Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 30 (Friday, February 13, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8166-8237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02831]

[[Page 8165]]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 30

February 13, 2015

Part III

Department of Commerce

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 219

Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental
to Southwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Research; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 8166]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ``move-on 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 8168]]

(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/m\2\/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 [deg]C in winter and 13-15 [deg]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

[[Page 8169]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE15.003

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 Ni[ntilde]o-Southern Oscillation and
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Both oscillations involve transitions
from cooler, more productive conditions to warmer, less productive
conditions, but over different timescales.
On the shoreward side of the California Current, the California
Current Front separates cold, low-salinity 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
north-flowing 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

[[Page 8170]]

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 [deg]C during winter and
19-22 [deg]C during summer at higher latitudes to 26-28 [deg]C and 29.5
[deg]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 [deg]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 [deg]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 funnel-shaped 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

[[Page 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 m\2\, 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 m\2\ 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 thin-
walled 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

[[Page 8172]]

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 m\2\ 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 x 1.8 m, and
is attached to a wide, V-shaped, 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 medium-sized 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-[mu]m 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-
[mu]m or 505-[mu]m 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-[mu]m nylon mesh in the body of the net and 303-[mu]m mesh
in the codend. The frame has a mouth area of 0.13 m\2\.
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.

[[Page 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, non-compressible
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, deep-set 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 Ni[ntilde]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.

[[Page 8174]]

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

[[Page 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
macro-zooplankton, 3-m\2\ 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 multi-frequency 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 single-warp
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 [[mu]Pa]), 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 [mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the
listener's position (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
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,

[[Page 8176]]

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 [mu]Pa\2\-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 [mu]Pa, 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 non-pulsed 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/

[[Page 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 Injury (PTS--any 180 dB (cetaceans)/
(underwater). level above that 190 dB (pinnipeds)
which is known (rms)
to cause TTS).
Level B harassment Behavioral 160 dB (impulsive
(underwater). disruption. 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[deg] (almost
omnidirectional) to only a few degrees. Transducers are usually
produced with either circular or rectangular active surfaces. For
circular transducers, the beam width in the horizontal plane (assuming
a downward pointing main beam) is equal in all directions, whereas
rectangular transducers produce more complex beam patterns with
variable beam width in the horizontal plane. 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[oslash]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.

[[Page 8178]]

(1) Multi-Frequency Narrow Beam Scientific Echosounders--
Echosounders and sonars work by transmitting acoustic pulses into the
water that travel through the water column, reflect off the seafloor,
and return to the receiver. Water depth is measured by multiplying the
time elapsed by the speed of sound in water (assuming accurate sound
speed measurement for the entire signal path), while the returning
signal itself carries information allowing ``visualization'' of the
seafloor. Multi-frequency split-beam sensors are deployed from 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
frequency-dependent 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[deg] tiltable). At the
30-kHz operating frequency, the vertical beamwidth is less than 7[deg]
and can be electronically tilted from +10 to -80[deg], which results in
differential transmitting beam patterns. The cylindrical multi-element
transducer allows the omnidirectional sonar beam to be electronically
tilted down to -60[deg], allowing automatic tracking of schools of fish
within the entire water volume around the vessel. 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.
Vessel-mounted instruments need a vessel with power, a shipboard
computer to receive the data, and a GPS navigation system so the ship's
movements can be subtracted from the current velocity data. ADCPs
operate at frequencies between 75 and 300 kHz.
(5) Net Monitoring Systems--During trawling operations, a range of
sensors may be used to assist with controlling and monitoring gear. Net
sounders give information about the concentration of fish around the
opening to the trawl, as well as the clearances around the opening and
the bottom of the trawl; catch sensors give information about the rate
at which the codend is filling; symmetry sensors give information about
the optimal geometry of the trawls; and tension sensors give
information about how much tension is in the warps and sweeps. 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single ping duration
Active acoustic system Operating frequencies Maximum source level (ms) and repetition Orientation/ Nominal beamwidth
rate (Hz) directionality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simrad EK500 and EK60 narrow beam 18, 38, 70, 120, 200, 224 dB................ Variable; most common Downward looking..... 7[deg].
echosounders. 333 kHz; primary settings are 1 ms
frequencies and 0.5 Hz.
italicized.
Simrad ME70 multibeam echosounder.. 70-120 kHz............ 205 dB................ 0.06-5 ms; 1-4 Hz.... Primarily downward 130[deg].
looking.
Simrad MS70 multibeam sonar........ 75-112 kHz............ 206 dB................ 2-10 ms; 1-2 Hz...... Primarily side- 60[deg].
looking.

[[Page 8179]]

Simrad SX90 narrow beam sonar...... 20-30 kHz............. 219 dB................ Variable............. Omnidirectional...... 4-5[deg] (variable
for tilt angles from
0-45[deg] from
horizontal).
Teledyne RD Instruments ADCP, Ocean 75 kHz................ 224 dB................ 0.2 Hz............... Downward looking..... 30[deg].
Surveyor.
Simrad ITI Catch Monitoring System. 27-33 kHz............. 214 dB................ 0.05-0.5 Hz.......... Downward looking..... 40[deg].
Simrad FS70 Third Wire Net Sonde... 120 kHz............... Unknown, maximum Variable............. Downward looking..... 40[deg].
transmit power is 1
kW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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., non-NOAA 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 event-

[[Page 8180]]

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 decision-making 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 post-
release 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 thirty-minute 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

[[Page 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 m\2\ versus 380 m\2\ 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

[[Page 8182]]

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; Carlstr[ouml]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
[mu]Pa 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''

[[Page 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 anecdotally-observed 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

[[Page 8184]]

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 satellite-tracked whales indicate that
there is some overlap between the stocks. Two WNP whales were tracked
from Russian foraging areas along the Pacific rim to Baja California
(Mate et al., 2011), and, in one case where the satellite tag remained
attached to the whale for a longer period, a WNP whale was tracked from
Russia to Mexico and back again (IWC, 2012). Between 22-24 WNP whales
are known to have occurred in the eastern Pacific through comparisons
of ENP and WNP photo-identification catalogs (IWC, 2012; Weller et al.,
2011; Burdin et al., 2011), 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.

[[Page 8185]]

Table 3--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of SWFSC Research Activities in the CCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance (CV,
ESA/MMPA status; Nmin, most recent Annual M/SI
Common name Scientific name Stock Strategic (Y/N) abundance survey) PBR \3\
\1\ \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale....................... Eschrichtius Eastern North --; N 19,126 (0.071; 558 \13\ 127
robustus. Pacific. 18,017; 2007).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale................... Megaptera California/Oregon/ E/D; Y 1,918 (0.03; 1,855; \12\ 22 >=5.5
novaeangliae kuzira. Washington (CA/OR/ 2011).
WA).
Minke whale...................... Balaenoptera CA/OR/WA............ --; N 478 (1.36; 202; 2 0
acutorostrata 2008).
scammoni.
Sei whale........................ B. borealis borealis Eastern North E/D; Y 126 (0.53; 83; 2008) 0.17 0
Pacific.
Fin whale........................ B. physalus physalus CA/OR/WA............ E/D; Y 3,051 (0.18; 2,598; 16 2.2
2008).
Blue whale....................... B. musculus musculus Eastern North E/D; Y 1,647 (0.07; 1,551; \12\ 9.3 1.9
Pacific. 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale...................... Physeter CA/OR/WA............ E/D; Y 971 (0.31; 751; 1.5 4
macrocephalus. 2008).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Kogiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy sperm whale................ Kogia breviceps..... CA/OR/WA............ --; N 579 (1.02; 271; 2.7 0
2008).
Dwarf sperm whale................ K. sima............. CA/OR/WA \5\........ --; N Unknown............. Unk. 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuvier's beaked whale............ Ziphius cavirostris. CA/OR/WA............ --; Y 6,590 (0.55; 4,481; 45 0
2008).
Baird's beaked whale............. Berardius bairdii... CA/OR/WA............ --; N 847 (0.81; 466; 4.7 0
2008).
Hubbs' beaked whale.............. Mesoplodon CA/OR/WA \6\........ --; Y 694 (0.65; 389; 3.9 0
carlhubbsi. 2008).
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 CA/OR/WA Offshore... --; N 1,006 (0.48; 684; 5.5 >=2
truncatus. 2008).
California Coastal.. --; N 323 (0.13; 290; 2.4 0.2
2005).
Striped dolphin.................. Stenella CA/OR/WA............ --; N 10,908 (0.34; 8,231; 82 0
coeruleoalba. 2008).
Long-beaked common dolphin....... Delphinus capensis California.......... --; N 107,016 (0.42; 610 13.8
capensis. 76,224; 2009).
Short-beaked common dolphin...... D. delphis delphis.. CA/OR/WA............ --; N 411,211 (0.21; 3,440 64
343,990; 2008).
Pacific white-sided dolphin...... Lagenorhynchus CA/OR/WA............ --; N 26,930 (0.28; 171 \14\ 17.8
obliquidens. 21,406; 2008).
Northern right whale dolphin..... Lissodelphis CA/OR/WA............ --; N 8,334 (0.4; 6,019; 48 \14\ 4.8
borealis. 2008).
Risso's dolphin.................. Grampus griseus..... CA/OR/WA............ --; N 6,272 (0.3; 4,913; 39 1.6
2008).
Killer whale..................... Orcinus orca \4\.... West Coast Transient --; N 243 (n/a; 2006)..... 2.4 0
\7\.

[[Page 8186]]

Eastern North --; N 240 (0.49; 162; 1.6 0
Pacific Offshore. 2008).
Eastern North E/D; Y 85 (n/a; 2012)...... 0.14 0
Pacific Southern
Resident.
Short-finned pilot whale......... Globicephala CA/OR/WA............ --; N 760 (0.64; 465; 4.6 0
macrorhynchus. 2008).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise.................. Phocoena phocoena Morro Bay........... --; N 2,917 (0.41; 2,102; 21 >=0.6
vomerina. 2012).
Monterey Bay........ --; N 3,715 (0.51; 2,480; 25 0
2011).
San Francisco- --; N 9,886 (0.51; 6,625; 66 0
Russian River. 2011).
Northern CA/Southern --; N 35,769 (0.52; 475 >=0.6
OR. 23,749; 2011).
Northern OR/WA Coast --; N 21,487 (0.44; 151 >=3
15,123; 2011).
Washington Inland --; N 10,682 (0.38; 7,841; Undet. >=2.2
Waters 8 9. 2003).
Dall's porpoise.................. Phocoenoides dalli CA/OR/WA............ --; N 42,000 (0.33; 257 >=0.4
dalli. 32,106; 2008).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe fur seal............... Arctocephalus \(8)\.............. T/D; Y 7,408 (n/a; 3,028; Undet. \15\ 0
philippii townsendi. 1993).
Northern fur seal................ Callorhinus ursinus. Pribilof Islands/ D; Y 639,545 (n/a; 11,638 471
Eastern Pacific. 541,317; 2008-11).
California.......... --; N 12,844 (n/a; 6,722; 403 \14\ 2.6
2011).
California sea lion.............. Zalophus United States....... --; N 296,750 (n/a; 9,200 \14\ >=431
californianus. 153,337; 2008).
Steller sea lion................. Eumetopias jubatus Eastern U.S. \10\... D; N 63,160-78,198 (n/a; 1,552 65.1
monteriensis. 34,485; 2008-11)
\11\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal...................... Phoca vitulina California.......... --; N 30,196 (n/a; 26,667; 1,600 31
richardii. 2009).
OR/WA Coast \8\..... --; N 24,732 (0.12; Undet. 10.6
22,380; 1999).
Washington Inland --; N 14,612 (0.15; Undet. 13.4
Waters 8 9. 12,844; 1999).
Northern elephant seal........... Mirounga California Breeding. --; N 124,000 (n/a; 4,382 >=10.4
angustirostris. 74,913; 2005).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (--) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. 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.
\3\ These 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.
\4\ Transient 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.

[[Page 8187]]

\6\ The 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.
\7\ The 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.
\8\ Abundance 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.
\9\ Based 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.
\10\ The 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).
\11\ Best 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).
\12\ These 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.
\14\ These 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.
\15\ This 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 short-
finned 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/ mmume/.

Eastern Tropical Pacific

In the ETP, 32 species--including multiple stocks for some
species--are considered to have the potential to co-occur 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

[[Page 8188]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA/IUCN Abundance (CV, Nmin)
Common name Scientific name Stock \2\ status \3\ \5\ PBR \16\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale...................... Megaptera novaeangliae. CA/OR/WA & Breeding E/D/LC \6\ 2,566.............. .......................
Stock G.
Minke whale......................... Balaenoptera ....................... --/LC \6\ 115................ .......................
acutorostrata scammoni.
Bryde's whale....................... B. edeni brydei........ Eastern North Pacific & --/DD \7\ 10,411 (0.20)...... .......................
Peruvian.
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; 88
8,789).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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; 897
89,653).
Common bottlenose dolphin........... Tursiops truncatus ....................... --/LC \11\ 335,834 (0.20; 2,850
truncatus. 284,952).
Striped dolphin..................... Stenella coeruleoalba.. ....................... --/LC \11\ 964,362 (0.21; 8,116
811,592).
Pantropical spotted dolphin......... S. attenuata attenuata. Northeastern Offshore.. \4\ --/D \11\ 857,884 (0.23).... 12,334
Western and Southern -- \11\ 439,208 (0.29).... .......................
Offshore.
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 ....................... --/DD \6\ 372,429 (0.36; 2,787
capensis. 278,651).
Short-beaked common dolphin......... D. delphis delphis..... Northern -- \11\ 3,127,203 (0.26; 25,133
Central................ 2,513,269).
Southern...............
Fraser's dolphin.................... Lagenodelphis hosei.... ....................... --/LC \8\ 289,300 (0.34)..... .......................
Dusky dolphin....................... Lagenorhynchus obscurus ....................... --/DD \6\ 40,211............. .......................
posidonia.
Risso's dolphin..................... Grampus griseus........ ....................... --/LC \11\ 110,457 (0.35; 831
83,092).
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).

[[Page 8189]]

Short-finned pilot whale............ Globicephala ....................... --/DD \7\ 589,315 (0.26; 4,751
macrorhynchus. 475,141).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe fur seal.................. Arctocephalus philippii ....................... T/D/NT 12 13 Unknown.......... .......................
townsendi.
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).
\2\ For 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[deg]N and 9[deg]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[deg]W, from 24[deg]N off Baja California
to 10[deg]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[deg]N and at about 3[deg]N divide the offshore
populations into the respective stocks. The central form occurs at 3-18[deg]N and the southern common dolphin ranges from 3[deg]N to at least 13[deg]S
(Dizon et al. 1994).
\3\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (--) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. 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.
\4\ These stocks of the genus Stenella are designated as depleted under the MMPA due to high levels of bycatch in the yellowfin tuna purse-seine 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.
\7\ Abundance estimates derived from 2000 ETP survey data, as reported in Gerrodette and Forcada (2002).
\8\ Abundance estimates derived from 1986-1990 ETP survey data, as reported in Wade and Gerrodette (1993).
\9\ Abundance 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.
\10\ Abundance estimate derived from 2002 Hawaiian EEZ survey data, as reported in Barlow (2006).
\11\ Abundance estimates derived from 2006 ETP survey data, as reported in Gerrodette et al. (2008).
\12\ With 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.
\13\ The 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.
\14\ Abundance 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.
\15\ Abundance 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.
\16\ PBR 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 strap-toothed
beaked whale (M. layardii), which have distributions that only border
the northernmost edge of the

[[Page 8190]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA
Common name Scientific name Stock \2\ 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 ................... E/D/LC \5\ 9,484 (0.28)
novaeangliae
australis.
Antarctic minke whale............ Balaenoptera ................... --/DD \5\ 18,125 (0.28)
bonaerensis.
Fin whale........................ B. physalus quoyi.. ................... E/D/EN \5\ 4,672 (0.42)
Blue whale....................... B. musculus ................... E/D/EN \6\ 1,700 (95% CI
intermedia. 860-2,900)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale...................... Physeter ................... E/D/VU \7\ 12,069 (0.17)
macrocephalus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnoux' beaked whale............. Berardius arnuxii.. ................... --/DD Unknown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern bottlenose whale........ Hyperoodon ................... --/LC \8\ 53,743 (0.12)
planifrons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourglass dolphin................ Lagenorhynchus ................... --/LC \9\ 144,300 (0.17)
cruciger.
Killer whale..................... Orcinus orca \1\... ................... --/DD \8\ 24,790 (0.23)
Long-finned pilot whale.......... Globicephala melas ................... --/DD \9\ 200,000 (0.35)
edwardii.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectacled porpoise.............. Phocoena dioptrica. ................... --/DD Unknown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antarctic fur seal............... Arctocephalus South Georgia...... --/LC \10\ 2,700,000
gazella.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern elephant seal........... Mirounga leonina... South Georgia...... --/LC \11\ 401,572
Weddell seal..................... Leptonychotes ................... --/LC \12\ 500,000-
weddellii. 1,000,000
Crabeater seal................... Lobodon ................... --/LC \12\ 5,000,000-
carcinophaga. 10,000,000
Leopard seal..................... Hydrurga leptonyx.. ................... --/LC \12\ 222,000-
440,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Three 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).
\2\ For most species in the AMLR, stocks are not delineated and entries refer generally to individuals of the
species occurring in the ARA.
\3\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (--)
indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. 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[deg]S) and not the
smaller area comprising the SWFSC ARA.
\5\ Abundance 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 km\2\)
and Scotia Sea (1,109,800 km\2\) strata, which correspond roughly to ARA, as reported by Hewitt et al. (2004).
\6\ Southern Ocean abundance estimate (Branch et al., 2007). CI is confidence interval.
\7\ Southern Ocean abundance estimate (IWC, 2001 in Whitehead, 2002).
\8\ Southern Ocean abundance estimate from circumpolar surveys covering 68 percent of waters south of 60[deg]S
from 1991-98 (Branch and Butterworth, 2001).
\9\ Southern Ocean abundance estimate derived from surveys conducted from 1976-88 (Kasamatsu and Joyce, 1995).
\10\ South 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[oslash]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.

[[Page 8191]]

\11\ Four genetically distinct populations are recognized: The Peninsula Vald[eacute]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 x 10^-\6\; 95% CI = 0-5.5 x 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

[[Page 8192]]

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 well-documented. 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

[[Page 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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE15.004

[[Page 8194]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE15.005

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 8196]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13FE15.006

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

[[Page 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 m\2\
each or a neuston net of approximately 2 m\2\) and no trailing lines to
present an entanglement risk. These other gear types are not considered
further in this document.

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 low-frequency 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

[[Page 8198]]

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[oslash]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
(Hemil[auml] 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 low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
mysticete species), five are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species [excluding the hourglass
dolphin] and the sperm whale), and two are classified as high-frequency
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; G[ouml]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 lower-intensity 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

[[Page 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 mid-frequency 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 octave-band 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

[[Page 8200]]

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 five-day period did not cause any
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further,
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses.
3. Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most

[[Page 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-
pituitary-adrenal 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 high-frequency 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 high-frequency mapping and fish-finding systems used
by the SWFSC. There has

[[Page 8202]]

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., mid-frequency 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 single-beam echosounder commonly used for
collecting bathymetric data (12 kHz, 232 dB, 10[deg] beam width), an
array of single-beam echosounders used for mapping krill (38, 70, 120,
and 200 kHz; 230 dB; 7[deg] beam width), and a multibeam echosounder
(30 kHz, 236 dB, 150[deg] x 1[deg] 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

[[Page 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, higher-frequency 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 high-frequency 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 high-
frequency 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

[[Page 8204]]

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 haul-outs 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
haul-out 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 haul-out within minutes to
hours of the stimulus.
In a popular tourism area of the Pacific Northwest where human
disturbances occurred frequently, past studies observed stable
populations of seals over a twenty-year period (Calambokidis et al.,
1991). Despite high levels of seasonal disturbance by tourists using
both motorized and non-motorized vessels, Calambokidis et al. (1991)
observed an increase in site use (pup rearing) and classified this area
as one of the most important pupping sites for seals in the region.
Another study observed an increase in seal vigilance when vessels
passed the 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

[[Page 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 small-mesh 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/nm\2\. 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.

[[Page 8206]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Gear \1\ Survey Date Species Number released Total
killed alive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midwater trawl........................... Coastal Pelagic Species 4/24/2006 Northern fur seal (CA 1 ........... 1
(CPS). stock).
Midwater trawl........................... CPS......................... 4/29/2007 Northern fur seal (CA 1 ........... 1
stock).
Midwater trawl \2\....................... Juvenile Rockfish........... 5/30/2007 Northern fur seal (eastern 1 ........... 1
Pacific stock).
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 1 ........... 1
Pacific stock).
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 1 ........... 1
stock).
Midwater trawl........................... CPS......................... 8/3/2008 Northern fur seal (CA 1 ........... 1
stock).
Midwater trawl........................... CPS......................... 8/9/2008 Pacific white-sided dolphin 11 ........... 11
Midwater trawl........................... CPS......................... 8/9/2008 Northern right whale 6 ........... 6
dolphin.
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)...... 6 ........... 6
California sea lion (7).... 14 3 17
Pacific white-sided dolphin 32 7 39
(16). 6 6
Northern right whale
dolphin (1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All incidents involved use of the NETS Nordic 264 midwater trawl, except as noted below.
\2\ These incidents involved use of the modified-Cobb midwater trawl.

Table 11--Historical Interactions With Longline Gear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Gear Survey Date Species Number released Total
killed alive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelagic longline......................... Highly Migratory Species 9/6/2008 California sea lion........ ........... 1 1
(HMS).
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

[[Page 8207]]

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 white-sided 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 year-to-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 five-year 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 five-year 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum for Average per Projected 5-
Gear Species 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 any set \1\ year year total \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trawl................................... Pacific white-sided 15 3 3 7 4 11 6.4 35
dolphin.
California sea lion....... 15 1 0 1 0 9 3.4 20
Northern right whale 6 0 0 0 0 6 1.2 10
dolphin.
Northern fur seal......... 3 0 0 0 0 1 0.6 5
Longline................................ California sea lion....... 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The maximum number of individual animals captured in a single trawl tow or longline set, 2008-12.
\2\ The 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

[[Page 8208]]

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/ lof/.

Table 13--U.S. Commercial Fisheries Interactions for Midwater Trawl and Pelagic Longline for Relevant Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midwater trawl Location/fishery Vulnerability Pelagic longline Location/fishery Vulnerability
Species \1\ \2\ \3\ inferred? \4\ \2\ \3\ inferred? \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.................... N n/a.............. n/a N n/a............. n/a
Humpback whale................ Y AK BSAI pollock N Y HI shallow-set N
trawl (2). longline (0.75).
Balaenoptera spp\5\........... Y AK GOA pollock N N n/a............. n/a
trawl (0).
Sperm whale................... N n/a.............. n/a Y HI deep-set N
longline (3),
ATL large
pelagics
longline (0).
Kogia spp..................... N n/a.............. n/a Y HI shallow-set Y
longline (0).
Cuvier's beaked whale......... N n/a.............. n/a Y American Samoa N
longline (0),
ATL large
pelagics
longline (0).
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 N
longline
(1),\7\ ATL
large pelagics
longline (0).
Rough-toothed dolphin......... N n/a.............. n/a Y American Samoa Y
longline (10.9).
Common bottlenose dolphin..... N n/a.............. n/a Y HI deep-set Y
longline (9),
HI shallow-set
longline (7),
ATL large
pelagics
longline (23.8).
Stenella spp.................. N n/a.............. n/a Y HI deep-set Y
longline (7),
HI shallow-set
longline (3),
ATL large
pelagics
longline (16).
Delphinis spp................. Y MA midwater trawl Y Y ATL large Y
(3.2), NE pelagics
midwater trawl longline (8.5).
(0).
Fraser's dolphin.............. N n/a.............. n/a N n/a............. n/a
Lagenorhynchus spp\6\......... n/a n/a.............. n/a N n/a............. n/a
Northern right whale dolphin n/a n/a.............. n/a N n/a............. n/a
\6\.
Risso's dolphin............... Y MA midwater trawl Y Y HI deep-set Y
(1). longline (8),
HI shallow-set
longline (18),
ATL large
pelagics
longline (49).
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 Y
longline
(112),\8\ HI
shallow-set
longline
(2.5),\8\
American Samoa
longline (23.5).
Killer whale.................. N n/a.............. n/a Y ATL large N
pelagics
longline (0).
Globicephala spp.............. Y MA midwater trawl N Y HI deep-set Y
(12), NE longline
midwater trawl (5.5),\8\ HI
(16). shallow-set
longline
(0.5),\8\
American Samoa
longline (0),
ATL large
pelagics
longline (598).

[[Page 8209]]

Harbor porpoise............... N n/a.............. n/a N n/a............. n/a
Dall's porpoise............... Y AK BSAI pollock Y N n/a............. n/a
trawl (1.2); AK
GOA pollock
trawl (0).
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 Y N n/a............. n/a
trawl (36.8); AK
GOA pollock
trawl (0).
Phoca spp..................... Y AK BSAI pollock Y N n/a............. n/a
trawl (1.2), NE
midwater trawl
(3.3).
Northern elephant seal........ Y AK GOA pollock Y N n/a............. n/a
trawl (0).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
\1\ Please 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.
\3\ Values 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).
\4\ Where there are no documented incidents of M/SI incidental to relevant commercial fisheries, this is not applicable.
\5\ One 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.
\6\ This 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.
\7\ One additional unidentified beaked whale was incidentally captured in this fishery during 2007-11.
\8\ These 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 white-sided
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

[[Page 8210]]

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 five-year 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated 5-year Estimated 5-year
Species total, midwater total, pelagic Total, trawl +
trawl \1\ longline \1\ 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

[[Page 8211]]

Harbor seal \4\........................................ 9 ................. 9
Northern elephant seal................................. 5 ................. 5
Unidentified pinniped.................................. 1 1 2
Unidentified cetacean.................................. 1 ................. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please see Table 12 and preceding text for derivation of take estimates.
\2\ We 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.
\3\ As 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 per-participant 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 five-year 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated 5-year
Species total, pelagic
longline \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwarf sperm whale.................................... 1
Rough-toothed dolphin................................ 1
Bottlenose dolphin................................... 1

[[Page 8212]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please 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 [mu]Pa (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 line-kilometers
and area of exposure for each source in each survey.

[[Page 8213]]

Table 16--Effective Exposure Areas for Predominant Acoustic Sources
Across Two Depth Strata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective
Effective exposure area:
exposure area: Sea surface to
Active acoustic system Sea surface to depth at which
200 m depth 160-dB threshold
(km\2\) is reached
(km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simrad EK500 and EK60 narrow beam 0.013072 0.135404
echosounders.....................
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, 0.0086 0.0187
Ocean Surveyor...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective 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.
\2\ Exposure 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 line-kilometers 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 line-kilometers
when multiple sources were in operation; this was accounted for in
estimating overall exposures for species that utilize both depth strata
(deep divers). 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 ([alpha] at 15 [deg]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

[[Page 8214]]

resulting cross-sectional area calculated took this into account.
Specifically, for shallow-diving species this cross-sectional area was
determined for whichever was predominant in the shallow stratum,
whereas for deeper-diving 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 species-
typical 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/km\2\) 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 ship-based
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 two-
dimensional 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 deep-diving 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 two-dimensional and resulting three-dimensional (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 source-specific 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 km\2\ cross-
sectional ensonified area versus 0.013 km\2\ 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 km\2\ cross-
sectional ensonified area versus 0.018 km\2\ cross-sectional 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.

[[Page 8215]]

Table 17--Annual Linear Survey Kilometers for Each Vessel Operating in the CCE and Its Predominant Sources Within Two Depth Strata
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% time Line-km/ % time Line-km/
Line-kms/ Overall % source dominant source dominant
Vessel vessel Source source dominant source (0- dominant source
usage \2\ (0-200 m) 200 m) (>200 m) (>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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summed Dominant Summed Dominant
dominant line- source % total dominant line- source % total
Source kms/source (0- line-kms (0- kms/source line-kms
200 m) 200 m) (>200 m) (>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
line-kilometers 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 km\2\ * 79,912 km =
1,044.6 km\3\
(2) EK60 ensonified volume; >200 m: (0.135404 km\2\-0.013072 km\2\)
* 99,640 km = 12,189.2 km\3\
(3) Estimated exposures to sound >=160 dB rms; sperm whale; EK60:
(0.0034 sperm whales/km\3\ * 1,044.6 km\3\ = 3.6 [rounded to 4]) +
(0.0034 sperm whales/km\3\ * 12,189.2 km\3\ = 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Estimated Level B Estimated Level B
density Volumetric harassment, 0-200 m harassment, >200
Species Shallow Deep (animals/ density ------------------------------ m Total
km\2\) (animals/ --------------------
\1\ km\3\) \2\ EK60 ME70 SX90 EK60 SX90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale..................................... X ......... \3\ 0.09565 100 34 212 0 0 346
0.01913
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

[[Page 8216]]

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\ 0.18873 197 68 417 0 0 682
0.03775
Dall's porpoise................................ X ......... 0.07553 0.37765 395 135 835 0 0 1,365
Guadalupe fur seal............................. X ......... \3\ 0.03705 39 13 82 0 0 134
0.00741
Northern fur seal.............................. X ......... \3\ 1.68275 1,758 604 3,721 0 0 11,791
0.65239
California sea lion............................ X ......... \3\ 1.19000 1,243 427 2,632 0 0 5,363
0.29675
Steller sea lion............................... X ......... \3\ 0.29165 305 105 645 0 0 1,141
0.06316
Harbor seal.................................... X ......... \3\ 0.25200 263 90 557 0 0 993
0.05493
Northern elephant seal......................... ......... X \3\ 0.24800 259 89 548 3,023 824 4,743
0.12400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All density estimates from Barlow and Forney (2007) unless otherwise indicated.
\2\ Volumetric 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 km\2\.
\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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Time Line-km/ % Time Line-km/
Line-kms/ Overall % source dominant source dominant
Vessel vessel Source source dominant source (0- dominant source
usage \2\ (0-200 m) 200 m) (>200 m) (>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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summed Dominant Summed Dominant
dominant line- source % total dominant line- source % total
Source kms/source (0- line-kms (0- kms/source line-kms
200 m) 200 m) (>200 m) (>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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Estimated Level B Estimated Level B
density Volumetric harassment, 0-200 m harassment, >200
Species Shallow Deep (animals/ density ------------------------------ m Total
km\2\) (animals/ --------------------
\1\ km\3\) \2\ EK60 ME70 SX90 EK60 SX90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale................................. X ......... 0.00013 0.00067 1 0 0 0 0 1
Minke whale.................................... X ......... \3\ 0.00003 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00001
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\ 0.00097 1 0 1 0 0 2
0.00019
Sperm whale.................................... ......... X \3\ 0.00039 0 0 0 4 0 4
0.00019
Dwarf sperm whale.............................. ......... X \3\ 0.00105 1 0 1 11 1 14
0.00053
Cuvier's beaked whale.......................... ......... X \3\ 0.00187 2 0 1 19 2 24
0.00094
Longman's beaked whale......................... ......... X \4\ 0.00007 0 0 0 1 0 1
0.00004

[[Page 8217]]

Mesoplodont beaked whales...................... ......... X \3\ 0.00237 2 0 1 25 2 30
0.00119
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\ 0.61315 606 105 377 0 0 1,088
0.12263
Spinner dolphin................................ X ......... \6\ 0.24889 246 43 153 0 0 442
0.04978
Long-beaked common dolphin..................... X ......... 0.01945 0.09725 96 17 60 0 0 173
Short-beaked common dolphin.................... X ......... \7\ 0.73227 723 126 451 0 0 1,300
0.14645
Fraser's dolphin............................... X ......... \3\ 0.06774 67 12 42 0 0 121
0.01355
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\ 0.01063 10 2 7 0 0 19
0.00213
Pygmy killer whale............................. X ......... \3\ 0.00913 9 2 6 0 0 17
0.00183
False killer whale............................. X ......... \3\ 0.00932 9 2 6 0 0 17
0.00186
Killer whale................................... X ......... \3\ 0.00199 2 0 1 0 0 3
0.00040
Short-finned pilot whale....................... ......... X \3\ 0.05520 55 9 34 574 51 723
0.02760
Guadalupe fur seal............................. X ......... \8\ 0.03705 37 6 23 0 0 66
0.00741
California sea lion............................ X ......... \9\ 0.81310 803 139 500 0 0 1,442
0.16262
South American sea lion........................ X ......... \9\ 0.81310 803 139 500 0 0 1,442
0.16262
Northern elephant seal......................... ......... X \8\ 0.24800 245 43 153 2,578 229 3,248
0.12400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please 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).
\2\ Volumetric 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\ The 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.
\4\ The 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.
\5\ Given 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.
\6\ Given 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.
\7\ Abundance 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.
\9\ There 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% time Line-km/ % time Line-km/
Line-kms/ Overall % source dominant source dominant
Vessel vessel \1\ Source source usage dominant (0- source (0- dominant source (>200
\2\ 200 m) 200 m) (>200 m) 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

[[Page 8218]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
Volumetric Level B Level B
Area density density harassment, harassment,
Species Shallow Deep (animals/km (animals/ 0-200 m >200 m Total
\2\) km\3\) \1\ --------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Volumetric 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.
\3\ See footnotes to Table 5; densities calculated by SWFSC from sources listed.
\4\ There 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.
\5\ There 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.

[[Page 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
strip-width.

Table 27--Estimated Annual Level B Harassment of Pinnipeds Associated
With AMLR Vessel Transects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density Estimated
Species (animals/ Level B
km\2\) 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Proposed total Percent of Proposed total maximum
Species \1\ annual Level B estimated M/SI + Level A annual M/SI PBR \3\ % PBR \4\ Stock trend
harassment population authorization, + Level A \5\
authorization 2015-19 \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray whale.......................................... 346 1.8 0 0 n/a ........... [uarr]
Humpback whale...................................... 14 0.7 0 0 n/a ........... [uarr]
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 ........... [uarr]
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 ........... [darr]
Baird's beaked whale................................ 34 4.0 0 0 n/a ........... ?
Mesoplodont beaked whales........................... 40 5.7 0 0 n/a ........... [darr]
Bottlenose dolphin (all stocks) \6\................. 32 n/a 1 n/a n/a ........... n/a
Bottlenose dolphin (CA/OR/WA offshore) \6\.......... ................. \9\3.2 8 2 5.5 36.4 ?
Bottlenose dolphin (CA coastal) \6\................. ................. \9\9.9 3 1 2.4 41.7 [rarr]
Striped dolphin..................................... 301 2.8 12 2.6 82 3.2 ?
Long-beaked common dolphin.......................... 348 0.3 12 2.6 610 0.4 [uarr]
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 ........... [uarr]

[[Page 8220]]

Northern fur seal \7\ (PI/EP)....................... \8\ 11,555 1.8 5 1.2 403 0.3 [uarr]
Northern fur seal \7\ (CA).......................... \8\ 236 1.8 5 1.2 403 0.3 [uarr]
California sea lion................................. 5,363 1.8 25 5.4 9,200 0.1 [uarr]
Steller sea lion.................................... 1,141 \10\ 1.8 10 2.4 1,552 0.2 [uarr]
Harbor seal \7\..................................... 993 4.0 9 2 1,343 0.1 [uarr]/
[rarr]
Northern elephant seal.............................. 4,743 3.8 5 1.2 4,382 0.03 [uarr]
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.
\1\ For 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).
\2\ This 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.
\3\ See Table 3 and following discussion for more detail regarding PBR.
\4\ Estimated maximum annual M/SI + Level A expressed as a percentage of PBR.
\5\ See 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.
\6\ 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 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.
\7\ These 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.
\10\ A 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Estimated
total annual Percent of Proposed total maximum
Species \1\ Level B estimated M/SI + Level A annual M/SI PBR \3\ % PBR \4\
harassment population authorization, + Level A
authorization \1\ 2015-19 \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 8221]]

Guadalupe fur seal............................................ 66 \6\0.9 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.
\1\ For 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.
\2\ This 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.
\3\ PBR values calculated by SWFSC; a pooled PBR was calculated for all stocks of the pantropical spotted dolphin (see Table 4).
\4\ Estimated maximum annual M/SI + Level A expressed as a percentage of PBR.
\5\ Evaluated against the stock with the lowest estimated abundance. For spinner dolphin, there is no abundance estimate for the Central American stock.
\6\ There 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
annual Estimated Proposed Percent of
Level B annual Level total annual estimated
Species harassment B harassment Level B population
(acoustic (on-ice harassment \1\
exposure) disturbance) authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
\1\ See Table 5 for abundance information.
\2\ There is no available abundance information for these species. See ``Small Numbers Analyses'' below for
further discussion.
\3\ A 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., population-level 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

[[Page 8222]]

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 human-caused 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 management-related provisions of the MMPA,
including those within section 101(a)(5)(E) related to the taking of
ESA-listed 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

[[Page 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 mark-recapture 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 line-
kilometers 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

[[Page 8224]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 8226]]

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 modified-Cobb 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

[[Page 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 five-year period of
validity for these regulations.
NMFS has established a formal incidental take reporting system, the
Protected Species Incidental Take (PSIT) database, requiring that
incidental takes of protected species be reported within 48 hours of
the occurrence. The PSIT generates automated messages to NMFS
leadership and other relevant staff, alerting them to the event and to
the fact that updated information describing the circumstances of the
event has been inputted to the database. The PSIT and CS reports
represent not only valuable real-time reporting and information
dissemination tools, but also serve as an archive of information that
may be mined in the future to study why takes occur by species, gear,
region, etc.
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

[[Page 8228]]

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 collection-of-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

Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.2 [Reserved]

Sec. 219.3 Permissible methods of taking.

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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, ginkgo-toothed, 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;

[[Page 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.

Sec. 219.4 Prohibitions.

Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec. 219.1 of this chapter
and authorized by a LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 219.7 of
this chapter, no person in connection with the activities described in
Sec. 219.1 of this chapter may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec. 219.3(b) of this
chapter;
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec. 219.3(b) of this
chapter in any manner other than as specified;
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 216.106
and 219.7 of this chapter.

Sec. 219.5 Mitigation requirements.

When conducting the activities identified in Sec. 219.1(a) of this
chapter, the mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under
Sec. Sec. 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 event-contingent 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

[[Page 8230]]

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.

Sec. 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

[[Page 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.8 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

(a) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 219.7 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 219.7 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 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 Sec. 219.12(b) of this chapter, an LOA may
be modified without prior

[[Page 8232]]

notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in
the Federal Register within thirty days of the action.

Sec. 219.9 [Reserved]

Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.12 [Reserved]

Sec. 219.13 Permissible methods of taking.

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.14 Prohibitions.

Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec. 219.11 of this
chapter and authorized by a LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and
219.17 of this chapter, no person in connection with the activities
described in Sec. 219.11 of this chapter may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec. 219.13(b) of this
chapter;
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec. 219.13(b) in any
manner other than as specified;
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 216.106
and 219.17 of this chapter.

Sec. 219.15 Mitigation requirements.

When conducting the activities identified in Sec. 219.11(a), the
mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under Sec. Sec.
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 event-contingent 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

[[Page 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.

Sec. 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 Sec.
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:

[[Page 8234]]

(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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.17 Letters of Authorization.

Sec. 219.18 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

(a) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 219.17 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 219.17 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.19 [Reserved]

Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.22 [Reserved]

Sec. 219.23 Permissible methods of taking.

(a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 219.21(b) of this chapter, provided the
activity is in compliance with all terms,

[[Page 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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.24 Prohibitions.

Notwithstanding takings contemplated in Sec. 219.21 of this
chapter and authorized by a LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and
219.27 of this chapter, no person in connection with the activities
described in Sec. 219.21 of this chapter may:
(a) Take any marine mammal not specified in Sec. 219.23(b) of this
chapter;
(b) Take any marine mammal specified in Sec. 219.23(b) in any
manner other than as specified;
(c) Take a marine mammal specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 216.106 and
Sec. 219.27 of this chapter.

Sec. 219.25 Mitigation requirements.

When conducting the activities identified in Sec. 219.21(a), the
mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under Sec. Sec.
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 event-contingent 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.

Sec. 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 three-point 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'

[[Page 8236]]

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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.28 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization.

(a) An LOA issued under Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 219.27 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. Sec. 216.106 and 219.27 of this
chapter for the activity identified in Sec. 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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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.

Sec. 219.29 [Reserved]

Sec. 219.30 [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2015-02831 Filed 2-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P