Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 106 / Friday, June 4, 2021 / Proposed Rules was difficult. Deployment of the net took place within fifteen minutes of arrival on station during which time no marine mammals were present or sighted during the approach or at the sampling site. Vessel personnel maintained watch for marine mammals during trawling operations. None were sighted, so the station was completed.
The tows were short in duration 20
minutes and the vessel maintained a consistent tow speed of 3 knots. During fishing, there was no indication there was a marine mammal in the net nor were any marine mammals observed.
Upon completion of the trawl, the nets twin trawl were recovered and each catch was dumped immediately into a checker. It was at this time, the marine mammal was detected fresh dead. No other marine mammals were observed in the net or in the water. More details on this interaction can be found the NEFSC 2019 Annual Monitoring available at https
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-noaafisheries-nefsc-fisheries-and-ecosystemresearch. In 2020, no interactions with marine mammals occurred.
Acoustic Effects Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of NEFSCs use of acoustic sources are provided in other Federal Register notice for the original incidental take regulations issued to the NEFSC 80 FR 39542; January 9, 2015
and, more recently, other NMFS Science Centers e.g., the Acoustic Effects section of the proposed rule for the taking of marine mammals incidental to NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center fisheries research 83 FR 37660; August 1, 2018, and the Potential Effects of Underwater Sound section of the proposed rule for the taking of marine mammals incidental to NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center research 84 FR
6603; February 27, 2019. No significant new information is available, and those discussions provide the necessary adequate and relevant information regarding the potential effects of NEFSCs specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat. Therefore, we refer the reader to those documents rather than repeating the information here.
Exposure to sound through the use of active acoustic systems for research purposes may result in Level B
harassment. However, as detailed in the previously referenced discussions, Level A harassment in the form of permanent threshold shift PTS is extremely unlikely to occur, and we consider such effects discountable. With specific reference to Level B harassment that
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:49 Jun 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

may occur as a result of acoustic exposure, we note that the analytical methods described in the incidental take regulations for other NMFS Science Centers are retained here. However, the state of science with regard to our understanding of the likely potential effects of the use of systems like those used by NEFSC has advanced in recent years, as have readily available approaches to estimating the acoustic footprints of such sources, with the result that we view this analysis as highly conservative. Although more recent literature provides documentation of marine mammal responses to the use of these and similar acoustic systems e.g., Cholewiak et al., 2017; Quick et al., 2017; Varghese et al., 2020, the described responses do not generally comport with the degree of severity that should be associated with Level B harassment, as defined by the MMPA. We retain the analytical approach described in the incidental take regulations for other NMFS Science Centers for consistency with existing analyses and for purposes of efficiency here, and consider this acceptable because the approach provides a conservative estimate of potential incidents of Level B harassment see Estimated Take section of this notice.
In summary, while we propose to authorize the amount of take by Level B
harassment indicated in the Estimated Take section, and consider these potential takings at face value in our negligible impact analysis, it is uncertain whether use of these acoustic systems are likely to cause take at all, much less at the estimated levels.
Potential Effects of Visual Disturbance The NEFSC anticipates that some trawl and fyke net surveys may disturb a small number of pinnipeds during the conduct of these activities in upper Penobscot Bay above Fort Point Ledge, ME. Specifically, two surveys have the potential to harass pinnipeds from visual disturbance: The Penobscot Estuarine Fish Community and Ecosystem Survey trawls and the Marine Estuaries Diadromous Survey fyke nets. Pinnipeds are expected to be hauled out on tidal ledges and at times may experience incidental close approaches by the survey vessel and/or researchers during the course of its fisheries research activities. The NEFSC
expects that some of these animals will exhibit a behavioral response to the visual stimuli e.g., including alert behavior, movement, vocalizing, or flushing. NMFS does not consider the lesser reactions e.g., alert behavior to constitute harassment. These events are expected to be infrequent and cause
PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

30101

only a temporary disturbance on the order of minutes.
In areas where disturbance of haulouts due to periodic human activity e.g., researchers approaching on foot, passage of small vessels, maintenance activity occurs, monitoring results have generally indicated that pinnipeds typically move or flush from the haulout in response to human presence or visual disturbance, although some individuals typically remain hauled out e.g., SCWA, 2012. The nature of response is generally dependent on species. For example, California sea lions and northern elephant seals have been observed as less sensitive to stimulus than harbor seals during monitoring at numerous sites. Monitoring of pinniped disturbance as a result of abalone research in the Channel Islands showed that while harbor seals flushed at a rate of 69 percent, California sea lions flushed at a rate of only 21 percent. The rate for elephant seals declined to 0.1
percent VanBlaricom, 2010.
Upon the occurrence of low-severity disturbance i.e., the approach of a vessel or person as opposed to an explosion or sonic boom, pinnipeds typically exhibit a continuum of responses, beginning with alert movements e.g., raising the head, which may then escalate to movement away from the stimulus and possible flushing into the water. Flushed pinnipeds typically re-occupy the haulout within minutes to hours of the stimulus.
In a popular tourism area of the Pacific Northwest where human disturbances occurred frequently, past studies observed stable populations of seals over a twenty-year period Calambokidis et al., 1991. Despite high levels of seasonal disturbance by tourists using both motorized and nonmotorized vessels, Calambokidis et al.
1991 observed an increase in site use pup rearing and classified this area as one of the most important pupping sites for seals in the region. Another study observed an increase in seal vigilance when vessels passed the haulout site, but then vigilance relaxed within ten minutes of the vessels passing Fox, 2008. If vessels passed frequently within a short time period e.g., 24
hours, a reduction in the total number of seals present was also observed Fox, 2008.
Level A harassment, serious injury, or mortality could likely only occur as a result of trampling in a stampede a potentially dangerous occurrence in which large numbers of animals succumb to mass panic and rush away from a stimulus or abandonment of pups. However, given the nature of
E:FRFM04JNP2.SGM

04JNP2