35 

California sea lion ....................... 15 1 0 1 0 9 3 .4 20 

Northern right whale dolphin ...... 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 .2 10 

Northern fur seal ......................... 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 .6 5 

Longline ............ California sea lion ....................... 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 

1The maximum number of individual animals captured in a single trawl tow or longline set, 2008–12. 

2The estimated total is the product of the 2008–12 annual average rounded up to the nearest whole number and multiplied by the five-year 

timespan of the proposed rule. 

As background to the process of 

determining which species not 

historically taken may have sufficient 

vulnerability to capture in SWFSC gear 

to justify inclusion in the take 

authorization request, we note that the 

SWFSC is NMFS’ research arm in the 

southwest portion of the West Coast 

Region and may be considered as a 

leading source of expert knowledge 

regarding marine mammals (e.g., 

behavior, abundance, density) in the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8208 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

areas where they operate. The species 

for which the take request was 

formulated were selected by the 

SWFSC, and we have concurred with 

these decisions. 

In order to evaluate the potential 

vulnerability of additional species to 

midwater trawl and pelagic longline 

gear, we first consulted NMFS’ List of 

Fisheries (LOF), which classifies U.S. 

commercial fisheries into one of three 

categories according to the level of 

incidental marine mammal M/SI that is 

known to occur on an annual basis over 

the most recent five-year period 

(generally) for which data has been 

analyzed: Category I, frequent incidental 

M/SI; Category II, occasional incidental 

M/SI; and Category III, remote 

likelihood of or no known incidental M/ 

SI. We provide this information, as 

presented in the 2014 LOF (79 FR 

14418; April 14, 2014), in Table 13 (note 

that Table 13 includes information for 

CCE and ETP species). 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 SWFSC 

research gear. More information is 

available on the Internet at: 

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

lof/. 

TABLE 13—U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES INTERACTIONS FOR MIDWATER TRAWL AND PELAGIC LONGLINE FOR RELEVANT

SPECIES

Species 1 Midwater 

trawl 2 Location/fishery 3 Vulnerability inferred? 4

Pelagic 

longline 2 Location/fishery 3 Vulnerability inferred? 4

Gray whale .......... N n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

Humpback whale Y AK BSAI pollock trawl (2) N Y HI shallow-set longline 

(0.75).

N 

Balaenoptera spp5 Y AK GOA pollock trawl (0) N N n/a ................................... n/a 

Sperm whale ........ N n/a ................................... n/a Y HI deep-set longline (3), 

ATL large pelagics 

longline (0).

N 

Kogia spp ............. N n/a ................................... n/a Y HI shallow-set longline (0) Y 

Cuvier’s beaked 

whale.

N n/a ................................... n/a Y American Samoa longline 

(0), ATL large pelagics 

longline (0).

N 

Baird’s beaked 

whale.

N n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

Mesoplodon spp .. N n/a ................................... n/a Y HI shallow-set longline 

(1),7 ATL large pelagics 

longline (0).

N 

Rough-toothed 

dolphin.

N n/a ................................... n/a Y American Samoa longline 

(10.9).

Y 

Common 

bottlenose dolphin.

N n/a ................................... n/a Y HI deep-set longline (9), 

HI shallow-set longline 

(7), ATL large pelagics 

longline (23.8).

Y 

Stenella spp ......... N n/a ................................... n/a Y HI deep-set longline (7), 

HI shallow-set longline 

(3), ATL large pelagics 

longline (16).

Y 

Delphinis spp ....... Y MA midwater trawl (3.2), 

NE midwater trawl (0).

Y Y ATL large pelagics 

longline (8.5).

Y 

Fraser’s dolphin ... N n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

Lagenorhynchus 

spp6.

n/a n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

Northern right 

whale dolphin 6.

n/a n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

Risso’s dolphin .... Y MA midwater trawl (1) ..... Y Y HI deep-set longline (8), 

HI shallow-set longline 

(18), ATL large 

pelagics longline (49).

Y 

Melon-headed 

whale.

N n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

Pygmy killer whale N n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

False killer whale N n/a ................................... n/a Y HI deep-set longline 

(112),8 HI shallow-set 

longline (2.5),8 American Samoa longline 

(23.5).

Y 

Killer whale .......... N n/a ................................... n/a Y ATL large pelagics 

longline (0).

N 

Globicephala spp Y MA midwater trawl (12), 

NE midwater trawl (16).

N Y HI deep-set longline 

(5.5),8 HI shallow-set 

longline (0.5),8 American Samoa longline 

(0), ATL large pelagics 

longline (598).

Y 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8209 

TABLE 13—U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES INTERACTIONS FOR MIDWATER TRAWL AND PELAGIC LONGLINE FOR RELEVANT

SPECIES—Continued 

Species 1 Midwater 

trawl 2 Location/fishery 3 Vulnerability 

inferred? 4

Pelagic 

longline 2 Location/fishery 3 Vulnerability 

inferred? 4

Harbor porpoise ... N n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

Dall’s porpoise ..... Y AK BSAI pollock trawl 

(1.2); AK GOA pollock 

trawl (0).

Y N n/a ................................... n/a 

Guadalupe fur 

seal.

N n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

Northern fur seal 6 n/a n/a ................................... n/a N n/a ................................... n/a 

California sea 

lion 6.

n/a n/a ................................... n/a n/a n/a ................................... n/a 

Steller sea lion ..... Y AK BSAI pollock trawl 

(36.8); AK GOA pollock 

trawl (0).

Y N n/a ................................... n/a 

Phoca spp ............ Y AK BSAI pollock trawl 

(1.2), NE midwater 

trawl (3.3).

Y N n/a ................................... n/a 

Northern elephant 

seal.

Y AK GOA pollock trawl (0) Y N n/a ................................... n/a 

Category I fisheries using midwater trawl or pelagic longline gear (estimated # fishery participants): Hawaii (HI) deep-set longline (129); Atlantic 

Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico (ATL) large pelagics longline (420) 

Category II fisheries: HI shallow-set longline (20); Alaska Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands (AK BSAI) pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) trawl (95); 

American Samoa longline (24); HI shortline (11; no documented incidental M/SI); Mid-Atlantic (MA) midwater trawl (322); Northeast (NE) 

midwater trawl (1,103) 

Category III fisheries: AK Gulf of Alaska (GOA) pollock trawl (62); California pelagic longline (1; no documented incidental M/SI); HI vertical 

longline (9; no documented incidental M/SI); AK food/bait herring trawl (4; no documented incidental M/SI) 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. 3Values in parentheses represent estimates of M/SI for that fishery in the most recent five-year timespan for which data is available (2007–11 

in most cases). An interaction may be prorated if it is documented as an injury but the severity of the injury is unknown (e.g., one entanglement 

may be estimated as 0.75 M/SI). Where there is less than one hundred percent observer coverage, documented M/SI is extrapolated to produce 

whole-fishery estimates. Associated CVs are not presented here; please refer to relevant SARs for more information. Some species have zero 

M/SI for 2007–11, but remain listed on that fishery’s current list of marine mammal species/stocks injured/killed due to older interactions (e.g., 

one Cuvier’s beaked whale capture was documented in the ATL large pelagics longline fishery in 2003). 4Where there are no documented incidents of M/SI incidental to relevant commercial fisheries, this is not applicable. 

5One minke whale was captured in a midwater trawl and released alive by NMFS’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center in 2009. It was later determined that this capture constituted a serious injury. 6This exercise is considered ‘‘not applicable’’ for those species historically captured in SWFSC gear. Historical record, rather than analogy, is 

considered the best information upon which to base a take estimate. 7One additional unidentified beaked whale was incidentally captured in this fishery during 2007–11. 

8These include documented interactions with unidentified ‘‘blackfish’’ (i.e., pilot whales or false killer whales) and are prorated to species 

based on distance from shore. 

Information related to incidental M/SI 

in relevant commercial fisheries is not, 

however, the sole determinant of 

whether it may be appropriate to 

authorize M/SI + Level A incidental to 

SWFSC survey operations. A number of 

factors (e.g., species-specific knowledge 

regarding animal behavior, overall 

abundance in the geographic region, 

density relative to SWFSC survey effort, 

feeding ecology, propensity to travel in 

groups commonly associated with other 

species historically taken) were taken 

into account by the SWFSC 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 

SWFSC research gear. Similarly, we 

have determined that some species 

groups with documented M/SI are not 

likely to be vulnerable to capture in 

SWFSC gear. In these instances, we 

provide further explanation below. 

Those species with no records of 

historical interaction with SWFSC 

research gear and no documented M/SI 

in relevant commercial fisheries, and for 

which the SWFSC has not requested the 

authorization of incidental take, are not 

considered further in this section. The 

SWFSC 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 SWFSC 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 which may have a similar 

propensity to capture in a given gear as 

a historically captured species and 

which likely do not. For the former, we 

assume that, given similar propensity, it 

is possible that a worst-case scenario of 

take in a single trawl tow or longline set 

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. The former assumption also 

accounts for the likelihood that, for 

species that often travel in groups, an 

incident involving capture of that 

species is likely to involve more than 

one individual. 

For example, we believe that the 

Risso’s dolphin is potentially vulnerable 

to capture in midwater trawl gear and 

may have similar propensity to capture 

in that gear as does the Pacific whitesided dolphin. Because the greatest 

number of Pacific white-sided dolphins 

captured in any one trawl tow was 

eleven individuals (see Table 12), we 

assume that eleven Risso’s dolphins 

could also be captured in a single 

incident. However, in recognition of the 

fact that any incident involving the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8210 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

capture of Risso’s dolphins would likely 

be a rare event, we propose a total take 

authorization over the five-year period 

of the number that may result from a 

single, worst-case incident (eleven 

dolphins). While we do not necessarily 

believe that eleven Risso’s dolphins 

would be captured in a single 

incident—and that more capture 

incidents involving fewer individuals 

could occur, as opposed to a single, 

worst-case incident—we believe that 

this is a reasonable approach to 

estimating potential incidents of M/SI + 

Level A while balancing what could 

happen in a worst-case scenario with 

the potential likelihood that no 

incidents of capture would actually 

occur. The historical capture of northern 

right whale dolphins in 2008 provides 

an instructive example of a situation 

where a worst-case scenario (six 

dolphins captured in a single trawl tow) 

did occur, but overall capture of this 

species was very rare (no other capture 

incidents before or since). 

Separately, for those species that we 

believe may have a vulnerability to 

capture in given gear but that we do not 

believe may have a similar propensity to 

capture in that gear as a historically 

captured species, we assume that 

capture would be a rare event that could 

involve multiple individuals captured 

in a single incident or one or two 

individuals captured in one or two 

incidents. For example, from the LOF 

we infer vulnerability to capture in 

trawl gear for the Dall’s porpoise but do 

not believe that this species has a 

similar propensity for interaction in 

trawl gear as any historically captured 

species. Therefore, we assume that 

capture would represent a rare event 

that could occur in any year of the fiveyear period of proposed authorization 

and may involve one or more 

individuals. For these species we 

propose to authorize a total taking by M/ 

SI + Level A of five individuals over the 

five-year timespan. These examples are 

provided to illustrate the process while 

more detail specific to gear types is 

given below. 

Midwater trawl—From the 2014 LOF, 

we infer vulnerability to midwater trawl 

gear in the CCE for the Risso’s dolphin, 

short- and long-beaked common 

dolphins, Dall’s porpoise, Steller sea 

lion, harbor seal, and northern elephant 

seal. In addition, we consider some of 

these species to have a similar 

propensity for interaction with trawl 

gear as that demonstrated by the Pacific 

white-sided dolphin (Risso’s dolphin, 

short- and long-beaked common 

dolphins) and some of these to have 

similar propensity for interaction with 

trawl gear as that demonstrated by the 

California sea lion (Steller sea lion and 

harbor seal). 

For some species, we believe that 

there is a reasonable likelihood of 

incidental take although there are no 

records of incidental M/SI in relevant 

commercial fisheries. The proposed take 

authorization for these species was 

determined to be appropriate based on 

analogy to other similar species that 

have been taken either in SWFSC 

operations or in analogous commercial 

fishery operations. Among species with 

no records of incidental M/SI in the 

LOF, we believe that the striped dolphin 

and bottlenose dolphin have a similar 

propensity for interaction with trawl 

gear as that demonstrated by the Pacific 

white-sided dolphin and that the harbor 

porpoise likely has vulnerability similar 

to that demonstrated by the Dall’s 

porpoise. Note also that, while the 

current LOF has no documented 

incidents of M/SI for these species 

incidental to midwater trawl fisheries, 

all have been taken incidentally in 

fisheries using bottom trawl gear. 

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 SWFSC has 

requested the authorization of 

incidental M/SI + Level A for one 

unidentified pinniped and one 

unidentified small cetacean over the 

course of the five-year period of 

proposed authorization. 

Pelagic longline—The process is the 

same as is described above for midwater 

trawl gear. From the 2014 LOF, we infer 

vulnerability to pelagic longline gear in 

the CCE for the Risso’s dolphin, 

bottlenose dolphin, striped dolphin, 

pygmy and dwarf sperm whale (i.e., 

Kogia spp.), short- and long-beaked 

common dolphins, and short-finned 

pilot whale. Despite an absence of 

records of incidental M/SI in the LOF 

for Steller sea lions, we also believe that 

this species is vulnerable to capture in 

pelagic longlines. We note here that, 

while the current LOF has no 

documented incidents of M/SI for 

Steller sea lions incidental to pelagic 

longline fisheries, the species has been 

taken in fisheries using bottom longline 

gear. We do not believe that any of these 

species have a similar propensity for 

interaction with pelagic longline gear as 

that demonstrated by the California sea 

lion, which is often present at high 

densities in the areas where SWFSC 

longline research is conducted. We also 

propose to authorize incidental M/SI + 

Level A for one unidentified pinniped 

over the course of the five-year period 

of proposed authorization. 

TABLE 14—TOTAL ESTIMATED M/SI + LEVEL A DUE TO GEAR INTERACTION IN THE CCE, 2015–19 

Species 

Estimated 5-year 

total, midwater 

trawl 1

Estimated 5-year 

total, pelagic 

longline 1

Total, trawl + 

longline 

Kogia spp.2 ................................................................................................................ .............................. 1 1 

Bottlenose dolphin (all stocks) 3 ................................................................................ .............................. 1 1 

Bottlenose dolphin (CA/OR/WA offshore) 4 ............................................................... 8 .............................. 8 

Bottlenose dolphin (CA coastal) 4 .............................................................................. 3 .............................. 3 

Striped dolphin ........................................................................................................... 11 1 12 

Short-beaked common dolphin .................................................................................. 11 1 12 

Long-beaked common dolphin .................................................................................. 11 1 12 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ........................................................................................ 35 .............................. 35 

Northern right whale dolphin ..................................................................................... 10 .............................. 10 

Risso’s dolphin ........................................................................................................... 11 1 12 

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

Harbor porpoise 4 ....................................................................................................... 5 .............................. 5 

Dall’s porpoise ........................................................................................................... 5 .............................. 5 

Northern fur seal 5 ...................................................................................................... 5 .............................. 5 

California sea lion ...................................................................................................... 20 5 25 

Steller sea lion ........................................................................................................... 9 1 10 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8211 

TABLE 14—TOTAL ESTIMATED M/SI + LEVEL A DUE TO GEAR INTERACTION IN THE CCE, 2015–19—Continued 

Species 

Estimated 5-year 

total, midwater 

trawl 1

Estimated 5-year 

total, pelagic 

longline 1

Total, trawl + 

longline 

Harbor seal 4 .............................................................................................................. 9 .............................. 9 

Northern elephant seal .............................................................................................. 5 .............................. 5 

Unidentified pinniped ................................................................................................. 1 1 2 

Unidentified cetacean ................................................................................................ 1 .............................. 1 

1Please see Table 12 and preceding text for derivation of take estimates. 

2We expect that only one Kogia spp. may be taken over the five-year timespan and that it could be either a pygmy or dwarf sperm whale. 3As a species believed to have similar propensity for capture in trawl gear as that demonstrated by the Pacific white-sided dolphin, we assume 

that eleven bottlenose dolphins could be captured over the five-year timespan. Total potential take of bottlenose dolphins in trawl gear has been 

apportioned by stock according to typical occurrence of that stock relative to SWFSC survey locations. We assume that a maximum of one total 

take of a bottlenose dolphin from either stock may occur in longline gear. 4 Incidental take may be of animals from any stock, excluding Washington inland waters stocks. 

5 Incidental take may be of animals from either the eastern Pacific or California stocks. 

For large whales, beaked whales, and 

killer whales, observed M/SI is 

extremely rare for trawl gear and, for 

most of these species, only slightly more 

common in longline gear. Although 

large whale species could become 

captured or entangled in SWFSC 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 from 

2007–11. This fishery has 129 

participants, and the fishery as a whole 

exerts substantially greater effort in a 

given year than does the SWFSC. In a 

very rough estimate, we can say that 

these three estimated incidents between 

2007–11 represent an insignificant perparticipant interaction rate of 0.005 per 

year, despite the greater effort. 

Similarly, there were zero documented 

interactions from 2007–11 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 

average soak time of ten to fourteen 

hours, this represents an approximate 

minimum of almost sixty million hook 

hours. For reference, an approximate 

maximum estimate of SWFSC effort is 

135,000 hook hours per year. Other 

large whales, beaked whales and killer 

whales have similarly low rates of 

interaction with commercial fisheries, 

despite the significantly greater effort. In 

addition, large whales, beaked whales, 

and killer whales generally have, with 

few exceptions, very low densities in 

the CCE relative to other species (see 

Table 19). We believe it extremely 

unlikely that any large whale, beaked 

whale, or killer whale would be 

captured or entangled in SWFSC 

research gear. Finally, although pilot 

whales have demonstrated vulnerability 

to midwater trawl gear in Atlantic 

fisheries, we do not infer vulnerability 

to capture in SWFSC trawl gear in the 

CCE because of the very low density of 

short-finned pilot whales (Table 19). 

Eastern Tropical Pacific 

The SWFSC does not currently 

conduct longline surveys in the ETP, 

but proposes to over the five-year period 

of this proposed rulemaking. The take 

estimates presented here reflect that 

likelihood. Assuming that longline 

surveys will be conducted in the ETP, 

the SWFSC anticipates that it will 

deploy an equal number (or less) of 

longline sets in the ETP relative to the 

number of sets currently being deployed 

in the CCE. The process described above 

for the CCE was used in determining 

vulnerability and appropriate take 

estimates for species in the ETP. We 

assume that a similar level of interaction 

with pelagic longline gear as that 

demonstrated by the California sea lion 

in the CCE could occur in the ETP, and 

also assume that the South American 

sea lion may have similar propensity for 

interaction with longline gear as that 

demonstrated by the California sea lion. 

For all other species listed in Table 

15, we infer vulnerability to pelagic 

longline gear in the ETP from the 2014 

LOF (see Table 13), and assume that 

capture would likely be a rare event 

occurring at most once over the fiveyear period proposed for this 

rulemaking. We also propose to 

authorize incidental M/SI + Level A for 

one unidentified pinniped over the 

course of the five-year period of 

proposed authorization. 

Those species with no records of 

historical interaction with SWFSC 

research gear and no documented M/SI 

in relevant commercial fisheries, and for 

which the SWFSC has not requested the 

authorization of incidental take, are not 

considered further in this section. Our 

rationale for excluding large whales, 

beaked whales, and killer whales from 

the species for which take is proposed 

to be authorized is the same as 

described previously for the CCE. As for 

the CCE, these species generally are 

estimated to have very low densities 

relative to other species (see Table 22). 

Finally, although Stenella spp. have 

demonstrated a general vulnerability to 

pelagic longline gear in U.S. commercial 

fisheries (see Table 13), there is no 

documented M/SI for spinner dolphins 

specifically. All Stenella spp. present in 

the ETP are also present in Hawaiian 

waters and, while Hawaii longline 

fisheries have documented interactions 

with striped dolphins and pantropical 

spotted dolphins, there are none for 

spinner dolphins. Therefore, we do not 

infer vulnerability to capture in SWFSC 

pelagic longline gear in the ETP for 

spinner dolphins. 

TABLE 15—TOTAL ESTIMATED M/SI + LEVEL A DUE TO GEAR INTERACTION IN THE ETP, 2015–19 

Species 

Estimated 5-year 

total, pelagic 

longline 1

Dwarf sperm whale ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 

Rough-toothed dolphin .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Bottlenose dolphin ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8212 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 15—TOTAL ESTIMATED M/SI + LEVEL A DUE TO GEAR INTERACTION IN THE ETP, 2015–19—Continued 

Species 

Estimated 5-year 

total, pelagic 

longline 1

Striped dolphin ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Short-beaked common dolphin 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Long-beaked common dolphin ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 

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

False killer whale ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

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

California sea lion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

South American sea lion ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Unidentified pinniped ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

1Please see Tables 12 and 13 and preceding text for derivation of take estimates. 

2 Incidental take may be of animals from any stock. 

Estimated Take Due to Acoustic 

Harassment 

As described previously (‘‘Potential 

Effects of the Specified Activity on 

Marine Mammals’’), we believe that 

SWFSC 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 SWFSC and 

acoustics experts from other parts of 

NMFS) developed an analytical 

framework considering characteristics of 

the active acoustic systems described 

previously under ‘‘Description of Active 

Acoustic Sound Sources,’’ their 

expected patterns of use in each of the 

three SWFSC operational areas, and 

characteristics of the marine mammal 

species that may interact with them. We 

believe that this quantitative assessment 

benefits from its simplicity and 

consistency with current NMFS acoustic 

guidance regarding Level B harassment 

but caution that, based on a number of 

deliberately precautionary assumptions, 

the resulting take estimates should be 

seen as a likely substantial overestimate 

of the potential for behavioral 

harassment to occur as a result of the 

operation of these systems. Additional 

details on the approach used and the 

assumptions made that result in 

conservative estimates are described 

below. 

The assessment paradigm for active 

acoustic sources used in SWFSC 

fisheries research is relatively 

straightforward and has a number of key 

simplifying assumptions. NMFS’ 

current acoustic guidance requires in 

most cases that we assume Level B 

harassment occurs when a marine 

mammal receives an acoustic signal at 

or above a simple step-function 

threshold. For use of these active 

acoustic systems, the appropriate 

threshold is 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms). 

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 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. 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 for each 

specified geographical region. 

Sound source characteristics—An 

initial characterization of the general 

source parameters for the primary active 

acoustic sources operated by the SWFSC 

was conducted, enabling a full 

assessment of all sound sources used by 

the SWFSC 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 

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. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8213 

TABLE 16—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 depth at which 

160-dB threshold 

is reached 

(km2) 

Simrad EK500 and EK60 narrow beam echosounders .............................................................................. 0.013072 0.135404 

Simrad ME70 multibeam echosounder ....................................................................................................... 0.018184 0.018184 

Simrad MS70 multibeam sonar 1 ................................................................................................................. 0.007952 0.007952 

Simrad SX90 narrow beam sonar 2 ............................................................................................................. 0.065275 0.1634 

Teledyne RD Instruments ADCP, Ocean Surveyor .................................................................................... 0.0086 0.0187 

1Effective exposure areas from 0–200 m depth were not separately calculated because MS70 operates in a side-looking mode. The estimated 

area ensonified to the maximum range of the 160-dB threshold was used for this source in determining the effective exposure area for both 

depth strata. 2Exposure area varies greatly depending on the tilt angle setting of the SX90. To approximate the varied usage this system might receive, the 

exposure area for each depth strata was averaged by assuming equal usage at tilt angles of 5, 20, 45, and 80 degrees. 

Among Category 2 sources (Table 2), 

five predominant sources (Table 16) 

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 five predominant sources 

using a commercial software package 

(MATLAB) and key input parameters 

including source-specific operational 

characteristics (i.e., frequency, 

beamwidth, source level, tilt angle, and 

horizontal and vertical resolution; see 

Table 2) and environmental 

characteristics (i.e., depth for 

attenuation coefficient, temperature, 

salinity, pH, and latitude). Where 

relevant, calculations were performed 

for different notional operational 

scenarios and the largest cross-sectional 

area used in estimating take. For 

example, the EK60 cross-sectional area 

was calculated for (a) a simple cone at 

3 dB points; (b) a rectangle derived from 

strip width * depth; and (c) integration 

of the nominal beam pattern, which 

assumes side lobes of ensonification 

(and which is displayed in Figure 6.1 of 

SWFSC’s application). 

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 16; SX90, EK60, and 

ME70) comprising the total effective 

line-kilometers, their relative 

proportions depending on the nature of 

each survey in each region. 

Calculating effective line-kilometers— 

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 (0–200 m and greater than 200 

m), which in some cases resulted in 

different sources being predominant in 

each depth stratum for all linekilometers when multiple sources were 

in operation; this was accounted for in 

estimating overall exposures for species 

that utilize both depth strata (deep 

divers). For each ecosystem area, the 

total number of line-kilometers that 

would be surveyed was determined, as 

was the relative percentage of surveyed 

linear kilometers associated with each 

source type. The total line-kilometers 

for each vessel in each region, the 

effective percentages associated with 

each of the resulting three predominant 

source types (SX90, EK60, and ME70), 

and the effective total line-kilometers of 

operation for each source type in each 

region are given below. 

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, and accounted for the 

frequency-dependent absorption 

coefficient (a at 15 °C and 33 ppt) and 

beam pattern of these sound sources, 

which is generally highly directional. 

The lowest frequency was used for 

systems that are operated over a range 

of frequencies. The vertical extent of 

this area is calculated for two depth 

strata (0–200 m and surface to range at 

which the on-axis received level reaches 

160 dB rms). These results, shown in 

Table 16, were applied differentially 

based on the typical vertical 

stratification of marine mammals (see 

Tables 6.9–6.11). A simple visualization 

of a two-dimensional slice of modeled 

sound propagation is shown in Figure 

6.1 of SWFSC’s application to illustrate 

the predicted area ensonified to the 160- 

dB threshold by an EK60 operated at 18 

kHz. 

Following the determination of 

effective sound exposure area for 

transmissions considered in two 

dimensions, the next step was to 

determine the effective volume of water 

ensonified at or above 160 dB rms for 

the entirety of each survey in each 

region. For each of the three 

predominant sound sources, the volume 

of water ensonified is estimated as the 

athwartship cross-sectional area (in 

square kilometers) of sound at or above 

160 dB rms (as illustrated in Figure 6.1 

of SWFSC’s application) multiplied by 

the total distance traveled by the ship. 

Where different sources operating 

simultaneously would be predominant 

in each different depth strata (e.g., ME70 

and EK60 operating simultaneously may 

be predominant in the shallow stratum 

and deep stratum, respectively), the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8214 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 (e.g., Navy, 

2013). While simulated movement 

models were not used to mimic 

individual diving or aggregation 

parameters in the determination of 

animal density in this estimation, the 

vertical stratification of marine 

mammals based on known or reasonably 

assumed diving behavior was integrated 

into the density estimates used. 

First, typical two-dimensional marine 

mammal density estimates (animals/

km2) were obtained from various 

sources for each ecosystem area. These 

were estimated from marine mammal 

Stock Assessment Reports (Allen and 

Angliss, 2012; Carretta et al., 2011, 

2012) and other sources (Barlow and 

Forney, 2007; ManTech-SRS 

Technologies, 2007) for the CCE, from 

abundance estimates using ship-based 

surveys of marine mammals in the ETP 

(Gerrodette et al., 2008), and from shipbased surveys in the Antarctic. 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 SWFSC fisheries surveys 

(detailed previously in ‘‘Detailed 

Description of Activities’’). ETP and 

CCE marine mammal densities are 

calculated from sightings collected from 

August through November. Antarctic 

densities were calculated from sightings 

collected from January through March. 

(2) The densities used for purposes of 

estimating acoustic exposures do not 

take into account the patchy 

distributions of marine mammals in an 

ecosystem, at least on the moderate to 

fine scales over which they are known 

to occur. Instead, animals are 

considered evenly distributed 

throughout the assessed area and 

seasonal movement patterns are not 

taken into account. 

In addition, and to account for at least 

some coarse differences in marine 

mammal diving behavior and the effect 

this has on their likely exposure to these 

kinds of often highly directional sound 

sources, a volumetric density of marine 

mammals of each species was 

determined. This value is estimated as 

the abundance averaged over the 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 on empirical 

measurements of diving with 

monitoring tags and reasonable 

assumptions of behavior based on other 

indicators, to spend a large majority of 

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

at depths shallower than 200 m. Their 

volumetric density and thus exposure to 

sound is therefore limited by this depth 

boundary. In contrast, species in the 

deeper-diving stratum were assumed to 

regularly dive deeper than 200 m and 

spend significant time at these greater 

depths. Their volumetric density and 

thus potential exposure to sound at or 

above the 160 dB rms threshold is 

extended from the surface to the depth 

at which this received level condition 

occurs (i.e., corresponding to the 0 to 

greater than 200 m depth stratum). 

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 for each specified 

geographical region 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 either the extent of a depth 

boundary or the 160 dB rms received 

sound level; and (4) determination of a 

biologically-relevant volumetric density 

of marine mammal species in each area. 

Estimates of Level B harassment by 

acoustic sources are the product of the 

volume of water ensonified at 160 dB 

rms or higher for the predominant 

sound source for each portion of the 

total line-kilometers for which it is used 

and the volumetric density of animals 

for each species. These annual estimates 

are given below for each ecosystem area. 

For each specified geographical region, 

we provide the information described in 

this paragraph. 

California Current Ecosystem—We 

first provide information related to 

relative annual usage patterns of 

predominant active acoustic sources in 

the CCE. For example, the R/V Bell M. 

Shimada, which is expected to travel 

39,456 line-kilometers annually in the 

CCE, uses the ME70 during fifty percent 

of that distance and the EK60 during 

one hundred percent of that distance 

(Table 17). When the ME70 is on, it is 

the dominant source in the 0–200 m 

depth stratum (0.018 km2 crosssectional ensonified area versus 0.013 

km2 cross-sectional ensonified area for 

the EK60; Table 16); therefore, the ME70 

is the dominant active acoustic source 

for fifty percent of the line-kilometers 

and the EK60 is the dominant active 

acoustic source for the other fifty 

percent. However, in the deeper depth 

stratum, the EK60 is always the 

dominant source when compared with 

the ME70 (0.135 km2 cross-sectional 

ensonified area versus 0.018 km2 crosssectional ensonified area for the ME70; 

Table 16); therefore, the EK60 is the 

dominant active acoustic source in the 

deeper depth stratum at all times for the 

Shimada. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8215 

TABLE 17—ANNUAL LINEAR SURVEY KILOMETERS FOR EACH VESSEL OPERATING IN THE CCE AND ITS PREDOMINANT

SOURCES WITHIN TWO DEPTH STRATA

Vessel Line-kms/

vessel Source 

Overall % 

source 

usage 2

% time 

source 

dominant 

(0–200 m) 

Line-km/

dominant 

source 

(0–200 m) 

% time 

source 

dominant 

(>200 m) 

Line-km/

dominant 

source 

(>200 m) 

Lasker ......................................................... 67,760 SX90 ....... 50 50 33,880 50 33,880 

EK60 ....... 100 50 33,880 50 33,880 

Shimada ...................................................... 39,456 ME70 ...... 50 50 19,728 0 0 

EK60 ....... 100 50 19,728 100 39,456 

Other ........................................................... 26,304 EK60 ....... 100 100 26,304 100 26,304 

Table 18 then shows that, for 

example, the EK60 is the dominant 

source for sixty percent of total annual 

survey line-kilometers in the CCE in the 

0–200 m depth stratum and is the 

dominant source for 75 percent of total 

annual survey line-kilometers in the 

CCE in the deeper depth stratum. 

TABLE 18—EFFECTIVE TOTAL ANNUAL SURVEY KILOMETERS FOR WHICH EACH SOURCE TYPE IS THE PREDOMINANT

ACOUSTIC SOURCE WITHIN TWO DEPTH STRATA

Source 

Summed dominant line-kms/

source 

(0–200 m) 

Dominant 

source % total 

line-kms 

(0–200 m) 

Summed dominant line-kms/

source 

(>200 m) 

Dominant 

source % total 

line-kms 

(>200 m) 

SX90 ................................................................................................................ 33,880 25.4 33,880 25.4 

EK60 ................................................................................................................ 79,912 59.9 99,640 74.6 

ME70 ................................................................................................................ 19,728 14.8 0 0 

Next, we provide volumetric densities 

for marine mammals in the CCE and 

total estimated takes by Level B 

harassment, by dominant source and 

total, for each species in the CCE (Table 

19). We also provide a sample 

calculation. 

We first determine the source-specific 

ensonified volume of water (i.e., the 

ensonified volume where we consider a 

specific source to be predominant and 

therefore have the potential to harass 

marine mammals) and then determine 

source- and species-specific exposure 

estimates for the shallow and deep (if 

applicable; Table 19) depth strata. First, 

we know the estimated source-specific 

cross-sectional ensonified area within 

the shallow and deep strata (Table 16) 

and the number of annual linekilometers when a given source would 

be predominant in each stratum (Table 

18) and use these values to derive an 

estimated source-specific ensonified 

volume. In order to estimate the 

additional volume of ensonified water 

in the deep stratum, we first subtract the 

cross-sectional ensonified area of the 

shallow stratum (which is already 

accounted for) from that of the deep 

stratum. Source- and stratum-specific 

exposure estimates are the product of 

these ensonified volumes and the 

species-specific volumetric densities 

(Table 19). 

To illustrate the process, we focus on 

the EK60 and the sperm whale. 

(1) EK60 ensonified volume; 0–200 m: 

0.013072 km2 * 79,912 km = 1,044.6 

km3

(2) EK60 ensonified volume; >200 m: 

(0.135404 km2–0.013072 km2) * 99,640 

km = 12,189.2 km3

(3) Estimated exposures to sound 

≥160 dB rms; sperm whale; EK60: 

(0.0034 sperm whales/km3 * 1,044.6 

km3 = 3.6 [rounded to 4]) + (0.0034 

sperm whales/km3 * 12,189.2 km3 = 

41.4 [rounded to 41]) = 45 estimated 

sperm whale exposures to SPLs ≥160 dB 

rms resulting from use of the EK60. 

TABLE 19—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE CCE 

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 ME70 SX90 EK60 SX90 

Gray whale ................................................................ X .............. 3 0.01913 0.09565 100 34 212 0 0 346 

Humpback whale ....................................................... X .............. 0.00083 0.00415 4 1 9 0 0 14 

Minke whale .............................................................. X .............. 0.00072 0.00360 4 1 8 0 0 13 

Sei whale ................................................................... X .............. 0.00009 0.00045 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Fin whale ................................................................... X .............. 0.00184 0.00920 10 3 20 0 0 33 

Blue whale ................................................................. X .............. 0.00136 0.00680 7 2 15 0 0 24 

Sperm whale ............................................................. .............. X 0.00170 0.00340 4 1 8 41 11 65 

Kogia spp. ................................................................. .............. X 0.00109 0.00218 2 1 5 27 7 42 

Cuvier’s beaked whale .............................................. .............. X 0.00382 0.00764 8 3 17 93 25 146 

Baird’s beaked whale ................................................ .............. X 0.00088 0.00176 2 1 4 21 6 34 

Mesoplodont beaked whales .................................... .............. X 0.00103 0.00206 2 1 5 25 7 40 

Bottlenose dolphin ..................................................... X .............. 0.00178 0.00890 9 3 20 0 0 32 

Striped dolphin .......................................................... X .............. 0.01667 0.08335 87 30 184 0 0 301 

Long-beaked common dolphin .................................. X .............. 0.01924 0.09620 100 35 213 0 0 348 

Short-beaked common dolphin ................................. X .............. 0.30935 1.54675 1,616 555 3,421 0 0 5,592 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8216 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 19—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE CCE—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 ME70 SX90 EK60 SX90 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ........................................ X .............. 0.02093 0.10465 109 38 231 0 0 378 

Northern right whale dolphin ..................................... X .............. 0.00975 0.04875 51 17 108 0 0 176 

Risso’s dolphin .......................................................... X .............. 0.01046 0.05230 55 19 116 0 0 188 

Killer whale ................................................................ X .............. 0.00071 0.00355 4 1 8 0 0 13 

Short-finned pilot whale ............................................ .............. X 0.00031 0.00062 1 0 1 8 2 12 

Harbor porpoise ........................................................ X .............. 4 0.03775 0.18873 197 68 417 0 0 682 

Dall’s porpoise ........................................................... X .............. 0.07553 0.37765 395 135 835 0 0 1,365

Guadalupe fur seal .................................................... X .............. 3 0.00741 0.03705 39 13 82 0 0 134 

Northern fur seal ....................................................... X .............. 3 0.65239 1.68275 1,758 604 3,721 0 0 11,791 

California sea lion ..................................................... X .............. 3 0.29675 1.19000 1,243 427 2,632 0 0 5,363 

Steller sea lion .......................................................... X .............. 3 0.06316 0.29165 305 105 645 0 0 1,141 

Harbor seal ................................................................ X .............. 3 0.05493 0.25200 263 90 557 0 0 993 

Northern elephant seal .............................................. .............. X 3 0.12400 0.24800 259 89 548 3,023 824 4,743 

1All density estimates from Barlow and Forney (2007) unless otherwise indicated. 

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. 3 Density estimates derived by SWFSC from SAR abundance estimates and notional study area of 1,000,000 km2. 4 ManTech-SRS Technologies (2007) estimated a harbor porpoise density for coastal and inland waters of Washington, which is used as the best available proxy 

here. There are no known density estimates for harbor porpoises in SWFSC survey areas in the CCE. 

Eastern Tropical Pacific—The process 

for estimating potential exposures of 

marine mammals in the ETP to sound 

from SWFSC active acoustic sources at 

or above the 160-dB rms threshold 

follows that described above. Please 

refer to that description; here, we 

provide the same information as for the 

CCE in tabular form. 

TABLE 20—ANNUAL LINEAR SURVEY KILOMETERS FOR EACH VESSEL OPERATING IN THE ETP AND ITS PREDOMINANT

SOURCES WITHIN TWO DEPTH STRATA

Vessel Line-kms/

vessel Source 

Overall % 

source 

usage 2

% Time 

source 

dominant 

(0–200 m) 

Line-km/

dominant 

source 

(0–200 m) 

% Time 

source 

dominant 

(>200 m) 

Line-km/

dominant 

source 

(>200 m) 

Lasker ......................................................... 37,710 SX90 ....... 25 25 9,428 25 9,428 

EK60 ....... 100 75 28,283 75 28,283 

Shimada ...................................................... 37,710 ME70 ...... 25 25 9,428 0 0 

EK60 ....... 100 75 28,283 100 37,710 

Other ........................................................... 18,985 EK60 ....... 100 100 18,985 100 18,985 

TABLE 21—EFFECTIVE TOTAL ANNUAL SURVEY KILOMETERS FOR WHICH EACH SOURCE TYPE IS THE PREDOMINANT

ACOUSTIC SOURCE WITHIN TWO DEPTH STRATA

Source 

Summed dominant line-kms/

source 

(0–200 m) 

Dominant 

source % total 

line-kms 

(0–200 m) 

Summed dominant line-kms/

source 

(>200 m) 

Dominant 

source % total 

line-kms 

(>200 m) 

SX90 ................................................................................................................ 9,428 10 9,428 10 

EK60 ................................................................................................................ 75,550 80 84,978 90 

ME70 ................................................................................................................ 9,428 10 0 0 

TABLE 22—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE ETP 

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 ME70 SX90 EK60 SX90 

Humpback whale ....................................................... X .............. 0.00013 0.00067 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Minke whale .............................................................. X .............. 3 0.00001 0.00003 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bryde’s whale ............................................................ X .............. 0.00049 0.00244 2 0 2 0 0 4 

Sei whale ................................................................... X .............. 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fin whale ................................................................... X .............. 0.00003 0.00015 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Blue whale ................................................................. X .............. 3 0.00019 0.00097 1 0 1 0 0 2 

Sperm whale ............................................................. .............. X 3 0.00019 0.00039 0 0 0 4 0 4 

Dwarf sperm whale ................................................... .............. X 3 0.00053 0.00105 1 0 1 11 1 14 

Cuvier’s beaked whale .............................................. .............. X 3 0.00094 0.00187 2 0 1 19 2 24 

Longman’s beaked whale ......................................... .............. X 4 0.00004 0.00007 0 0 0 1 0 1 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8217 

TABLE 22—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE ETP—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 ME70 SX90 EK60 SX90 

Mesoplodont beaked whales .................................... .............. X 3 0.00119 0.00237 2 0 1 25 2 30 

Rough-toothed dolphin .............................................. X .............. 0.00504 0.02521 25 4 16 0 0 45 

Bottlenose dolphin ..................................................... X .............. 0.01573 0.07864 78 13 48 0 0 139 

Striped dolphin .......................................................... X .............. 0.04516 0.22582 223 39 139 0 0 401 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ....................................... X .............. 5 0.12263 0.61315 606 105 377 0 0 1,088 

Spinner dolphin ......................................................... X .............. 6 0.04978 0.24889 246 43 153 0 0 442 

Long-beaked common dolphin .................................. X .............. 0.01945 0.09725 96 17 60 0 0 173 

Short-beaked common dolphin ................................. X .............. 7 0.14645 0.73227 723 126 451 0 0 1,300 

Fraser’s dolphin ......................................................... X .............. 3 0.01355 0.06774 67 12 42 0 0 121 

Dusky dolphin ............................................................ X .............. 0.00210 0.01050 10 2 6 0 0 18 

Risso’s dolphin .......................................................... X .............. 0.00517 0.02587 26 4 16 0 0 46 

Melon-headed whale ................................................. X .............. 3 0.00213 0.01063 10 2 7 0 0 19 

Pygmy killer whale .................................................... X .............. 3 0.00183 0.00913 9 2 6 0 0 17 

False killer whale ...................................................... X .............. 3 0.00186 0.00932 9 2 6 0 0 17 

Killer whale ................................................................ X .............. 3 0.00040 0.00199 2 0 1 0 0 3 

Short-finned pilot whale ............................................ .............. X 3 0.02760 0.05520 55 9 34 574 51 723 

Guadalupe fur seal .................................................... X .............. 8 0.00741 0.03705 37 6 23 0 0 66 

California sea lion ..................................................... X .............. 9 0.16262 0.81310 803 139 500 0 0 1,442 

South American sea lion ........................................... X .............. 9 0.16262 0.81310 803 139 500 0 0 1,442 

Northern elephant seal .............................................. .............. X 8 0.12400 0.24800 245 43 153 2,578 229 3,248 

1Please see footnotes to Table 4; densities calculated by SWFSC from sources listed. Note that values presented here are rounded to five digits, whereas the volumetric densities are calculated from the unrounded values. Densities derived from abundance estimates given in Gerrodette et al. (2008) calculated using given 

abundances divided by ETP area (sum of stratum areas given in first line of Table 1 in that publication). Densities calculated by SWFSC from abundance estimates 

reported in Wade and Gerrodette (1993) or, for those not reported in that publication, calculated from sighting data collected on board SWFSC cetacean and ecosystem assessment surveys in the ETP during 1998–2000, 2003, and 2006 using number of sightings (n), mean group size (s), total distance on effort (L) and effective strip width (w) (i.e., D = n*s/2/w/L). 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 most recent abundance estimates are as reported in Table 4. SWFSC considered these species sufficiently rare in the core study area during 2006 survey effort to not warrant attempting to estimate abundance (Gerrodette et al., 2008), but did estimate the unpublished ETP densities reported here. 4The most recent abundance estimate was reported in Barlow (2006) (see Table 4). SWFSC estimated the unpublished ETP density reported here from sighting 

data collected during SWFSC surveys in 1998–2000, 2003, and 2006. 5Given density is for northeastern offshore stock of pantropical spotted dolphins, and is calculated as stock abundance divided by the summed areas of Core, 

Core2, and N. Coastal strata (Gerrodette et al., 2008). This is the largest density value for the three stocks of spotted dolphin in the ETP and is conservatively used 

here to calculate potential Level B takes of spotted dolphin in the ETP. 6Given density is for the eastern stock of spinner dolphins. This is the largest density value for the three stocks of spinner dolphin in the ETP and is conservatively 

used here to calculate potential Level B takes of spinner dolphin in the ETP. There is no estimate of abundance for the Central American stock of spinner dolphins. 7Abundance estimate from which density estimate is derived includes parts of northern and southern stocks and all of the central stock (Gerrodette et al., 2008). 

There are no stock-specific abundance estimates. 8 No abundance information exists for Guadalupe fur seals or northern elephant seals in the ETP. Therefore, we use density estimates from the CCE (Table 19) as 

a reasonable proxy. 9There are no available density estimates for California sea lions or South American sea lions in the ETP. The SWFSC reports that California sea lions are typically observed in the ETP only along the coast of Baja California, Mexico. Therefore, we estimate density for the California sea lion in the ETP using the upper bound 

of abundance for western Baja California (87,000; Lowry and Maravilla-Chavez, 2005) divided by the area of the N. Coastal stratum from Gerrodette et al. (2008). In 

the absence of other information, we use this value as a reasonable proxy for the South American sea lion. 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem—The process for estimating 

potential exposures of marine mammals 

in the AMLR to sound from SWFSC 

active acoustic sources at or above the 

160-dB rms threshold follows that 

described above. Please refer to that 

description; here, we provide the same 

information as for the CCE and ETP in 

tabular form. 

TABLE 23—ANNUAL LINEAR SURVEY KILOMETERS FOR VESSELS OPERATING IN THE AMLR AND PREDOMINANT SOURCE

WITHIN TWO DEPTH STRATA

Vessel Line-kms/

vessel 1 Source 

Overall % 

source 

usage 2

% time 

source 

dominant 

(0–200 m) 

Line-km/

dominant 

source 

(0–200 m) 

% time 

source 

dominant 

(>200 m) 

Line-km/

dominant 

source 

(>200 m) 

Other ................................................. 20,846 EK60 100 100 20,846 100 20,846 

TABLE 24—DENSITY (NUMBER/KM SURVEYED) OF MARINE MAMMALS RECORDED DURING AMLR SURVEYS 2006/07 TO

2010/11 

Species 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 

Southern right whale ...................................................... 0 0 .00080 0 0.0003 0 

Humpback whale ........................................................... 0 .0571 0 .03049 0.03605 0.0676 0 .041 

Antarctic minke whale .................................................... 0 .0033 0 .00064 0.00182 0.0043 0 .002 

Fin whale ........................................................................ 0 .0323 0 .04367 0.08391 0.0195 0 .038 

Southern bottlenose whale ............................................ 0 .0065 0 0.00061 0.0028 0 .001 

Hourglass dolphin .......................................................... 0 0 0.00151 0.0086 0 .007 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8218 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 24—DENSITY (NUMBER/KM SURVEYED) OF MARINE MAMMALS RECORDED DURING AMLR SURVEYS 2006/07 TO

2010/11—Continued 

Species 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 

Killer whale ..................................................................... 0 0 0.00151 0.0077 0 .001 

Long-finned pilot whale .................................................. 0 0 0.00757 0 0 

Antarctic fur seal ............................................................ 0 .0140 0 .08027 0.09996 0.0599 0 .044 

Southern elephant seal .................................................. 0 .0003 0 .00016 0.00030 0.0006 0 

Weddell seal .................................................................. 0 .0007 0 .00064 0 0 0 

Crabeater seal ............................................................... 0 .0003 0 .00130 0 0.0003 0 

Leopard seal .................................................................. 0 0 0.00030 0.0009 0 

Source: Lipsky (2007), Van Cise (2008, 2009, 2011), Walsh (2014). 

Table 24 displays year-by-year 

sightings data for SWFSC AMLR 

surveys from the most recent five 

seasons for which data is available (note 

that not all species expected to 

potentially be present in the AMLR have 

been observed during these surveys). 

Due to a general lack of abundance 

information in the Antarctic, and 

because these data are from the same 

area where the SWFSC proposes to 

continue survey operations, we believe 

that this is the best available 

information for use in estimating 

potential exposures to sound from 

SWFSC active acoustic sources. These 

surveys are generally conducted using 

standard line-transect theory by trained 

observers; however, the surveys are not 

conducted for the purpose of generating 

abundance estimates and effective strip 

width is not defined, nor are sightings 

data corrected for various biases (e.g., 

detection, perception) on an observer’s 

ability to detect an animal. In order to 

produce precautionary estimates, we 

use the largest value recorded over the 

five seasons for use in calculating 

estimates of Level B harassment due to 

acoustic exposure in the AMLR (Table 

25). 

TABLE 25—DENSITIES AND ESTIMATED SOURCE-, STRATUM-, AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT IN THE AMLR 

Species Shallow Deep 

Area density 

(animals/

km 2) 

Volumetric 

density 

(animals/ 

km3) 1

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment, 

0–200 m 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment, 

>200 m Total 

EK60 EK60 

Southern right whale ............................ X .................... 2 0 .0008 0 .004 1 0 1 

Humpback whale ................................. X .................... 2 0 .0676 0 .338 92 0 92 

Antarctic minke whale .......................... X .................... 2 0 .0043 0 .0215 6 0 6 

Fin whale .............................................. X .................... 2 0 .08391 0 .41955 114 0 114 

Blue whale ........................................... X .................... 3 0 .00012 0 .0006 0 0 0 

Sperm whale ........................................ .................... X 3 0 .00065 0 .0013 0 3 3 

Arnoux’ beaked whale ......................... .................... X 4 0 .0065 0 .013 4 33 37 

Southern bottlenose whale .................. .................... X 2 0 .0065 0 .013 4 33 37 

Hourglass dolphin ................................ X .................... 2 0 .0086 0 .043 12 0 12 

Killer whale ........................................... X .................... 2 0 .0077 0 .0385 11 0 11 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................ .................... X 2 0 .00757 0 .01514 4 39 43 

Spectacled porpoise ............................ X .................... 5 0 .0086 0 .043 12 0 12 

Antarctic fur seal .................................. X .................... 2 0 .09996 0 .4998 136 0 136 

Southern elephant seal ........................ .................... X 2 0 .0006 0 .0012 0 3 3 

Weddell seal ........................................ X .................... 2 0 .0007 0 .0035 1 0 1 

Crabeater seal ..................................... X .................... 2 0 .0013 0 .0065 2 0 2 

Leopard seal ........................................ X .................... 2 0 .0009 0 .0045 1 0 1 

1Volumetric 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. 2 Densities are the largest values recorded during AMLR surveys from 2006/07 through 2010/11. Please see Table 24. 

3See footnotes to Table 5; densities calculated by SWFSC from sources listed. 

4There is no available information for this species; therefore, we use the southern bottlenose whale as source of proxy information. However, 

this species is considered uncommon relative to the southern bottlenose whale (Taylor et al., 2008); therefore, this is a conservative estimate. 5There is no available information for this species; therefore, we use the hourglass dolphin as source of proxy information. However, although 

considered to potentially have a circumpolar sub-Antarctic distribution, this species is seen only rarely at sea (Hammond et al., 2008) and use of 

this value likely produces a conservative estimate. 

Estimated Take Due to Physical 

Disturbance, Antarctic 

Estimated take due to physical 

disturbance could potentially happen in 

the AMLR only as a result of the 

unintentional approach of SWFSC 

vessels to pinnipeds hauled out on ice, 

and would result in no greater than 

Level B harassment. During Antarctic 

ecosystem surveys conducted in the 

austral winter (i.e., June 1 through 

August 31), it is expected that shipboard 

activities may result in behavioral 

disturbance of some pinnipeds. It is 

likely that some pinnipeds on ice will 

move or flush from the haul-out into the 

water in response to the presence or 

sound of SWFSC survey vessels. 

Behavioral responses may be considered 

according to the scale shown in Table 

26. We consider responses 

corresponding to Levels 2–3 to 

constitute Level B harassment. 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8219 

TABLE 26—SEAL RESPONSE TO DISTURBANCE

Level Type of response Definition 

1 .......................... Alert ........................................................................... Head orientation in response to disturbance. This may include turning 

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

to a sitting position. 

2 .......................... Movement .................................................................. Movements away from the source of disturbance, ranging from short 

withdrawals over short distances to hurried retreats many meters in 

length. 

3 .......................... Flight .......................................................................... All retreats (flushes) to the water, another group of seals, or over the 

ice. 

The SWFSC has estimated potential 

incidents of Level B harassment due to 

physical disturbance (Table 27) using 

the vessel distance traveled (20,846 km) 

during a typical AMLR survey, an 

effective strip width of 200 m (animals 

are assumed to react if they are less than 

100 m from the vessel; see below), and 

the estimated population density for 

each species (Table 25). Although there 

is likely to be variation between 

individuals and species in reactions to 

a passing research vessel—that is, some 

animals assumed to react in this 

calculation will not react, and others 

assumed not to react because they are 

outside the effective strip width may in 

fact react—we believe that this approach 

is a reasonable effort towards 

accounting for this potential source of 

disturbance and have no information to 

indicate that the approach is biased 

either negatively or positively. SWFSC 

used an effective strip width of 200 m 

(i.e., 100 m on either side of a passing 

vessel) to be consistent with the regional 

marine mammal viewing guidelines that 

NMFS has established for Alaska, which 

restrict approaches to marine mammals 

to a distance of 100 m or greater in order 

to reduce the potential to cause 

inadvertent harm. Alaska is believed to 

have the most similar environment to 

the Antarctic of all regions for which 

NMFS has established viewing 

guidelines. Each estimate is the product 

of the species-specific density, annual 

line-kilometers, and the effective stripwidth. 

TABLE 27—ESTIMATED ANNUAL LEVEL

B HARASSMENT OF PINNIPEDS ASSOCIATED WITH AMLR VESSEL

TRANSECTS

Species 

Density 

(animals/

km2) 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

Antarctic fur seal 0.09996 417 

Southern elephant seal ..... 0.0006 3 

Weddell seal ..... 0.0007 3 

Crabeater seal .. 0.0013 5 

Leopard seal ..... 0.0009 4 

Summary of Estimated Incidental Take 

Here we provide summary tables 

detailing the total proposed incidental 

take authorization on an annual basis 

for each specified geographical region, 

as well as other information relevant to 

the negligible impact analyses. 

TABLE 28—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO PROPOSED ANNUAL TAKE AUTHORIZATION IN THE CCE, 2015–19 

Species 1

Proposed total 

annual Level B 

harassment 

authorization 

Percent of 

estimated 

population 

Proposed 

total M/SI + 

Level A authorization, 

2015–19 

Estimated 

maximum 

annual M/SI 

+ Level A2

PBR 3 % PBR 4 Stock 

trend 5

Gray whale ..................................... 346 1.8 0 0 n/a .................... ↑ 

Humpback whale ........................... 14 0.7 0 0 n/a .................... ↑ 

Minke whale ................................... 13 2.7 0 0 n/a .................... ? 

Sei whale ....................................... 1 0.8 0 0 n/a .................... ? 

Fin whale ........................................ 33 1.1 0 0 n/a .................... ↑ 

Blue whale ..................................... 24 1.5 0 0 n/a .................... ? 

Sperm whale .................................. 65 6.7 0 0 n/a .................... ? 

Kogia spp. ...................................... 42 7.3 1 0.2 2.7 7.4 ? 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ................... 146 2.2 0 0 n/a .................... ↓ 

Baird’s beaked whale ..................... 34 4.0 0 0 n/a .................... ? 

Mesoplodont beaked whales ......... 40 5.7 0 0 n/a .................... ↓ 

Bottlenose dolphin (all stocks) 6 ..... 32 n/a 1 n/a n/a .................... n/a 

Bottlenose dolphin (CA/OR/WA offshore) 6 ....................................... .............................. 93.2 8 2 5.5 36.4 ? 

Bottlenose dolphin (CA coastal) 6 .. .............................. 99.9 3 1 2.4 41.7 → 

Striped dolphin ............................... 301 2.8 12 2.6 82 3.2 ? 

Long-beaked common dolphin ...... 348 0.3 12 2.6 610 0.4 ↑ 

Short-beaked common dolphin ...... 5,592 1.4 12 2.6 3,440 0.1 ? 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ............ 378 1.4 35 7.2 171 4.2 ? 

Northern right whale dolphin .......... 176 2.1 10 2.2 48 4.6 ? 

Risso’s dolphin ............................... 188 3.0 12 2.6 39 6.7 ? 

Killer whale 7 .................................. 13 15.3 0 0 n/a .................... ? 

Short-finned pilot whale ................. 12 1.6 1 0.2 4.6 4.3 ? 

Harbor porpoise 7 ........................... 682 23.4 5 1.2 21 5.7 ? 

Dall’s porpoise ............................... 1,365 3.3 5 1.2 257 0.5 ? 

Guadalupe fur seal ........................ 134 1.8 0 0 n/a .................... ↑ 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8220 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 28—SUMMARY INFORMATION RELATED TO PROPOSED ANNUAL TAKE AUTHORIZATION IN THE CCE, 2015–19— 

Continued 

Species 1

Proposed total 

annual Level B 

harassment 

authorization 

Percent of 

estimated 

population 

Proposed 

total M/SI + 

Level A authorization, 

2015–19 

Estimated 

maximum 

annual M/SI 

+ Level A2

PBR 3 % PBR 4 Stock 

trend 5

Northern fur seal 7 (PI/EP) ............. 8 11,555 1.8 5 1.2 403 0.3 ↑ 

Northern fur seal 7 (CA) ................. 8 236 1.8 5 1.2 403 0.3 ↑ 

California sea lion .......................... 5,363 1.8 25 5.4 9,200 0.1 ↑ 

Steller sea lion ............................... 1,141 10 1.8 10 2.4 1,552 0.2 ↑ 

Harbor seal 7 .................................. 993 4.0 9 2 1,343 0.1 ↑/→ 

Northern elephant seal .................. 4,743 3.8 5 1.2 4,382 0.03 ↑ 

Unidentified cetacean .................... n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a .................... n/a 

Unidentified pinniped ..................... n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a .................... n/a 

Please see Tables 14 and 19 and preceding text for details. 

1For species with multiple stocks in CCE or for species groups (Kogia spp. and Mesoplodont beaked whales), indicated level of take could 

occur to individuals from any stock or species (not including Washington inland waters stocks of harbor porpoise and harbor seal). 2This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI + Level A that could potentially accrue to the specified species or stock and is 

the number carried forward for evaluation in the negligible impact analysis (later in this document). To reach this total, we add one to the total for 

each pinniped or cetacean that may be captured in trawl gear and one to the total for each pinniped that may be captured in longline gear. This 

represents the potential that the take of an unidentified pinniped or small cetacean could accrue to any given stock captured in that gear. The 

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

recognize that portions of an animal may not be taken in a given year. 3See Table 3 and following discussion for more detail regarding PBR. 

4Estimated maximum annual M/SI + Level A expressed as a percentage of PBR. 

5See relevant SARs for more information regarding stock status and trends. Interannual increases may not be interpreted as evidence of a 

trend. For harbor seals, the CA stock is increasing, while the OR/WA coastal stock may have reached carrying capacity and appears stable. 

There are no evident trends for any harbor porpoise stock or for offshore killer whales. 6Total potential take of bottlenose dolphins in trawl gear has been apportioned by stock according to typical occurrence of that stock relative to 

SWFSC survey locations. We assume that only one total take of a bottlenose dolphin from either stock may occur in longline gear; therefore the 

estimated annual maximum numbers for bottlenose dolphin reflect the stock-specific trawl estimate plus one for the longline take plus one for the 

potential take of an unidentified cetacean. 7These species have multiple stocks in the CCE. Values for ‘‘percent of estimated population’’ and ‘‘PBR’’ (where relevant) calculated for the 

stock with the lowest population abundance and/or PBR (as appropriate). This approach assumes that all indicated takes would accrue to the 

stock in question, which is a very conservative assumption. Stocks in question are the southern resident killer whale, Morro Bay harbor porpoise, 

California northern fur seal, and OR/WA coastal harbor seal. 8 Calculated on the basis of relative abundance; i.e., of 6,083 total estimated incidents of Level B harassment, we would expect on the basis of 

relative abundance in the study area that 98 percent would accrue to the Pribilof Islands/Eastern Pacific stock and two percent would accrue to 

the California stock. 9 Calculated assuming that all 32 estimated annual incidents of Level B harassment occur to a given stock. 

10A range is provided for Steller sea lion abundance. We have used the lower bound of the given range for calculation of this value. 

TABLE 29—PROPOSED ANNUAL TAKE AUTHORIZATION IN THE ETP, 2015–19 

Species 1

Proposed 

total annual 

Level B harassment authorization 

Percent of 

estimated 

population 1

Proposed 

total M/SI + 

Level A authorization, 

2015–19 

Estimated 

maximum 

annual M/SI 

+ Level A2

PBR 3 % PBR 4

Humpback whale ................................................. 1 0.04 0 0 n/a ....................

Minke whale ......................................................... 0 0 0 0 n/a ....................

Bryde’s whale ....................................................... 4 0.04 0 0 n/a ....................

Sei whale ............................................................. 0 0 0 0 n/a ....................

Fin whale .............................................................. 0 0 0 0 n/a ....................

Blue whale ........................................................... 2 0.1 0 0 n/a ....................

Sperm whale ........................................................ 4 0.1 0 0 n/a ....................

Dwarf sperm whale .............................................. 14 0.1 1 0.2 88 (0.2) 0.2 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................................... 24 0.1 0 0 n/a ....................

Longman’s beaked whale .................................... 1 0.1 0 0 n/a ....................

Mesoplodont beaked whales ............................... 30 0.1 0 0 n/a ....................

Rough-toothed dolphin ......................................... 45 0.04 1 0.2 897 (0.02) 0.02 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................... 139 0.04 1 0.2 2,850 (0.01) 0.01 

Striped dolphin ..................................................... 401 0.04 1 0.2 8,116 (0.002) 0.002 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ................................. 1,088 5 0.4 1 0.2 12,334 (0.002) 0.002 

Spinner dolphin .................................................... 442 5 0.1 0 0 n/a ....................

Long-beaked common dolphin ............................ 173 0.05 1 0.2 2,787 (0.01) 0.01 

Short-beaked common dolphin ............................ 1,300 0.04 1 0.2 25,133 (0.001) 0.001 

Fraser’s dolphin ................................................... 121 0.04 0 0 n/a ....................

Dusky dolphin ...................................................... 18 0.04 0 0 n/a ....................

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................... 46 0.04 1 0.2 831 (0.02) 0.02 

Melon-headed whale ............................................ 19 0.04 0 0 n/a ....................

Pygmy killer whale ............................................... 17 0.04 0 0 n/a ....................

False killer whale ................................................. 17 0.04 1 0.2 244 (0.1) 0.1 

Killer whale ........................................................... 3 0.04 0 0 n/a ....................

Short-finned pilot whale ....................................... 723 0.1 1 0.2 4,751 (0.004) 0.004 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8221 

TABLE 29—PROPOSED ANNUAL TAKE AUTHORIZATION IN THE ETP, 2015–19—Continued 

Species 1

Proposed 

total annual 

Level B harassment authorization 

Percent of 

estimated 

population 1

Proposed 

total M/SI + 

Level A authorization, 

2015–19 

Estimated 

maximum 

annual M/SI 

+ Level A2

PBR 3 % PBR 4

Guadalupe fur seal .............................................. 66 60.9 0 0 n/a ....................

California sea lion ................................................ 1,442 1.4 5 1.2 1,050 (0.1) 0.1 

South American sea lion ...................................... 1,442 1.0 5 1.2 1,500 (0.1) 0.1 

Northern elephant seal ........................................ 3,248 6 2.6 0 0 n/a ....................

Unidentified pinniped ........................................... n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a ....................

Please see Tables 15 and 22 and preceding text for details. 

1For species with multiple stocks in ETP or for species groups (Mesoplodont beaked whales), indicated level of take could occur to individuals 

from any stock or species. 2This column represents the total number of incidents of M/SI + Level A that could potentially accrue to the specified species 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 longline gear. This represents the potential that the take of an unidentified pinniped could accrue to any given 

species captured in that gear. The proposed take authorization is formulated as a five-year total; the annual average is used only for purposes of 

negligible impact analysis. We recognize that portions of an animal may not be taken in a given year. 3PBR values calculated by SWFSC; a pooled PBR was calculated for all stocks of the pantropical spotted dolphin (see Table 4). 

4Estimated maximum annual M/SI + Level A expressed as a percentage of PBR. 

5Evaluated against the stock with the lowest estimated abundance. For spinner dolphin, there is no abundance estimate for the Central American stock. 6There are no abundance estimates for these species in the ETP. We use the CCE abundance estimates as proxies in these calculations. 

TABLE 30—PROPOSED ANNUAL TAKE AUTHORIZATION IN THE AMLR, 2015–19 

Species 

Estimated 

annual 

Level B 

harassment 

(acoustic 

exposure) 

Estimated 

annual 

Level B 

harassment 

(on-ice disturbance) 

Proposed 

total annual 

Level B 

harassment 

authorization 

Percent of 

estimated 

population 1

Southern right whale ........................................................................................................ 1 0 1 0.1 

Humpback whale ............................................................................................................. 92 0 92 1.0 

Antarctic minke whale ...................................................................................................... 6 0 6 0.03 

Fin whale ......................................................................................................................... 114 0 114 2.4 

Blue whale ....................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Sperm whale .................................................................................................................... 3 0 3 0.02 

Arnoux’ beaked whale 2 ................................................................................................... 37 0 37 n/a 

Southern bottlenose whale .............................................................................................. 37 0 37 0.1 

Hourglass dolphin ............................................................................................................ 12 0 12 0.01 

Killer whale ...................................................................................................................... 11 0 11 0.04 

Long-finned pilot whale .................................................................................................... 43 0 43 0.02 

Spectacled porpoise 2 ...................................................................................................... 12 0 12 n/a 

Antarctic fur seal .............................................................................................................. 136 417 553 0.02 

Southern elephant seal .................................................................................................... 3 3 6 0.001 

Weddell seal .................................................................................................................... 1 3 4 3 0.001 

Crabeater seal ................................................................................................................. 2 5 7 3 0.0001 

Leopard seal .................................................................................................................... 1 4 5 3 0.002 

Please see Tables 25 and 27 and preceding text for details. 

1See Table 5 for abundance information. 

2There is no available abundance information for these species. See ‘‘Small Numbers Analyses’’ below for further discussion. 

3A range is provided for these species’ abundance. We have used the lower bound of the given range for calculation of these values. 

Analyses and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Here we provide separate negligible 

impact analyses and small numbers 

analyses for each of the three specified 

geographical regions for which we 

propose rulemaking. 

Negligible Impact Analyses 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘. . . an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ A negligible 

impact finding is based on the lack of 

likely adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., 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. 

We also evaluate the number, intensity, 

and context of estimated takes by 

evaluating this information relative to 

population status. The impacts from 

other past and ongoing anthropogenic 

activities are incorporated into these 

analyses via their impacts on the 

environmental baseline (e.g., as 

reflected in the density/distribution and 

status of the species, population size 

and growth rate). 

In 1988, Congress amended the 

MMPA, with provisions for the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8222 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

incidental take of marine mammals in 

commercial fishing operations. Congress 

directed NMFS to develop and 

recommend a new long-term regime to 

govern such incidental taking (see 

MMC, 1994). The need to set allowable 

take levels incidental to commercial 

fishing operations led NMFS to suggest 

a new and simpler conceptual means for 

assuring that incidental take does not 

cause any marine mammal species or 

stock to be reduced or to be maintained 

below the lower limit of its Optimum 

Sustainable Population (OSP) level. 

That concept (PBR) was incorporated in 

the 1994 amendments to the MMPA, 

wherein Congress enacted MMPA 

sections 117 and 118, establishing a new 

regime governing the incidental taking 

of marine mammals in commercial 

fishing operations and stock 

assessments. 

PBR, which is defined by the MMPA 

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

number of animals, not including 

natural mortalities, that may be removed 

from a marine mammal stock while 

allowing that stock to reach or maintain 

its optimum sustainable population,’’ is 

one tool that can be used to help 

evaluate the effects of M/SI on a marine 

mammal stock. OSP is defined by the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362(9)) as ‘‘the 

number of animals which will result in 

the maximum productivity of the 

population or the species, keeping in 

mind the carrying capacity of the habitat 

and the health of the ecosystem of 

which they form a constituent element.’’ 

A primary goal of the MMPA is to 

ensure that each stock of marine 

mammal either does not have a level of 

human-caused M/SI that is likely to 

cause the stock to be reduced below its 

OSP level or, if the stock is depleted 

(i.e., below its OSP level), does not have 

a level of human-caused mortality and 

serious injury that is likely to delay 

restoration of the stock to OSP level by 

more than ten percent in comparison 

with recovery time in the absence of 

human-caused M/SI. 

PBR appears within the MMPA only 

in section 117 (relating to periodic stock 

assessments) and in portions of section 

118 describing requirements for take 

reduction plans for reducing marine 

mammal bycatch in commercial 

fisheries. PBR was not designed as an 

absolute threshold limiting human 

activities, but as a means to evaluate the 

relative impacts of those activities on 

marine mammal stocks. Specifically, 

assessing M/SI relative to a stock’s PBR 

may signal to NMFS the need to 

establish take reduction teams in 

commercial fisheries and may assist 

NMFS and existing take reduction teams 

in the identification of measures to 

reduce and/or minimize the taking of 

marine mammals by commercial 

fisheries to a level below a stock’s PBR. 

That is, where the total annual humancaused M/SI exceeds PBR, NMFS is not 

required to halt fishing activities 

contributing to total M/SI but rather 

may prioritize working with a take 

reduction team to further mitigate the 

effects of fishery activities via additional 

bycatch reduction measures. 

Since the introduction of PBR, NMFS 

has used the concept almost entirely 

within the context of implementing 

sections 117 and 118 and other 

commercial fisheries managementrelated provisions of the MMPA, 

including those within section 

101(a)(5)(E) related to the taking of ESAlisted marine mammals incidental to 

commercial fisheries (64 FR 28800; May 

27, 1999). The MMPA requires that PBR 

be estimated in stock assessment reports 

and that it be used in applications 

related to the management of take 

incidental to commercial fisheries (i.e., 

the take reduction planning process 

described in section 118 of the MMPA), 

but nothing in the MMPA requires the 

application of PBR outside the 

management of commercial fisheries 

interactions with marine mammals. 

Although NMFS has not historically 

applied PBR outside the context of 

sections 117 and 118, NMFS recognizes 

that as a quantitative tool, PBR may be 

useful in certain instances for evaluating 

the impacts of other human-caused 

activities on marine mammal stocks. In 

this analysis, we consider incidental M/ 

SI relative to PBR for each affected 

stock, in addition to considering the 

interaction of those removals with 

incidental taking of that stock by 

harassment, within our evaluation of the 

likely impacts of the proposed activities 

on marine mammal stocks and in 

determining whether those impacts are 

likely to be negligible. Our use of PBR 

in this case does not make up the 

entirety of our impact assessment, but 

rather is being utilized as a known, 

quantitative metric for evaluating 

whether the proposed activities are 

likely to have a population-level effect 

on the affected marine mammal stocks. 

For the purposes of analyzing this 

specified activity, NMFS acknowledges 

that some of the fisheries research 

activities use similar gear and may have 

similar effects, but on a smaller scale, as 

marine mammal take by commercial 

fisheries. The application of PBR for this 

specified activity of fisheries research 

allows NMFS to inform the take 

reduction team process which uses PBR 

to evaluate marine mammal bycatch in 

commercial fisheries due to the 

similarities of both activities. 

California Current Ecosystem—Please 

refer to Table 28 for information relating 

to this analysis. As described in greater 

depth previously (see ‘‘Acoustic 

Effects’’), we do not believe that SWFSC 

use of active acoustic sources has the 

likely potential to cause any effect 

exceeding Level B harassment of marine 

mammals. In addition, for the majority 

of species, the proposed annual take by 

Level B harassment is very low in 

relation to the population abundance 

estimate (less than ten percent) for each 

stock. 

We have produced what we believe to 

be conservative estimates of potential 

incidents of Level B harassment. The 

procedure for producing these 

estimates, described in detail in 

‘‘Estimated Take Due to Acoustic 

Harassment,’’ represents NMFS’ best 

effort towards balancing the need to 

quantify the potential for occurrence of 

Level B harassment due to production of 

underwater sound with a general lack of 

information related to the specific way 

that these acoustic signals, which are 

generally highly directional and 

transient, interact with the physical 

environment and to a meaningful 

understanding of marine mammal 

perception of these signals and 

occurrence in the areas where SWFSC 

operates. The sources considered here 

have moderate to high output 

frequencies (10 to 180 kHz), generally 

short ping durations, and are typically 

focused (highly directional) to serve 

their intended purpose of mapping 

specific objects, depths, or 

environmental features. In addition, 

some of these sources can be operated 

in different output modes (e.g., energy 

can be distributed among multiple 

output beams) that may lessen the 

likelihood of perception by and 

potential impacts on marine mammals 

in comparison with the quantitative 

estimates that guide our proposed take 

authorization. 

In particular, low-frequency hearing 

specialists (i.e., mysticetes) and certain 

pinnipeds (i.e., otariids) are less likely 

to perceive or, given perception, to react 

to these signals than the quantitative 

estimates indicate. These groups have 

reduced functional hearing at the higher 

frequencies produced by active acoustic 

sources considered here (e.g., primary 

operating frequencies of 40–180 kHz) 

and, based purely on their auditory 

capabilities, the potential impacts are 

likely much less (or non-existent) than 

we have calculated as these relevant 

factors are not taken into account. 

However, for purposes of this 

analysis, we assume that the take levels 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8223 

proposed for authorization will occur. 

As described previously, there is some 

minimal potential for temporary effects 

to hearing for certain marine mammals 

(i.e., odontocete cetaceans), but most 

effects would likely be limited to 

temporary behavioral disturbance. 

Effects on individuals that are taken by 

Level B harassment will likely be 

limited to reactions such as increased 

swimming speeds, increased surfacing 

time, or decreased foraging (if such 

activity were occurring), reactions that 

are considered to be of low severity 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007). There is the 

potential for behavioral reactions of 

greater severity, including 

displacement, but because of the 

directional nature of the sources 

considered here and because the source 

is itself moving, these outcomes are 

unlikely and would be of short duration 

if they did occur. Although there is no 

information on which to base any 

distinction between incidents of 

harassment and individuals harassed, 

the same factors, in conjunction with 

the fact that SWFSC survey effort is 

widely dispersed in space and time, 

indicate that repeated exposures of the 

same individuals would be very 

unlikely. 

We now consider the level of taking 

by M/SI + Level A proposed for 

authorization. First, it is likely that 

required injury determinations will 

show some undetermined number of 

gear interactions to result in Level A 

harassment rather than serious injury 

and that, therefore, our authorized take 

numbers are overestimates with regard 

solely to M/SI. In addition, we note that 

these proposed take levels are likely 

precautionary overall when considering 

that: (1) Estimates for historically taken 

species were developed assuming that 

the annual average number of takes from 

2008–12, which is heavily influenced by 

inclusion of a year where dramatically 

more marine mammals were 

incidentally taken than any other year 

on record, would occur in each year 

from 2015–19; and that (2) the majority 

of species for which take authorization 

is proposed have never been taken in 

SWFSC surveys. 

However, assuming that all of the 

takes proposed for authorization 

actually occur, we assess these 

quantitatively by comparing to the 

calculated PBR for each stock. Estimated 

M/SI for all stocks is significantly less 

than PBR (below ten percent, even when 

making the unlikely assumption that all 

takes for species with multiple stocks 

would accrue to the stock with the 

lowest PBR) with the exception of the 

two bottlenose dolphin stocks. The 

annual average take by M/SI + Level A 

for these stocks—which for each 

assumes that the single take of a 

bottlenose dolphin in longline gear that 

is proposed for authorization occurs for 

that stock, as well as that the single take 

of an unidentified cetacean proposed for 

authorization occurs—is, however, well 

below the PBR (takes representing 36 

and 42 percent). We also note that, for 

the California coastal stock, the PBR is 

likely biased low because the 

population abundance estimate, which 

is based on photographic markrecapture surveys, does not reflect that 

approximately 35 percent of dolphins 

encountered lack identifiable dorsal fin 

marks (Defran and Weller, 1999). If 35 

percent of all animals lack 

distinguishing marks, then the true 

population size (and therefore PBR) 

would be approximately 450–500 

animals (i.e., approximately forty-fifty 

percent larger than the current estimate) 

(Carretta et al., 2014). The California 

coastal stock is believed to be stable, 

based on abundance estimates from 

1987–89, 1996–98, and 2004–05 

(Dudzik et al., 2006), and current annual 

human-caused M/SI is considered to be 

insignificant and approaching zero 

(Carretta et al., 2014). No population 

trends are known for the offshore stock. 

However, these proposed levels of take 

do not take into consideration the 

potential efficacy of the mitigation 

measures proposed by the SWFSC. 

Although potentially confounded by 

other unknown factors, incidental take 

of marine mammals in SWFSC survey 

gear (particularly trawl nets) has 

decreased significantly from the high in 

2008 since the measures proposed here 

were implemented in 2009. We believe 

this demonstrates the likely potential for 

reduced takes of any species, including 

bottlenose dolphins, relative to these 

take estimates which are formulated 

based on the level of taking that 

occurred in 2008. 

For certain species of greater concern, 

we also evaluate the proposed take 

authorization for Level B harassment in 

conjunction with that proposed for M/ 

SI + Level A. For the bottlenose 

dolphin, if all acoustic takes occurred to 

a single stock, it would comprise 9.9 

percent of the California coastal stock 

and only 3.2 percent of the offshore 

stock. However, it is unlikely that all of 

these takes would accrue to a single 

stock and the significance of this 

magnitude of Level B harassment is 

even lower. We do not consider the 

proposed level of acoustic take for 

bottlenose dolphin to represent a 

significant additional population 

stressor when considered in context 

with the proposed level of take by M/ 

SI + Level A. Harbor porpoise are 

known to demonstrate increased 

sensitivity to acoustic signals in the 

frequency range produced by some 

SWFSC active acoustic sources (see 

discussion above under ‘‘Acoustic 

Effects’’). The total annual taking by 

Level B harassment proposed for 

authorization for harbor porpoise would 

likely be distributed across all five 

stocks of this species that occur in the 

CCE. Moreover, because the SWFSC 

does not regularly operate the surveys 

described above within the confines of 

Morro Bay, Monterey Bay, or San 

Francisco Bay, and because SWFSC 

survey effort is sparsely distributed in 

space and time, we would expect any 

incidents of take occurring to animals of 

those stocks to be transient events, 

largely occurring to individuals of those 

populations occurring outside those 

bays but within the general limit of 

harbor porpoise occurrence (i.e., the 

200-m isobath). Finally, approximately 

95 percent of annual SWFSC linekilometers traveled using active acoustic 

sources (see Table 17) are beyond the 

200-m isobaths. This was not taken into 

account in the calculation of acoustic 

take estimates; therefore, these estimates 

are likely substantial overestimates of 

the number of incidents of Level B 

harassment that may occur for harbor 

porpoise. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

planned mitigation measures, we 

preliminarily find that the total marine 

mammal take from SWFSC’s fisheries 

research activities will have a negligible 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species or stocks in the California 

Current Ecosystem. In summary, this 

finding of negligible impact is founded 

on the following factors: (1) The 

possibility of injury, serious injury, or 

mortality from the use of active acoustic 

devices may reasonably be considered 

discountable; (2) the anticipated 

incidents of Level B harassment from 

the use of active acoustic devices 

consist of, at worst, temporary and 

relatively minor modifications in 

behavior; (3) the predicted number of 

incidents of combined Level A 

harassment, serious injury, and 

mortality are at insignificant levels 

relative to all affected stocks but two; (4) 

the predicted number of incidents of 

both Level B harassment and potential 

M/SI likely represent overestimates; and 

(5) the presumed efficacy of the planned 

mitigation measures in reducing the 

effects of the specified activity to the 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8224 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

level of least practicable adverse impact. 

In addition, no M/SI is proposed for 

authorization for any species or stock 

that is listed under the ESA or 

considered depleted under the MMPA. 

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. 

Eastern Tropical Pacific—Please refer 

to Table 29 for information relating to 

this analysis. The entirety of the 

qualitative discussion provided above 

for the California Current Ecosystem is 

applicable to SWFSC use of active 

acoustic sources in the ETP, and is not 

repeated here. As for the CCE, we 

compare the maximum annual take 

estimate to the calculated PBR level. 

However, proposed take by M/SI + 

Level A is substantially less than one 

percent (in most cases, less than a tenth 

of a percent) of population abundance 

for all species for which such take is 

proposed to be authorized and, as for 

the CCE, these proposed levels of take 

are likely overestimates. We do propose 

to authorize one occurrence of M/SI 

over five years for the pantropical 

spotted dolphin; two of the three stocks 

of this species in the ETP are considered 

depleted under the MMPA. Therefore, 

although the maximum annual take 

estimate for this species is extremely 

low relative to the PBR level (0.002 

percent), we provide additional 

discussion. 

In the ETP, yellowfin tuna are known 

to associate with several species of 

dolphin, including spinner, spotted, and 

common dolphins. As the ETP tuna 

purse-seine fishery began in the late 

1950s, incidental take of dolphins 

increased to very high levels and 

continued through the 1960s and into 

the 1970s (Perrin, 1969). Through a 

series of combined actions, including 

passage of the MMPA in 1972, 

subsequent amendments, regulations, 

and mitigation measures, dolphin 

bycatch in the ETP has since decreased 

99 percent in the international fishing 

fleet, and was eliminated by the U.S. 

fleet (Gerrodette and Forcada, 2005). 

However, the northeastern offshore and 

coastal stocks of spotted dolphin are 

believed to have declined roughly 

eighty and sixty percent, respectively, 

from pre-exploitation abundance 

estimates (Perrin, 2009). Although 

incidental take by the international 

fishing fleet is believed to have declined 

to the low hundreds of individuals 

annually (Perrin, 2009), the populations 

have not grown toward recovery as 

rapidly as expected (e.g., the population 

trend for the northeastern offshore stock 

is flat; Wade et al., 2007). Continued 

(non-lethal) chase and capture in the 

fishery may have an indirect effect on 

fecundity or survival, or there may have 

been a change in carrying capacity of 

the ecosystem for this species (Archer et 

al., 2004; Gerrodette and Forcada, 2005; 

Wade et al., 2007; Perrin, 2009). 

Nevertheless, the proposed authorized 

take of a single pantropical spotted 

dolphin over five years—which could 

occur to either the northeastern offshore 

or coastal stocks, or the non-depleted 

western and southern offshore stock— 

represents a negligible impact to any of 

these stocks, even when considered in 

context with incidental take in 

international commercial fisheries (the 

total taking, which is known only 

approximately would likely be around 

one percent of the total abundance). The 

taking proposed here represents an 

insignificant incremental increase over 

any incidental take occurring in 

commercial fisheries. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

planned mitigation measures, we 

preliminarily find that the total marine 

mammal take from SWFSC’s fisheries 

research activities will have a negligible 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species or stocks in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific. In summary, this finding of 

negligible impact is founded on the 

following factors: (1) The possibility of 

injury, serious injury, or mortality from 

the use of active acoustic devices may 

reasonably be considered discountable; 

(2) the anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment from the use of active 

acoustic devices consist of, at worst, 

temporary and relatively minor 

modifications in behavior; (3) the 

predicted number of incidents of 

combined Level A harassment, serious 

injury, and mortality are at insignificant 

levels relative to all affected stocks; (4) 

the predicted number of incidents of 

both Level B harassment and potential 

M/SI likely represent overestimates; and 

(5) the presumed efficacy of the planned 

mitigation measures in reducing the 

effects of the specified activity to the 

level of least practicable adverse impact. 

In addition, no M/SI is proposed for 

authorization for any species or stock 

that is listed under the ESA. In 

combination, we believe that these 

factors demonstrate that the specified 

activity will have only short-term effects 

on individuals (resulting from Level B 

harassment) and that the total level of 

taking will not impact rates of 

recruitment or survival sufficiently to 

result in population-level impacts. 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem—Please refer to Table 30 for 

information relating to this analysis. No 

take by Level A harassment, serious 

injury, or mortality is proposed for 

authorization in the AMLR. The entirety 

of the qualitative discussion provided 

above for the California Current 

Ecosystem is applicable to SWFSC use 

of active acoustic sources in the AMLR, 

and is not repeated here. Given the 

limited spatio-temporal footprint of 

SWFSC survey activity in the 

Antarctic—survey activity only occurs 

within a limited area of Antarctic waters 

and only for a few months in any given 

year—we believe that the level of taking 

by Level B harassment proposed for 

authorization represents a negligible 

impact to these species. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

planned mitigation measures, we 

preliminarily find that the total marine 

mammal take from SWFSC’s fisheries 

research activities will have a negligible 

impact on the affected marine mammal 

species or stocks in the Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources Ecosystem. In 

summary, this finding of negligible 

impact is founded on the following 

factors: (1) The possibility of injury, 

serious injury, or mortality from the use 

of active acoustic devices may 

reasonably be considered discountable; 

(2) the anticipated incidents of Level B 

harassment from the use of active 

acoustic devices consist of, at worst, 

temporary and relatively minor 

modifications in behavior; (3) no 

incidental take by Level A harassment, 

serious injury, or mortality is proposed; 

(4) the predicted number of incidents of 

Level B harassment likely represent 

overestimates; and (5) 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. The specified activity is 

not expected to impact rates of 

recruitment or survival and will 

therefore not result in population-level 

impacts. 

Small Numbers Analyses 

California Current Ecosystem—Please 

see Table 28 for information relating to 

this small numbers analysis. The total 

amount of taking proposed for 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8225 

authorization is less than ten percent for 

all stocks, with the exception of certain 

species-wide totals when evaluated 

against the stock with the smallest 

abundance. The total taking for killer 

whales represents approximately fifteen 

percent of the southern resident stock; 

however, given the limited range of this 

stock relative to SWFSC survey 

operations, it is extremely unlikely that 

all takes would accrue to that stock. The 

total taking represents less than ten 

percent of the population abundance for 

other stocks of killer whale. The total 

species-wide taking by Level B 

harassment for harbor porpoise 

represents approximately 23 percent of 

the Morro Bay stock of harbor porpoise, 

which has the smallest population 

abundance of five harbor porpoise 

stocks in the CCE. Although this value 

is within the bounds of takings that 

NMFS has considered to be small in the 

past, it is likely that the taking will be 

distributed in some fashion across the 

five stocks; and therefore, the amount of 

take occurring for any one stock would 

be much less than 23 percent. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed mitigation measures, we 

preliminarily find that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the populations of the affected 

species or stocks in the California 

Current Ecosystem. 

Eastern Tropical Pacific—Please refer 

to Table 29 for information relating to 

this analysis. The total amount of taking 

proposed for authorization is less than 

three percent for all stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed mitigation measures, we 

preliminarily find that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the populations of the affected 

species or stocks in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific. 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources 

Ecosystem—Please refer to Table 30 for 

information relating to this analysis. 

The total amount of taking proposed for 

authorization is less than three percent 

for all stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed mitigation measures, we 

preliminarily find that small numbers of 

marine mammals will be taken relative 

to the populations of the affected 

species or stocks in the Antarctic 

Marine Living Resources Ecosystem. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization for an activity, section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that 

NMFS must set forth ‘‘requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking.’’ The MMPA 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 

incidental take authorizations must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. 

Any monitoring requirement we 

prescribe should improve our 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species in action area (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual responses to acute 

stressors, or impacts of chronic 

exposures (behavioral or physiological). 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of an individual; or 

(2) population, species, or stock. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

and resultant impacts to marine 

mammals. 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

SWFSC 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 a minimum of thirty minutes 

prior to deployment of midwater trawl 

and pelagic longline gear; (2) throughout 

deployment and active fishing of all 

research gears; (3) for a minimum of 

thirty minutes prior to retrieval of 

pelagic longline gear; and (4) throughout 

retrieval of all research gear. This visual 

monitoring is performed by trained 

SWFSC personnel with no other 

responsibilities 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 SWFSC 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. 

In the Antarctic only, the SWFSC will 

monitor any potential disturbance of 

pinnipeds on ice, 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 26. 

Acoustic Monitoring 

SWFSC will log passive acoustic data 

before and during the conduct of each 

trawl (either pelagic trawl in the CCE or 

bottom trawl in the AMLR). These data 

would not be used to decide whether to 

trawl but may be useful in comparing 

the level of vocalization present in the 

event of a marine mammal interaction 

for post hoc analyses of patterns that 

may indicate when marine mammal 

interactions are likely. 

Marine Mammal Excluder Device 

The SWFSC proposes to evaluate 

development of an MMED suitable for 

use in the modified-Cobb midwater 

trawl. Modified-Cobb trawl nets are 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8226 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

considerably smaller than Nordic 264 

trawl nets, are fished at slower speeds, 

and have a different shape and 

functionality than the Nordic 264. Due 

to the smaller size of the modified-Cobb 

net, this gear does not yet have a 

suitable marine mammal excluder 

device but research and design work are 

currently being performed to develop 

effective excluders that will not 

appreciably affect the catchability of the 

net and therefore maintain continuity of 

the fisheries research dataset. 

A reduction in target catch rates is an 

issue that has arisen from preliminary 

analyses of MMED use in Nordic 264 

gear. Although sample sizes are small, 

these results have cast some doubt as to 

whether the MMED would be suitable 

for surveys with a primary objective of 

estimating abundance, as opposed to 

collecting biological samples. If data 

collected during testing of the modifiedCobb MMED continues to indicate 

reduced catch rates, SWFSC would 

continue testing to explore whether it is 

possible to calculate reliable conversion 

factors to equate catches when using the 

MMED to catches when it was not. If 

this is not possible, then use of the 

MMED for certain surveys may 

compromise primary research 

objectives. Therefore, use of the MMED 

may be considered not practicable. 

Analysis of Bycatch Patterns 

In addition, SWFSC plans to explore 

patterns in past marine mammal 

bycatch in its fisheries research surveys 

to better understand what factors (e.g., 

oceanographic conditions) might 

increase the likelihood of take. SWFSC 

staff have been using predictive 

machine-learning methods 

(classification trees) for various 

applications; using similar methods, the 

SWFSC plans to examine research trawl 

data for any link between trawl 

variables and observed marine mammal 

bycatch. Some of the variables SWFSC 

is currently considering for this analysis 

are: Moon phase, sky cover, pinger 

presence, trawl speed, vessel sonar use 

during trawl, use of deck lights, etc. 

SWFSC staff will also review historical 

fisheries research data to determine 

whether sufficient data exist for similar 

analysis. If take patterns emerge, the 

SWFSC will focus future research on 

reducing or eliminating high-risk factors 

in ways that enable scientifically 

important surveys to continue with 

minimized environmental impact. 

Training 

SWFSC anticipates that additional 

information on practices to avoid 

marine mammal interactions can be 

gleaned from training sessions and more 

systematic data collection standards. 

The SWFSC will conduct annual 

trainings for all chief scientists and 

other personnel who may be responsible 

for conducting dedicated marine 

mammal visual observations to explain 

mitigation measures and monitoring and 

reporting requirements, mitigation and 

monitoring protocols, marine mammal 

identification, recording of count and 

disturbance observations (relevant to 

AMLR surveys), completion of 

datasheets, and use of equipment. Some 

of these topics may be familiar to 

SWFSC staff, who may be professional 

biologists; the SWFSC shall determine 

the agenda for these trainings and 

ensure that all relevant staff have 

necessary familiarity with these topics. 

SWFSC will also dedicate a portion of 

training to discussion of best 

professional judgment (which is 

recognized as an integral component of 

mitigation implementation; see 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’), including use 

in any incidents of marine mammal 

interaction and instructive examples 

where use of best professional judgment 

was determined to be successful or 

unsuccessful. We recognize that many 

factors come into play regarding 

decision-making at sea and that it is not 

practicable to simplify what are 

inherently variable and complex 

situational decisions into rules that may 

be defined on paper. However, it is our 

intent that use of best professional 

judgment be an iterative process from 

year to year, in which any at-sea 

decision-maker (i.e., responsible for 

decisions regarding the avoidance of 

marine mammal interactions with 

survey gear through the application of 

best professional judgment) learns from 

the prior experience of all relevant 

SWFSC 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 SWFSC 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, SWFSC believes adopting 

these protocols for data collection will 

also increase the information on which 

‘‘serious injury’’ determinations (NMFS, 

2012a, b) are based and improve 

scientific knowledge about marine 

mammals that interact with fisheries 

research gears and the factors that 

contribute to these interactions. SWFSC 

personnel will be provided standard 

guidance and training regarding 

handling of marine mammals, including 

how to identify different species, bring 

an individual aboard a vessel, assess the 

level of consciousness, remove fishing 

gear, return an individual to water and 

log activities pertaining to the 

interaction. 

SWFSC will record interaction 

information on either existing data 

forms created by other NMFS programs 

(e.g., see Appendix B.2 of SWFSC’s 

application) or will develop their own 

standardized forms. To aid in serious 

injury determinations and comply with 

the current NMFS Serious Injury 

Guidelines (NMFS, 2012a, b), 

researchers will also answer a series of 

supplemental questions on the details of 

marine mammal interactions (see 

Appendix B.3 of SWFSC’s application). 

Finally, for any marine mammals that 

are killed during fisheries research 

activities, scientists will collect data and 

samples pursuant to the SWFSC MMPA 

and ESA research and salvage permit 

and to the ‘‘Detailed Sampling Protocol 

for Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle 

Incidental Takes on SWFSC Research 

Cruises’’ (see Appendix B.4 of SWFSC’s 

application). 

Reporting 

As is normally the case, SWFSC 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 SWFSC 

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 

SWFSC leadership and to the Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) by event, 

survey leg, and cruise. As a result, when 

marine mammals interact with survey 

gear, whether killed or released alive, a 

report provided by the CS will fully 

describe any observations of the 

animals, the context (vessel and 

conditions), decisions made and 

rationale for decisions made in vessel 

and gear handling. The circumstances of 

these events are critical in enabling 

SWFSC and OPR to better evaluate the 

conditions under which takes are most 

likely occur. We believe in the long term 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8227 

this will allow the avoidance of these 

types of events in the future. 

The SWFSC will submit annual 

summary reports to OPR including: (1) 

Annual line-kilometers surveyed during 

which the EK60, ME70, SX90 (or 

equivalent sources) were predominant 

(see ‘‘Estimated Take by Acoustic 

Harassment’’ for further discussion), 

specific to each region; (2) summary 

information regarding use of all longline 

(including bottom and vertical lines) 

and trawl (including bottom trawl) gear, 

including number of sets, hook hours, 

tows, etc., specific to each region and 

gear; (3) accounts of all incidents of 

marine mammal interactions, including 

circumstances of the event and 

descriptions of any mitigation 

procedures implemented or not 

implemented and why; (4) summary 

information related to any on-ice 

disturbance of pinnipeds, including 

event-specific total counts of animals 

present, counts of reactions according to 

the three-point scale shown in Table 26, 

and distance of closest approach; (5) a 

written evaluation of the effectiveness of 

SWFSC 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; and (6) updates as 

appropriate regarding the development/ 

implementation of MMEDs and analysis 

of bycatch patterns. The period of 

reporting will be a calendar year and the 

report must be submitted not less than 

ninety days following the end of a 

calendar year. Submission of this 

information is in service of an adaptive 

management framework allowing NMFS 

to make appropriate modifications to 

mitigation and/or monitoring strategies, 

as necessary, during the proposed fiveyear 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. 

SWFSC 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. 

SWFSC will require that the CS 

complete data forms (already developed 

and used by commercial fisheries 

observer programs) and address 

supplemental questions, both of which 

have been developed to aid in SI 

determinations. SWFSC 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 SWFSC will perform all 

necessary reporting to ensure that any 

incidental M/SI is incorporated as 

appropriate into relevant SARs. 

Adaptive Management 

The final regulations governing the 

take of marine mammals incidental to 

SWFSC fisheries research survey 

operations in three specified 

geographical regions would contain an 

adaptive management component. The 

inclusion of an adaptive management 

component will be both valuable and 

necessary within the context of five-year 

regulations for activities that have been 

associated with marine mammal 

mortality. 

The reporting requirements associated 

with these proposed rules are designed 

to provide OPR with monitoring data 

from the previous year to allow 

consideration of whether any changes 

are appropriate. OPR and the SWFSC 

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 SWFSC regarding practicability) on 

an annual or biennial basis if mitigation 

or monitoring measures should be 

modified (including additions or 

deletions). Mitigation measures could be 

modified if new data suggests that such 

modifications would have a reasonable 

likelihood of reducing adverse effects to 

marine mammals and if the measures 

are practicable. 

The following are some of the 

possible sources of applicable data to be 

considered through the adaptive 

management process: (1) Results from 

monitoring reports, as required by 

MMPA authorizations; (2) results from 

general marine mammal and sound 

research; and (3) any information which 

reveals that marine mammals may have 

been taken in a manner, extent, or 

number not authorized by these 

regulations or subsequent LOAs. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by these 

actions, in any of the three specified 

geographical regions for which we 

propose rulemakings. Therefore, we 

have determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are multiple marine mammal 

species listed under the ESA with 

confirmed or possible occurrence in the 

proposed specified geographical regions 

(see Tables 3–5). The proposed 

authorization of incidental take 

pursuant to the SWFSC’s specified 

activity would not affect any designated 

critical habitat. OPR has initiated 

consultation with NMFS’ West Coast 

Regional Office under section 7 of the 

ESA on the promulgation of five-year 

regulations and the subsequent issuance 

of LOAs to SWFSC under section 

101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. This 

consultation will be concluded prior to 

issuing any final rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The SWFSC has prepared a Draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA; Draft 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment for Fisheries Research 

Conducted and Funded by the 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center) in 

accordance with NEPA and the 

regulations published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality. It is posted on 

the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

permits/incidental/research.htm. We 

have independently evaluated the Draft 

EA and are proposing to adopt it. We 

may prepare a separate NEPA analysis 

and incorporate relevant portions of 

SWFSC’s EA by reference. Information 

in SWFSC’s application, EA and this 

notice collectively provide the 

environmental information related to 

proposed issuance of these regulations 

for public review and comment. We will 

review all comments submitted in 

response to this notice as we complete 

the NEPA process, including a decision 

of whether to sign a Finding of No 

Significant Impact, prior to a final 

decision on the incidental take 

authorization request. 

Request for Information 

NMFS requests interested persons to 

submit comments, information, and 

suggestions concerning the SWFSC 

request and the proposed regulations 

(see ADDRESSES). All comments will be 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8228 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This proposed rule contains collectionof-information requirements subject to 

the provisions of the PRA. These 

requirements have been approved by 

OMB under control number 0648–0151 

and include applications for regulations, 

subsequent LOAs, and reports. Send 

comments regarding any aspect of this 

data collection, including suggestions 

for reducing the burden, to NMFS and 

the OMB Desk Officer (see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 219 

Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, 

Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Seafood, Transportation. 

Dated: February 5, 2015. 

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 added 

as follows: 

PART 219—REGULATIONS 

GOVERNING THE TAKING AND 

IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS 

Subpart A—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center Fisheries Research in the California 

Current 

Sec. 

219.1 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

219.2 [Reserved] 

219.3 Permissible methods of taking. 

219.4 Prohibitions. 

219.5 Mitigation requirements. 

219.6 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

219.7 Letters of Authorization. 

219.8 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

219.9 [Reserved] 

219.10 [Reserved] 

Subpart B—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center Fisheries Research in the Eastern 

Tropical Pacific 

Sec. 

219.11 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

219.12 [Reserved] 

219.13 Permissible methods of taking. 

219.14 Prohibitions. 

219.15 Mitigation requirements. 

219.16 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

219.17 Letters of Authorization. 

219.18 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

219.19 [Reserved] 

219.20 [Reserved] 

Subpart C—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center Fisheries Research in the Antarctic 

Sec. 

219.21 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

219.22 [Reserved] 

219.23 Permissible methods of taking. 

219.24 Prohibitions. 

219.25 Mitigation requirements. 

219.26 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

219.27 Letters of Authorization. 

219.28 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

219.29 [Reserved] 

219.30 [Reserved] 

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

Subpart A—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center Fisheries Research in 

the California Current 

§ 219.1 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service’s (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center (SWFSC) and those 

persons it authorizes or funds to 

conduct activities on its behalf for the 

taking of marine mammals that occurs 

in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of 

this section and that occurs incidental 

to research survey program operations. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

SWFSC may be authorized in a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs 

within the California Current 

Ecosystem. 

§ 219.2 [Reserved] 

§ 219.3 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 and 219.7 of this chapter, the 

Holder of the LOA (hereinafter 

‘‘SWFSC’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in § 219.1(b) 

of this chapter, provided the activity is 

in compliance with all terms, 

conditions, and requirements of the 

regulations in this subpart and the 

appropriate LOA. 

(b) The incidental take of marine 

mammals under the activities identified 

in § 219.1(a) of this chapter is limited to 

the indicated number of takes on an 

annual basis (by Level B harassment) or 

over the five-year period of validity of 

these regulations (by mortality) of the 

following species: 

(1) Level B harassment: 

(i) Cetaceans: 

(A) Gray whale (Eschrichtius 

robustus)—346; 

(B) Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)—14; 

(C) Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata)—13; 

(D) Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis)—1; 

(E) Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus)—33; 

(F) Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus)—24; 

(G) Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus)—65; 

(H) Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale 

(Kogia spp.)—42; 

(I) Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris)—146; 

(J) Baird’s beaked whale (Berardius 

bairdii)—34; 

(K) Hubbs’, Blainville’s, ginkgotoothed, Perrin’s, lesser, or Stejneger’s 

beaked whales (Mesoplodon spp.)—40; 

(L) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus)—32; 

(M) Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba)—301; 

(N) Long-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinis capensis)—348; 

(O) Short-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinis delphis)—5,592; 

(P) Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus obliquidens)—378; 

(Q) Northern right whale dolphin 

(Lissodelphis borealis)—176; 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8229 

(R) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus)—188; 

(S) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—13; 

(T) Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus)—12; 

(U) Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena)—682; and 

(V) Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides 

dalli)—1,365. 

(ii) Pinnipeds: 

(A) Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus 

philippii townsendi)—134; 

(B) Northern fur seal (Callorhinus 

ursinus), California stock—236; 

(C) Northern fur seal, Pribilof Islands/ 

Eastern Pacific stock—11,555; 

(D) California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus)—4,302; 

(E) Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus)—1,055; 

(F) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)—910; 

and 

(G) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris)—4,743. 

(2) Mortality (midwater trawl gear 

only): 

(i) Cetaceans: 

(A) Bottlenose dolphin (California, 

Oregon, and Washington offshore 

stock)—8; 

(B) Bottlenose dolphin (California 

coastal stock)—3; 

(C) Striped dolphin—11; 

(D) Long-beaked common dolphin— 

11; 

(E) Short-beaked common dolphin— 

11; 

(F) Pacific white-sided dolphin—35; 

(G) Northern right whale dolphin—10; 

(H) Risso’s dolphin—11; 

(I) Harbor porpoise—5; 

(J) Dall’s porpoise—5; 

(K) Unidentified cetacean (Family 

Delphinidae or Family Phocoenidae)— 

1. 

(ii) Pinnipeds: 

(A) Northern fur seal—5; 

(B) California sea lion—20; 

(C) Steller sea lion—9; 

(D) Harbor seal—9; 

(E) Northern elephant seal—5; and 

(F) Unidentified pinniped—1. 

(3) Mortality (pelagic longline gear 

only): 

(i) Cetaceans: 

(A) Pygmy or dwarf sperm whale—1; 

(B) Bottlenose dolphin—1; 

(C) Striped dolphin—1; 

(D) Long-beaked common dolphin—1; 

(E) Short-beaked common dolphin—1; 

(F) Risso’s dolphin—1; and 

(G) Short-finned pilot whale—1. 

(ii) Pinnipeds: 

(A) California sea lion—5; 

(B) Steller sea lion—1; and 

(C) Unidentified pinniped—1. 

§ 219.4 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 219.1 of this chapter 

and authorized by a LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 219.7 of this chapter, no 

person in connection with the activities 

described in § 219.1 of this chapter may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 219.3(b) of this chapter; 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 219.3(b) of this chapter in 

any manner other than as specified; 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 219.3(b) of this chapter if NMFS 

determines such taking results in more 

than a negligible impact on the species 

or stocks of such marine mammal; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 219.3(b) of this chapter if NMFS 

determines such taking results in an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

species or stock of such marine mammal 

for taking for subsistence uses; or 

(e) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or a LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 219.7 of this chapter. 

§ 219.5 Mitigation requirements. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 219.1(a) of this chapter, 

the mitigation measures contained in 

any LOA issued under §§ 216.106 and 

219.7 of this chapter must be 

implemented. These mitigation 

measures shall include but are not 

limited to: 

(a) General conditions: 

(1) SWFSC 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. 

(2) SWFSC shall coordinate and 

conduct briefings at the outset of each 

survey and as necessary between ship’s 

crew (Commanding Officer/master or 

designee(s), as appropriate) and 

scientific party in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

(3) SWFSC shall coordinate as 

necessary on a daily basis during survey 

cruises with OMAO personnel or other 

relevant personnel on non-NOAA 

platforms to ensure that requirements, 

procedures, and decision-making 

processes are understood and properly 

implemented. 

(4) When deploying any type of 

sampling gear at sea, SWFSC shall at all 

times monitor for any unusual 

circumstances that may arise at a 

sampling site and use best professional 

judgment to avoid any potential risks to 

marine mammals during use of all 

research equipment. 

(5) SWFSC shall implement handling 

and/or disentanglement protocols as 

specified in the guidance provided to 

SWFSC survey personnel 

(‘‘Identification, Handling and Release 

of Protected Species’’). 

(b) Midwater trawl survey protocols: 

(1) SWFSC shall conduct trawl 

operations as soon as is practicable 

upon arrival at the sampling station. 

(2) SWFSC shall initiate marine 

mammal watches (visual observation) 

no less than thirty minutes prior to 

sampling. Marine mammal watches 

shall be conducted by scanning the 

surrounding waters with the naked eye 

and rangefinding binoculars (or 

monocular). During nighttime 

operations, visual observation shall be 

conducted using the naked eye and 

available vessel lighting. 

(3) SWFSC shall implement the 

‘‘move-on rule.’’ If one or more marine 

mammals are observed within 1 nm of 

the planned location in the thirty 

minutes before setting the trawl gear, 

SWFSC shall transit to a different 

section of the sampling area to maintain 

a minimum set distance of 1 nm from 

the observed marine mammals. If, after 

moving on, marine mammals remain 

within 1 nm, SWFSC may decide to 

move again or to skip the station. 

SWFSC may use best professional 

judgment in making this decision but 

may not elect to conduct midwater trawl 

survey activity when animals remain 

within the 1-nm zone. 

(4) SWFSC shall maintain visual 

monitoring effort during the entire 

period of time that midwater 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, 

SWFSC shall take the most appropriate 

action to avoid marine mammal 

interaction. SWFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

decision. 

(5) If trawling operations have been 

suspended because of the presence of 

marine mammals, SWFSC may resume 

trawl operations when practicable only 

when the animals are believed to have 

departed the 1 nm area. SWFSC may use 

best professional judgment in making 

this determination. 

(6) SWFSC shall implement standard 

survey protocols, including maximum 

tow durations of thirty minutes at target 

depth and maximum tow distance of 3 

nm and shall carefully empty the trawl 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8230 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

as quickly as possible upon retrieval. 

Trawl nets must be cleaned prior to 

deployment. 

(7) SWFSC must install and use a 

marine mammal excluder device at all 

times when the Nordic 264 trawl net or 

other net for which the device is 

appropriate is used. 

(8) SWFSC must install and use 

acoustic deterrent devices whenever any 

midwater trawl net is used, with two to 

four devices placed along the footrope 

and/or headrope of the net. SWFSC 

must ensure that the devices are 

operating properly before deploying the 

net. 

(c) Pelagic longline survey protocols: 

(1) SWFSC shall deploy longline gear 

as soon as is practicable upon arrival at 

the sampling station. 

(2) SWFSC shall initiate marine 

mammal watches (visual observation) 

no less than thirty minutes prior to both 

deployment and retrieval of the longline 

gear. Marine mammal watches shall be 

conducted by scanning the surrounding 

waters with the naked eye and 

rangefinding binoculars (or monocular). 

During nighttime operations, visual 

observation shall be conducted using 

the naked eye and available vessel 

lighting. 

(3) SWFSC shall implement the 

‘‘move-on rule.’’ If one or more marine 

mammals are observed within 1 nm of 

the planned location in the thirty 

minutes before gear deployment, 

SWFSC shall transit to a different 

section of the sampling area to maintain 

a minimum set distance of 1 nm from 

the observed marine mammals. If, after 

moving on, marine mammals remain 

within 1 nm, SWFSC may decide to 

move again or to skip the station. 

SWFSC may use best professional 

judgment in making this decision but 

may not elect to conduct pelagic 

longline survey activity when animals 

remain within the 1-nm zone. 

Implementation of the ‘‘move-on rule’’ 

is not required upon observation of five 

or fewer California sea lions. 

(4) SWFSC shall maintain visual 

monitoring effort during the entire 

period of gear deployment or retrieval. 

If marine mammals are sighted before 

the gear is fully deployed or retrieved, 

SWFSC shall take the most appropriate 

action to avoid marine mammal 

interaction. SWFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

decision. 

(5) If deployment or retrieval 

operations have been suspended 

because of the presence of marine 

mammals, SWFSC may resume such 

operations when practicable only when 

the animals are believed to have 

departed the 1 nm area. SWFSC may use 

best professional judgment in making 

this decision. 

(6) SWFSC shall implement standard 

survey protocols, including maximum 

soak duration of four hours and a 

prohibition on chumming. 

§ 219.6 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) Visual monitoring program: 

(1) Dedicated marine mammal visual 

monitoring, conducted by trained 

SWFSC personnel with no other 

responsibilities during the monitoring 

period, shall occur (1) for a minimum of 

thirty minutes prior to deployment of 

midwater trawl and pelagic longline 

gear; (2) throughout deployment of gear 

and active fishing of all research gears; 

(3) for a minimum of thirty minutes 

prior to retrieval of pelagic longline 

gear; and (4) throughout retrieval of all 

research gear. 

(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. 

(b) Acoustic monitoring—SWFSC 

shall log passive acoustic data before 

and during the conduct of each 

midwater trawl. 

(c) Marine mammal excluder device 

(MMED)—SWFSC shall conduct an 

evaluation of the feasibility of MMED 

development for the modified-Cobb 

midwater trawl net. 

(d) Analysis of bycatch patterns— 

SWFSC shall conduct an analysis of 

past bycatch patterns in order to better 

understand what factors might increase 

the likelihood of incidental take in 

research survey gear. This shall include 

an analysis of research trawl data for 

any link between trawl variables and 

observed marine mammal bycatch, as 

well as a review of historical fisheries 

research data to determine whether 

sufficient data exist for similar analysis. 

(e) Training: 

(1) SWFSC 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. SWFSC may 

determine the agenda for these 

trainings. 

(2) SWFSC 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. 

(f) Handling procedures and data 

collection: 

(1) SWFSC must develop and 

implement standardized marine 

mammal handling, disentanglement, 

and data collection procedures. These 

standard procedures will be subject to 

approval by NMFS’ Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR). 

(2) When practicable, for any marine 

mammal interaction involving the 

release of a live animal, SWFSC shall 

collect necessary data to facilitate a 

serious injury determination. 

(3) SWFSC shall provide its relevant 

personnel with standard guidance and 

training regarding handling of marine 

mammals, including how to identify 

different species, bring an individual 

aboard a vessel, assess the level of 

consciousness, remove fishing gear, 

return an individual to water, and log 

activities pertaining to the interaction. 

(4) SWFSC shall record such data on 

standardized forms, which will be 

subject to approval by OPR. SWFSC 

shall also answer a standard series of 

supplemental questions regarding the 

details of any marine mammal 

interaction. 

(g) Reporting: 

(1) SWFSC shall report all incidents 

of marine mammal interaction to NMFS’ 

Protected Species Incidental Take 

database within 48 hours of occurrence. 

(2) SWFSC shall provide written 

reports to OPR following any marine 

mammal interaction (animal captured or 

entangled in research gear) and/or 

survey leg or cruise, summarizing 

survey effort on the leg or cruise. In the 

event of a marine mammal interaction, 

these reports shall include full 

descriptions of any observations of the 

animals, the context (vessel and 

conditions), decisions made and 

rationale for decisions made in vessel 

and gear handling. 

(3) Annual reporting: 

(i) SWFSC shall submit an annual 

summary report to OPR not later than 

ninety days following the end of a 

calendar year, with the reporting period 

being a given calendar year. 

(ii) These reports shall contain, at 

minimum, the following: 

(A) Annual line-kilometers surveyed 

during which the EK60, ME70, SX90 (or 

equivalent sources) were predominant; 

(B) Summary information regarding 

use of all longline (including bottom 

and vertical lines) and trawl (including 

bottom trawl) gear, including number of 

sets, hook hours, tows, etc., specific to 

each gear; 

(C) Accounts of all incidents of 

marine mammal interactions, including 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8231 

circumstances of the event and 

descriptions of any mitigation 

procedures implemented or not 

implemented and why; 

(D) A written evaluation of the 

effectiveness of SWFSC 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) Updates as appropriate regarding 

the development/implementation of 

MMEDs and analysis of bycatch 

patterns. 

(h) Reporting of injured or dead 

marine mammals: 

(1) In the unanticipated event that the 

activity defined in § 219.1(a) of this 

chapter clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a prohibited manner, 

SWFSC shall immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to OPR and the West Coast 

Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. 

The report must include the following 

information: 

(i) Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

(ii) Description of the incident; 

(iii) Environmental conditions (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). 

Activities shall not resume until OPR 

is able to review the circumstances of 

the prohibited take. OPR shall work 

with SWFSC to determine what 

measures are necessary to minimize the 

likelihood of further prohibited take and 

ensure MMPA compliance. SWFSC may 

not resume their activities until notified 

by OPR. 

(2) In the event that SWFSC 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), 

SWFSC shall immediately report the 

incident to OPR and the West Coast 

Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS. 

The report must include the information 

identified in § 219.6(h)(1) of this 

section. Activities may continue while 

OPR reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. OPR will work with SWFSC to 

determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

(3) In the event that SWFSC 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 § 219.1(a) of this 

chapter (e.g., previously wounded 

animal, carcass with moderate to 

advanced decomposition, scavenger 

damage), SWFSC shall report the 

incident to OPR and the West Coast 

Regional Stranding Coordinator, NMFS, 

within 24 hours of the discovery. 

SWFSC shall provide photographs or 

video footage or other documentation of 

the stranded animal sighting to OPR. 

§ 219.7 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

SWFSC must apply for and obtain an 

LOA. 

(b) An LOA, unless suspended or 

revoked, may be effective for a period of 

time not to exceed the expiration date 

of these regulations. 

(c) If an LOA expires prior to the 

expiration date of these regulations, 

SWFSC 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, SWFSC must apply for and obtain 

a modification of the LOA as described 

in § 219.18 of this chapter. 

(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. 

§ 219.8 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 

and 219.7 of this chapter for the activity 

identified in § 219.1(a) of this chapter 

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 § 219.8(c)(1) of this 

chapter), 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 

§ 219.8(c)(1) of this chapter) 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 

and 219.7 of this chapter for the activity 

identified in § 219.11(a) of this chapter 

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 SWFSC 

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 SWFSC’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 § 219.12(b) of this chapter, 

an LOA may be modified without prior 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8232 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

notice or opportunity for public 

comment. Notice would be published in 

the Federal Register within thirty days 

of the action. 

§ 219.9 [Reserved] 

§ 219.10 [Reserved] 

Subpart B—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center Fisheries Research in 

the Eastern Tropical Pacific 

§ 219.11 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service’s (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center (SWFSC) and those 

persons it authorizes or funds to 

conduct activities on its behalf for the 

taking of marine mammals that occurs 

in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of 

this section and that occurs incidental 

to research survey program operations. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

SWFSC may be authorized in a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs 

within the Eastern Tropical Pacific. 

§ 219.12 [Reserved] 

§ 219.13 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 and 219.17 of this chapter, 

the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter 

‘‘SWFSC’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in § 219.11(b) 

of this chapter, provided the activity is 

in compliance with all terms, 

conditions, and requirements of the 

regulations in this subpart and the 

appropriate LOA. 

(b) The incidental take of marine 

mammals under the activities identified 

in § 219.11(a) of this chapter is limited 

to the indicated number of takes on an 

annual basis (by Level B harassment) or 

over the five-year period of validity of 

these regulations (by mortality) of the 

following species: 

(1) Level B harassment: 

(i) Cetaceans: 

(A) Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)—1; 

(B) Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera 

edeni)—4; 

(C) Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus)—2; 

(D) Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus)—4; 

(E) Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima)— 

14; 

(F) Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris)—24; 

(G) Longman’s beaked whale 

(Indopacetus pacificus)—1; 

(H) Blainville’s, ginkgo-toothed, or 

lesser beaked whales (Mesoplodon 

spp.)—30; 

(I) Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno 

bredanensis)—45; 

(J) Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus)—139; 

(K) Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba)—401; 

(L) Pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata)—1,088; 

(M) Spinner dolphin (Stenella 

longirostris)—442; 

(N) Long-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinis capensis)—173; 

(O) Short-beaked common dolphin 

(Delphinis delphis)—1,300; 

(P) Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis 

hosei)—121; 

(Q) Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 

obscurus)—18; 

(R) Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus)—46; 

(S) Melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra)—19; 

(T) Pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata)—17; 

(U) False killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens)—17; 

(V) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—3; 

and 

(W) Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus)—723. 

(ii) Pinnipeds: 

(A) Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus 

philippii townsendi)—66; 

(B) California sea lion (Zalophus 

californianus)—1,442; 

(C) South American sea lion (Otaria 

byronia)—1,442; and 

(D) Northern elephant seal (Mirounga 

angustirostris)—3,248. 

(2) Mortality (pelagic longline gear 

only): 

(i) Cetaceans: 

(A) Dwarf sperm whale—1; 

(B) Rough-toothed dolphin—1; 

(C) Bottlenose dolphin—1; 

(D) Striped dolphin—1; 

(E) Pantropical spotted dolphin—1; 

(F) Long-beaked common dolphin—1; 

(G) Short-beaked common dolphin— 

1; 

(H) Risso’s dolphin—1; 

(I) False killer whale—1; and 

(J) Short-finned pilot whale—1. 

(ii) Pinnipeds: 

(A) California sea lion—5; 

(B) South American sea lion—5; and 

(C) Unidentified pinniped—1. 

§ 219.14 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 219.11 of this chapter 

and authorized by a LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 219.17 of this chapter, 

no person in connection with the 

activities described in § 219.11 of this 

chapter may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 219.13(b) of this chapter; 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 219.13(b) in any manner 

other than as specified; 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 219.13(b) of this chapter if NMFS 

determines such taking results in more 

than a negligible impact on the species 

or stocks of such marine mammal; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 219.13(b) if NMFS determines such 

taking results in an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the species or stock of such 

marine mammal for taking for 

subsistence uses; or 

(e) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or a LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 219.17 of this chapter. 

§ 219.15 Mitigation requirements. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 219.11(a), the mitigation 

measures contained in any LOA issued 

under §§ 216.106 and 219.17 of this 

chapter must be implemented. These 

mitigation measures shall include but 

are not limited to: 

(a) General conditions: 

(1) SWFSC 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. 

(2) SWFSC shall coordinate and 

conduct briefings at the outset of each 

survey and as necessary between ship’s 

crew (Commanding Officer/master or 

designee(s), as appropriate) and 

scientific party in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

(3) SWFSC shall coordinate as 

necessary on a daily basis during survey 

cruises with OMAO personnel or other 

relevant personnel on non-NOAA 

platforms to ensure that requirements, 

procedures, and decision-making 

processes are understood and properly 

implemented. 

(4) When deploying any type of 

sampling gear at sea, SWFSC 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 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8233 

marine mammals during use of all 

research equipment. 

(5) SWFSC shall implement handling 

and/or disentanglement protocols as 

specified in the guidance provided to 

SWFSC survey personnel 

(‘‘Identification, Handling and Release 

of Protected Species’’). 

(b) Pelagic longline survey protocols: 

(1) SWFSC shall deploy longline gear 

as soon as is practicable upon arrival at 

the sampling station. 

(2) SWFSC shall initiate marine 

mammal watches (visual observation) 

no less than thirty minutes prior to both 

deployment and retrieval of the longline 

gear. Marine mammal watches shall be 

conducted by scanning the surrounding 

waters with the naked eye and 

rangefinding binoculars (or monocular). 

During nighttime operations, visual 

observation shall be conducted using 

the naked eye and available vessel 

lighting. 

(3) SWFSC shall implement the 

‘‘move-on rule.’’ If one or more marine 

mammals are observed within 1 nm of 

the planned location in the thirty 

minutes before gear deployment, 

SWFSC shall transit to a different 

section of the sampling area to maintain 

a minimum set distance of 1 nm from 

the observed marine mammals. If, after 

moving on, marine mammals remain 

within 1 nm, SWFSC may decide to 

move again or to skip the station. 

SWFSC may use best professional 

judgment in making this decision but 

may not elect to conduct pelagic 

longline survey activity when animals 

remain within the 1-nm zone. 

(4) SWFSC shall maintain visual 

monitoring effort during the entire 

period of gear deployment or retrieval. 

If marine mammals are sighted before 

the gear is fully deployed or retrieved, 

SWFSC shall take the most appropriate 

action to avoid marine mammal 

interaction. SWFSC may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

decision. 

(5) If deployment or retrieval 

operations have been suspended 

because of the presence of marine 

mammals, SWFSC may resume such 

operations when practicable only when 

the animals are believed to have 

departed the 1 nm area. SWFSC may use 

best professional judgment in making 

this determination. 

(6) SWFSC shall implement standard 

survey protocols, including maximum 

soak duration of four hours and a 

prohibition on chumming. 

§ 219.16 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) Visual monitoring program: 

(1) Dedicated marine mammal visual 

monitoring, conducted by trained 

SWFSC personnel with no other 

responsibilities during the monitoring 

period, shall occur (1) for a minimum of 

thirty minutes prior to deployment of 

pelagic longline gear; (2) throughout 

deployment of gear and active fishing of 

all research gears; (3) for a minimum of 

thirty minutes prior to retrieval of 

pelagic longline gear; and (4) throughout 

retrieval of all research gear. 

(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. 

(b) Training: 

(1) SWFSC 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. SWFSC may 

determine the agenda for these 

trainings. 

(2) SWFSC 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. 

(c) Handling procedures and data 

collection: 

(1) SWFSC must develop and 

implement standardized marine 

mammal handling, disentanglement, 

and data collection procedures. These 

standard procedures will be subject to 

approval by NMFS’ Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR). 

(2) When practicable, for any marine 

mammal interaction involving the 

release of a live animal, SWFSC shall 

collect necessary data to facilitate a 

serious injury determination. 

(3) SWFSC shall provide its relevant 

personnel with standard guidance and 

training regarding handling of marine 

mammals, including how to identify 

different species, bring an individual 

aboard a vessel, assess the level of 

consciousness, remove fishing gear, 

return an individual to water, and log 

activities pertaining to the interaction. 

(4) SWFSC shall record such data on 

standardized forms, which will be 

subject to approval by NMFS’ Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR). SWFSC 

shall also answer a standard series of 

supplemental questions regarding the 

details of any marine mammal 

interaction. 

(d) Reporting: 

(1) SWFSC shall report all incidents 

of marine mammal interaction to NMFS’ 

Protected Species Incidental Take 

database within 48 hours of occurrence. 

(2) SWFSC shall provide written 

reports to OPR following any marine 

mammal interaction (animal captured or 

entangled in research gear) and/or 

survey leg or cruise, summarizing 

survey effort on the leg or cruise. In the 

event of a marine mammal interaction, 

these reports shall include full 

descriptions of any observations of the 

animals, the context (vessel and 

conditions), decisions made and 

rationale for decisions made in vessel 

and gear handling. 

(3) Annual reporting: 

(i) SWFSC shall submit an annual 

summary report to OPR not later than 

ninety days following the end of a 

calendar year, with the reporting period 

being a given calendar year. 

(ii) These reports shall contain, at 

minimum, the following: 

(A) Annual line-kilometers surveyed 

during which the EK60, ME70, SX90 (or 

equivalent sources) were predominant; 

(B) Summary information regarding 

use of all longline gear, including 

number of sets, hook hours, etc.; 

(C) Accounts of all incidents of 

marine mammal interactions, including 

circumstances of the event and 

descriptions of any mitigation 

procedures implemented or not 

implemented and why; 

(D) A written evaluation of the 

effectiveness of SWFSC 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; and 

(E) Final outcome of serious injury 

determinations for all incidents of 

marine mammal interactions where the 

animal(s) were released alive. 

(e) Reporting of injured or dead 

marine mammals: 

(1) In the unanticipated event that the 

activity defined in § 219.11(a) of this 

chapter clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a prohibited manner, 

SWFSC shall immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to OPR. Activities shall not 

resume until OPR is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

OPR shall work with SWFSC to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. SWFSC may not resume 

their activities until notified by OPR. 

The report must include the following 

information: 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8234 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(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 SWFSC 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), 

SWFSC shall immediately report the 

incident to OPR. The report must 

include the same information identified 

in § 219.16(e)(1) of this section. 

Activities may continue while OPR 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. OPR will work with SWFSC to 

determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

(3) In the event that SWFSC 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 § 219.11(a) of this 

chapter (e.g., previously wounded 

animal, carcass with moderate to 

advanced decomposition, scavenger 

damage), SWFSC shall report the 

incident to OPR within 24 hours of the 

discovery. SWFSC shall provide 

photographs or video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to OPR. 

§ 219.17 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

SWFSC must apply for and obtain an 

LOA. 

(b) An LOA, unless suspended or 

revoked, may be effective for a period of 

time not to exceed the expiration date 

of these regulations. 

(c) If an LOA expires prior to the 

expiration date of these regulations, 

SWFSC 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, SWFSC must apply for and obtain 

a modification of the LOA as described 

in § 219.18 of this chapter. 

(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. 

§ 219.18 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 

and 219.17 of this chapter for the 

activity identified in § 219.11(a) of this 

chapter 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 § 219.18(c)(1) of this 

chapter), 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 

§ 219.18(c)(1) of this chapter) 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 

and 219.17 of this chapter for the 

activity identified in § 219.11(a) of this 

chapter 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 SWFSC 

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 SWFSC’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 § 219.12(b) of this chapter, 

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. 

§ 219.19 [Reserved] 

§ 219.20 [Reserved] 

Subpart C—Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center Fisheries Research in 

the Antarctic 

§ 219.21 Specified activity and specified 

geographical region. 

(a) Regulations in this subpart apply 

only to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service’s (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center (SWFSC) and those 

persons it authorizes or funds to 

conduct activities on its behalf for the 

taking of marine mammals that occurs 

in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of 

this section and that occurs incidental 

to research survey program operations. 

(b) The taking of marine mammals by 

SWFSC may be authorized in a Letter of 

Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs 

within the Antarctic Marine Living 

Resources Ecosystem. 

§ 219.22 [Reserved] 

§ 219.23 Permissible methods of taking. 

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to 

§§ 216.106 and 219.27 of this chapter, 

the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter 

‘‘SWFSC’’) may incidentally, but not 

intentionally, take marine mammals 

within the area described in § 219.21(b) 

of this chapter, provided the activity is 

in compliance with all terms, 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8235 

conditions, and requirements of the 

regulations in this subpart and the 

appropriate LOA. 

(b) The incidental take of marine 

mammals under the activities identified 

in § 219.21(a) of this chapter is limited 

to the indicated number of takes on an 

annual basis of the following species 

and is limited to Level B harassment: 

(1) Cetaceans: 

(i) Southern right whale (Eubalaena 

australis)—1; 

(ii) Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)—92; 

(iii) Antarctic minke whale 

(Balaenoptera bonaerensis)—6; 

(iv) Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus)—114; 

(v) Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus)—3; 

(vi) Arnoux’ beaked whale (Berardius 

arnuxii)—37; 

(vii) Southern bottlenose whale 

(Hyperoodon planifrons)—37; 

(viii) Hourglass dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus cruciger)—12; 

(ix) Killer whale (Orcinus orca)—11; 

(x) Long-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas)—43; and 

(xi) Spectacled porpoise (Phocoena 

dioptrica)—12. 

(2) Pinnipeds: 

(i) Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus 

philippii townsendi)—553; 

(ii) Southern elephant seal (Mirounga 

leonina)—6; 

(iii) Weddell seal (Leptonychotes 

weddellii)—4; 

(iv) Crabeater seal (Lobodon 

carcinophaga)—7; and 

(v) Leopard seal (Hydrurga 

leptonyx)—5. 

§ 219.24 Prohibitions. 

Notwithstanding takings 

contemplated in § 219.21 of this chapter 

and authorized by a LOA issued under 

§§ 216.106 and 219.27 of this chapter, 

no person in connection with the 

activities described in § 219.21 of this 

chapter may: 

(a) Take any marine mammal not 

specified in § 219.23(b) of this chapter; 

(b) Take any marine mammal 

specified in § 219.23(b) in any manner 

other than as specified; 

(c) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 219.23(b) of this chapter if NMFS 

determines such taking results in more 

than a negligible impact on the species 

or stocks of such marine mammal; 

(d) Take a marine mammal specified 

in § 219.23(b) if NMFS determines such 

taking results in an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the species or stock of such 

marine mammal for taking for 

subsistence uses; or 

(e) Violate, or fail to comply with, the 

terms, conditions, and requirements of 

this subpart or a LOA issued under 

§ 216.106 and § 219.27 of this chapter. 

§ 219.25 Mitigation requirements. 

When conducting the activities 

identified in § 219.21(a), the mitigation 

measures contained in any LOA issued 

under §§ 216.106 and 219.27 of this 

chapter must be implemented. These 

mitigation measures shall include but 

are not limited to: 

(a) General conditions: 

(1) SWFSC 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. 

(2) SWFSC shall coordinate and 

conduct briefings at the outset of each 

survey and as necessary between ship’s 

crew (Commanding Officer/master or 

designee(s), as appropriate) and 

scientific party in order to explain 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, and operational procedures. 

(3) SWFSC shall coordinate as 

necessary on a daily basis during survey 

cruises with OMAO personnel or other 

relevant personnel on non-NOAA 

platforms to ensure that requirements, 

procedures, and decision-making 

processes are understood and properly 

implemented. 

(4) When deploying any type of 

sampling gear at sea, SWFSC shall at all 

times monitor for any unusual 

circumstances that may arise at a 

sampling site and use best professional 

judgment to avoid any potential risks to 

marine mammals during use of all 

research equipment. 

(5) SWFSC shall implement handling 

and/or disentanglement protocols as 

specified in the guidance provided to 

SWFSC survey personnel 

(‘‘Identification, Handling and Release 

of Protected Species’’). 

(b) Trawl survey protocols—SWFSC 

shall conduct trawl operations as soon 

as is practicable upon arrival at the 

sampling station. 

§ 219.26 Requirements for monitoring and 

reporting. 

(a) Visual monitoring program: 

(1) 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. 

(2) SWFSC shall monitor any 

potential disturbance of pinnipeds on 

ice, paying particular attention to the 

distance at which different species of 

pinniped are disturbed. Disturbance 

shall be recorded according to a threepoint scale representing increasing seal 

response to disturbance. 

(b) Acoustic monitoring—SWFSC 

shall log passive acoustic data before 

and during the conduct of each trawl. 

(c) Training: 

(1) SWFSC 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, recording of count and 

disturbance observations, completion of 

datasheets, and use of equipment. 

SWFSC may determine the agenda for 

these trainings. 

(2) SWFSC 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. 

(d) Handling procedures and data 

collection: 

(1) SWFSC must develop and 

implement standardized marine 

mammal handling, disentanglement, 

and data collection procedures. These 

standard procedures will be subject to 

approval by NMFS’ Office of Protected 

Resources (OPR). 

(2) When practicable, for any marine 

mammal interaction involving the 

release of a live animal, SWFSC shall 

collect necessary data to facilitate a 

serious injury determination. 

(3) SWFSC shall provide its relevant 

personnel with standard guidance and 

training regarding handling of marine 

mammals, including how to identify 

different species, bring an individual 

aboard a vessel, assess the level of 

consciousness, remove fishing gear, 

return an individual to water, and log 

activities pertaining to the interaction. 

(4) SWFSC shall record such data on 

standardized forms, which will be 

subject to approval by OPR. SWFSC 

shall also answer a standard series of 

supplemental questions regarding the 

details of any marine mammal 

interaction. 

(e) Reporting: 

(1) SWFSC shall report all incidents 

of marine mammal interaction to NMFS’ 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
8236 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Protected Species Incidental Take 

database within 48 hours of occurrence. 

(2) SWFSC shall provide written 

reports to OPR following any marine 

mammal interaction (animal captured or 

entangled in research gear) and/or 

survey leg or cruise, summarizing 

survey effort on the leg or cruise. In the 

event of a marine mammal interaction, 

these reports shall include full 

descriptions of any observations of the 

animals, the context (vessel and 

conditions), decisions made and 

rationale for decisions made in vessel 

and gear handling. 

(3) Annual reporting: 

(i) SWFSC shall submit an annual 

summary report to OPR not later than 

ninety days following the end of a 

calendar year, with the reporting period 

being a given calendar year. 

(ii) These reports shall contain, at 

minimum, the following: 

(A) Annual line-kilometers surveyed 

during which the EK60, ME70, SX90 (or 

equivalent sources) were predominant; 

(B) Summary information regarding 

use of all trawl gear, including number 

of tows, etc.; 

(C) Accounts of all incidents of 

marine mammal interactions, including 

circumstances of the event and 

descriptions of any mitigation 

procedures implemented or not 

implemented and why; 

(D) Summary information related to 

any on-ice disturbance of pinnipeds, 

including event-specific total counts of 

animals present, counts of reactions 

according to a three-point scale of 

response severity (1 = alert; 2 = 

movement; 3 = flight), and distance of 

closest approach; 

(E) A written evaluation of the 

effectiveness of SWFSC 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; and 

(F) Final outcome of serious injury 

determinations for all incidents of 

marine mammal interactions where the 

animal(s) were released alive. 

(f) Reporting of injured or dead 

marine mammals: 

(1) In the unanticipated event that the 

activity defined in § 219.21(a) of this 

chapter clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a prohibited manner, 

SWFSC shall immediately cease the 

specified activities and report the 

incident to OPR. 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). 

Activities shall not resume until OPR 

is able to review the circumstances of 

the prohibited take. OPR shall work 

with SWFSC to determine what 

measures are necessary to minimize the 

likelihood of further prohibited take and 

ensure MMPA compliance. SWFSC may 

not resume their activities until notified 

by OPR. 

(2) In the event that SWFSC 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), 

SWFSC shall immediately report the 

incident to OPR. The report must 

include the same information identified 

in § 219.26(f)(1) of this section. 

Activities may continue while OPR 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. OPR will work with SWFSC to 

determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

(3) In the event that SWFSC 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 § 219.21(a) of this 

chapter (e.g., previously wounded 

animal, carcass with moderate to 

advanced decomposition, scavenger 

damage), SWFSC shall report the 

incident to OPR within 24 hours of the 

discovery. SWFSC shall provide 

photographs or video footage or other 

documentation of the stranded animal 

sighting to OPR. 

§ 219.27 Letters of Authorization. 

(a) To incidentally take marine 

mammals pursuant to these regulations, 

SWFSC must apply for and obtain an 

LOA. 

(b) An LOA, unless suspended or 

revoked, may be effective for a period of 

time not to exceed the expiration date 

of these regulations. 

(c) If an LOA expires prior to the 

expiration date of these regulations, 

SWFSC 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, SWFSC must apply for and obtain 

a modification of the LOA as described 

in § 219.28 of this chapter. 

(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. 

§ 219.28 Renewals and modifications of 

Letters of Authorization. 

(a) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 

and 219.27 of this chapter for the 

activity identified in § 219.21(a) of this 

chapter 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 § 219.28(c)(1) of this 

chapter), 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 

§ 219.28(c)(1) of this chapter) 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 

and 219.27 of this chapter for the 

activity identified in § 219.21(a) of this 

chapter may be modified by OPR under 

the following circumstances: 

(1) Adaptive Management—OPR may 

modify (including augment) the existing 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8237 

mitigation, monitoring, or reporting 

measures (after consulting with SWFSC 

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 SWFSC’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 § 219.22(b) of this chapter, 

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. 

§ 219.29 [Reserved] 

§ 219.30 [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2015–02831 Filed 2–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2