Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the Aleutian Islands, 55645-55666 [2020-19815]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
Scallop Advisory Panel via webinar to
consider actions affecting New England
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ). Recommendations from this
group will be brought to the full Council
for formal consideration and action, if
appropriate.
DATES: This meeting will be held on
Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 8:30
a.m.
ADDRESSES: All meeting participants
and interested parties can register to
join the webinar at https://
attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/
9134937625686223119.
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Agenda
The Scallop Advisory Panel will
discuss Amendment 21, specifically,
review of public comments and select
final preferred alternatives. Amendment
21 includes measures related to: (1)
Management of the Northern Gulf of
Maine (NGOM) Management Area, (2)
Limited Access General Category
(LAGC) individual fishing quota (IFQ)
possession limits, and (3) ability of
Limited Access vessels with LAGC IFQ
to transfer quota to LAGC IFQ only
vessels. The panel will also discuss
2021/22 Specifications: Discuss the
timing and outlook for 2020 surveys and
2021/22 specifications process. They
also plan to review 2021 Priorities:
Discuss and rank potential 2021 scallop
work priorities. Other business may be
discussed, as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during these meetings. Action
will be restricted to those issues
specifically listed in this notice and any
issues arising after publication of this
notice that require emergency action
under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided the public has
been notified of the Council’s intent to
take final action to address the
emergency.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at
(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to
the meeting date. Consistent with 16
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is
available upon request.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 3, 2020.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–19910 Filed 9–8–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XA439]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to a Marine
Geophysical Survey in the Aleutian
Islands
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental
harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to the
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of
Columbia University (L–DEO) to
incidentally harass marine mammals
during a marine geophysical survey in
the Aleutian Islands, Alaska.
DATES: The authorization is effective for
a period of one year, from September 1,
2020, through August 31, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben
Laws, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Availability
Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a
list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-lamontdoherty-earth-observatory-marinegeophysical-survey-2. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55645
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
incidental take authorization may be
provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other ‘‘means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact’’ on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms cited above are included
in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On March 27, 2020, NMFS received a
request from L–DEO for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to a marine
geophysical survey along and across the
Aleutian Andreanof Arc in Alaska. L–
DEO submitted a revised version of the
application, which was deemed
adequate and complete, on June 25,
2020. NMFS published a proposed IHA
for public review and comment on July
28, 2020 (85 FR 45389). NMFS has
authorized take of 24 species of marine
mammals by harassment. For seven of
these species, taking by Level A and
Level B harassment is authorized, with
only Level B harassment authorized for
the remaining 17 species.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Researchers from L–DEO and Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI),
with funding from the National Science
Foundation (NSF), proposed to conduct
a high-energy seismic survey from the
Research Vessel (R/V) Marcus G.
Langseth (Langseth) along and across
the Aleutian Andreanof Arc in Alaska
during September-October 2020. The
two-dimensional (2–D) seismic survey
will occur within the Exclusive
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55646
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United
States. The survey will use a 36-airgun
towed array with a total discharge
volume of ∼6,600 cubic inches (in3)
(108,155 cm3) as an acoustic source,
acquiring return signals using both a
towed streamer as well as ocean bottom
seismometers (OBSs).
The study will use 2–D seismic
surveying to seismically image the
structure of the crust along and across
the Andreanof segment of the Aleutian
Arc, an intact arc segment with a simple
and well known history. Existing
geochemical analyses of igneous rocks
from this segment suggest an alongsegment trend in crustal-scale
fractionation processes. Seismic velocity
provides strong constraints on bulk
composition, and so seismic images will
reveal the constructional architecture,
vertical fractionation patterns, and
along-arc trends in both of those things.
Together with existing observations
from surface rocks (e.g., bulk
composition, volatile content) and
forcing parameters (e.g., slab geometry,
sediment input, deformation-inferred
stress regime), hypotheses related to
controls on oceanic-arc crustal
construction and fractionation can be
tested and refined.
Dates and Duration
The survey is expected to last for
approximately 48 days, including
approximately 16 days of seismic
operations, 19 days of equipment
deployment/retrieval, and 8 days of
transits, and 5 contingency days
(accounting for potential delays due to,
e.g., weather). R/V Langseth will likely
leave out of and return to port in Dutch
Harbor, Alaska, during SeptemberOctober 2020.
Specific Geographic Region
The survey will occur within the area
of approximately 49–53.5° N and
approximately 172.5–179° W.
Representative survey tracklines are
shown in Figure 1, available online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-lamontdoherty-earth-observatory-marinegeophysical-survey-2. Tracklines in the
vicinity of specific Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries are designed to
ensure that the area assumed to be
ensonified above the Level B
harassment threshold (see Estimated
Take section) does not extend beyond a
3,000 ft (0.9 kilometers (km)) buffer
around those areas. In addition, the
survey vessel will not physically travel
within 3 nautical miles (nmi) (5.5 km)
of listed Steller sea lion rookeries. Some
deviation in actual track lines, including
the order of survey operations, could be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
necessary for reasons such as science
drivers, poor data quality, inclement
weather, or mechanical issues with the
research vessel and/or equipment. The
survey will occur within the EEZ of the
United States, including Alaskan state
waters, ranging in depth from 35–7,100
meters (m). Approximately 3,224 km of
transect lines will be surveyed. Most of
the survey (73 percent) would occur in
deep water (≤1,000 m), 26 percent
would occur in intermediate water
(100–1,000 m deep), and approximately
1 percent would take place in shallow
water <100 m deep.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The procedures to be used for the
survey would be similar to those used
during previous seismic surveys by L–
DEO and involve conventional seismic
methodology. The survey will involve
one source vessel, R/V Langseth, which
is owned by NSF and operated on its
behalf by L–DEO. R/V Langseth will
deploy an array of 36 airguns as an
energy source with a total volume of
6,600 in3. The array consists of 36
elements, including 20 Bolt 1500LL
airguns with volumes of 180 to 360 in3
(2,950–5,800 cm3) and 16 Bolt 1900LLX
airguns with volumes of 40 to 120 in3
(655–1,966 cm3). The airgun array
configuration is illustrated in Figure 2–
11 of NSF and USGS’s Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS;
NSF–USGS, 2011). (The PEIS is
available online at: www.nsf.gov/geo/
oce/envcomp/usgs-nsf-marine-seismicresearch/nsf-usgs-final-eis-oeis-withappendices.pdf). The vessel speed
during seismic operations will be
approximately 4.5 knots (∼8.3 km/hour)
during the survey and the airgun array
will be towed at a depth of 9 m. The
receiving system consists of OBSs and a
towed hydrophone streamer with a
nominal length of 8 km. As the airguns
are towed along the survey lines, the
hydrophone streamer transfers the data
to the on-board processing system, and
the OBSs receive and store the returning
acoustic signals internally for later
analysis.
The study consists of one east-west
strike-line transect (∼540 km), two
north-south dip-line transects (∼420 km
and ∼285 km), connecting multi-channel
seismic (MCS) transects (∼480 km), and
an MCS survey of the Amlia Fracture
Zone (∼285 km). (See Figure 1, available
online.) The representative tracklines
have a total length of 2,010 km. The
strike- and dip-line transects will first
be acquired using OBSs, which will be
deployed along one line at a time, the
line will be surveyed, and the OBSs will
then be recovered, before moving onto
the next line. After all refraction data is
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
acquired, the strike and dip lines will be
acquired a second time using MCS. The
MCS transect lines and Amlia Fracture
Zone transect lines will be acquired
only once using MCS. Thus, the line km
to be acquired during the entire survey
is expected to be approximately 3,255
km. There could be additional seismic
operations associated with turns, airgun
testing, and repeat coverage of any areas
where initial data quality is substandard, and 25 percent has been
added to the assumed survey linekilometers to account for this potential.
For the majority of the survey (90
percent), R/V Langseth will tow the full
array, consisting of four strings with 36
airguns (plus 4 spares) with a total
discharge volume of 6,600 in3. In certain
locations (see Figure 1) closest to
islands, only half the array (18 airguns)
would be operated, with a total volume
of approximately 3,300 in3 (54,077 cm3).
The airguns would fire at a shot interval
of 22 seconds (s) during MCS shooting
with the hydrophone streamer and at a
120-s interval during refraction
surveying to OBSs.
The seismometers consist of shortperiod multi-component OBSs from
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
(SIO). Fifty OBSs will be deployed and
subsequently retrieved by R/V Langseth
prior to MCS surveying. When an OBS
is ready to be retrieved, an acoustic
release transponder (pinger) interrogates
the instrument at a frequency of 12
kiloHertz (kHz); a response is received
at the same frequency. The burn-wire
release assembly is then activated, and
the instrument is released from its 36kilogram iron grate anchor to float to the
surface. Take of marine mammals is not
expected to occur incidental to L–DEO’s
use of OBSs.
In addition to the operations of the
airgun array, a multibeam echosounder
(MBES), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP),
and an Acoustic Doppler Current
Profiler (ADCP) will be operated from R/
V Langseth continuously during the
seismic surveys, but not during transit
to and from the survey area. Take of
marine mammals is not expected to
occur incidental to use of the MBES,
SBP, or ADCP because they will be
operated only during seismic
acquisition, and it is assumed that,
during simultaneous operations of the
airgun array and the other sources, any
marine mammals close enough to be
affected by the MBES, SBP, and ADCP
would already be affected by the
airguns. However, whether or not the
airguns are operating simultaneously
with the other sources, given their
characteristics (e.g., narrow downwarddirected beam), marine mammals would
experience no more than one or two
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
brief ping exposures, if any exposure
were to occur. Mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see
Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting).
Comments and Responses
A notice of proposed IHA was
published in the Federal Register on
July 28, 2020 (85 FR 45389). During the
30-day public comment period, NMFS
received a letter from the Marine
Mammal Commission (Commission).
Please see the Commission’s letter for
full details regarding their
recommendations and rationale. The
letter is available online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-lamontdoherty-earth-observatory-marinegeophysical-survey-2. A summary of the
Commission’s recommendations as well
as NMFS’ responses is below.
Comment—Noting certain
inconsistencies and errors in
information provided in L–DEO’s
application and NMFS’ Federal Register
notice, the Commission recommends
that NMFS (1) determine what the
percentages of the survey tracklines in
the three depth strata should be, (2)
ensure that the same percentages of
survey tracklines are used for Level A
and B harassment in each of the three
depth strata, (3) re-estimate the numbers
of Level A and B harassment takes
accordingly, and (4) ensure that the total
takes of low-frequency and highfrequency cetaceans and Level B
harassment takes of mid-frequency
cetaceans, otariids, and phocids are
based on the Level A and B harassment
takes added together.
Response—As noted in the
Commission’s letter, L–DEO provided
revised tables C–1 and D–1, which
corrected various minor errors described
in the Commission’s letter. Of greater
substance, L–DEO also revised the
estimated take numbers to reflect the
movement of certain tracklines to
minimize impacts on areas of
importance to Steller sea lions and sea
otters, as described above (see Changes
from the Proposed IHA below for
additional discussion). Correct values
representing the proportion of trackline
in each depth stratum and associated
size of ensonified area were used in
calculating the estimated takes, and the
total takes authorized represent the sum
of estimated instances of Level A
harassment and Level B harassment, as
recommended by the Commission.
NMFS does note that the supposed
‘‘discrepancies’’ referenced by the
Commission regarding percentages of
survey trackline in each depth stratum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
appear instead to be a misunderstanding
about what these values represent. The
values referenced by the Commission
from revised Table C–1 are not
percentages of survey trackline, but
rather percentages of ensonified area in
each depth stratum. Due to the large size
of the estimated Level B harassment
ensonified areas relative to the
estimated Level A harassment
ensonified areas, the percentages of
ensonified area within each depth
stratum will be different. Because the
Level A harassment ensonified areas are
all generally small, the percentages of
ensonified area per depth stratum are
essentially the same as the percentages
of trackline per depth stratum.
Comment—Describing what it
believes to be the best available
information regarding Steller sea lion
occurrence in the survey area, the
Commission recommends that NMFS
ensure that the number of Level B
harassment takes of Steller sea lions are
correct based on a revised density of
0.0392 sea lions/km2 in shallow- and
intermediate-water depths and the same
revised percentages of survey tracklines
for Level A and B harassment in each
of the three depth strata.
Response—NMFS concurs with the
Commission’s recommendation and has
adopted it. Estimated takes of Steller sea
lion have been revised in part through
incorporation of the recommended
density values.
Comment—The Commission
recommends that NMFS adjust the
marine mammal density estimates used
in estimating potential takes using
either coefficients of variation (CVs) or
standard deviations for L–DEO’s
proposed survey, and reiterates a
previous recommendation that NMFS
develop a policy and consistent
approach for how L–DEO and other
NSF-affiliated entities should
incorporate uncertainty in density
estimates that have been extrapolated
from other areas or during other times
of the years or when the data themselves
include high uncertainty.
Response—NMFS does not concur
with the Commission’s recommendation
and does not adopt it. As noted by the
Commission, it has previously provided
this same recommendation. NMFS has
previously expressed its disagreement
with the recommendation, which we
reiterate here.
The Commission states that ‘‘[u]sing
only the mean densities would likely
result in an underestimation of takes
due to the CVs being so much greater
than the mean estimates.’’ A CV simply
shows the extent of variability in
relation to the mean of the population,
but does not indicate in which direction
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55647
relative to the mean a true outcome will
lie. The Commission does not explain
why use of the mean densities would
result in an underestimate of takes
versus an overestimate of takes and, in
fact, both outcomes should be
considered equally likely. Therefore, the
Commission’s suggested approach of
increasing the density estimate through,
e.g., use of the mean plus the CV, would
be unnecessarily precautionary. NMFS’
implementing regulations state that
NMFS should rely on the best scientific
evidence available in making findings of
negligible impact and no unmitigable
adverse impact. There is no requirement
in the MMPA or NMFS’ implementing
regulations to introduce unwarranted
precaution into the analyses. While
NMFS acknowledges that there is
uncertainty associated with any density
estimate, the take estimate methodology
used here produces the most
appropriate estimate of potential takes.
NMFS indicated in its previous
response to this comment that it is open
to consideration of specific correction
factors for use for specific circumstances
or species in future IHAs and to further
discussion with the Commission.
However, it appears that the
Commission misunderstood this
comment as a commitment to take
action. The Commission states in its
letter that ‘‘[i]t has been more than a
year and NMFS has not contacted the
Commission regarding this matter’’ and
that ‘‘NMFS has yet to advance the
issue.’’ NMFS does not believe that it
needs to develop a policy regarding this
issue and, therefore, NMFS does not
intend to contact the Commission or
take steps to advance an issue that it
does not believe requires action.
However, NMFS reiterates its
willingness to discuss the issue with the
Commission in greater detail.
Comment—Noting its disagreement
with L–DEO’s approach to estimating
the size of various ensonified areas, the
Commission recommends that NMFS
require L–DEO to either (1) re-estimate
the proposed Level A and B harassment
zones and associated takes of marine
mammals using (a) both operational and
site-specific environmental parameters,
(b) what the Commission believes to be
a comprehensive source model and (c)
what the Commission believes to be an
appropriate sound propagation model
for the proposed IHA or (2) collect or
provide the relevant acoustic data to
substantiate that its modeling approach
is conservative for both deep- and
intermediate-water depths beyond the
Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the
Commission recommends that NMFS (1)
explain why sound channels with
downward refraction, as well as seafloor
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55648
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
reflections, are not likely to occur
during the geophysical survey, (2)
specify the degree to which both of
those parameters would affect the
estimation (or underestimation) of Level
B harassment zones in deep- and
intermediate-water depths, (3) explain
why L–DEO’s model and other
modeling approaches provide more
accurate, realistic, and appropriate
Level A and B harassment zones than
BELLHOP (a different propagation
model favored by the Commission),
particularly for deep- and intermediatewater depths, and (4) explain why, if L–
DEO’s model and other modeling
approaches are considered best
available science, other action
proponents that conduct seismic
surveys are not implementing similar
methods, particularly given their
simplicity.
Response—As noted by the
Commission, these comments reflect a
longstanding disagreement between
NMFS and the Commission regarding
L–DEO’s approach to modeling the
output of their airgun array and its
propagation through the water column.
NMFS has previously responded to
similar Commission comments on L–
DEO’s modeling approach. We refer the
reader to previous Federal Register
notices providing responses rather than
repeat them here (e.g., 84 FR 60059,
November 07, 2019; 84 FR 54849,
October 11, 2019; 84 FR 35073, July 22,
2019). Regardless of the addition of
slightly different points or modifications
to the language with which the
Commission expresses these points, the
gist of the Commission’s disagreement
with L–DEO’s modeling approach
remains the same. NMFS believes that
its prior responses have adequately
explained the rationale for not following
the Commission’s recommendations
and, importantly, why L–DEO’s
modeling approach is adequate. NMFS
will, however, provide an additional
detailed explanation of the reasons why
the Commission’s recommendations
regarding this matter are not followed
within 120 days, as suggested by the
Commission and required by section
202 of the MMPA.
Comment—The Commission
recommends that NMFS require L–DEO
to (1) analyze the data recorded on the
OBSs to determine the extents of the
Level B harassment zones in shallow-,
intermediate-, and deep-water depths
and specify how the in-situ zones
compare to the Level B harassment
zones specified in the final
authorization, (2) justify why it did not
use the maximum radii as its Level B
harassment zones in deep water for both
the 36- and 18-airgun array as it did for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
intermediate and shallow water, and (3)
if the justification is inconsistent with
the approach taken for intermediate and
shallow water, revise the Level B
harassment zones in deep water based
on the maximum radii and re-estimate
the numbers of takes accordingly.
Response—Regarding the
Commission’s recommendation to
conduct analysis of OBS data, L–DEO
has not previously undertaken the type
of analysis suggested by the
Commission, and indicated to NMFS
that it does not have the expertise or
capability to do so at this time. In
addition, we note that the Commission’s
recommendation is vague; detailed
direction would be needed from the
Commission on how to accomplish the
recommended effort. This would need
to include agreement on the analytical
approach in order to meet expectations
and to ensure acceptance of results. The
Commission’s recommendation does not
acknowledge the time it would take to
perform the analysis or the level of
effort and cost that would be involved,
e.g., experts needed to obtain and
review data, perform detailed
comparative analysis, preparation of a
report. Based on these concerns, NMFS
believes that the recommendation is not
practicable.
Also, implementation of this
recommendation would not provide any
additional conservation value (e.g.,
improvement in mitigation
effectiveness) for the proposed survey.
The analysis would be retrospective and
could be used to help inform analysis of
future surveys in the same area.
However, there are no NSF-proposed
seismic surveys on the R/V Langseth for
this region in the foreseeable future.
The Commission also recommended
that NMFS require L–DEO to justify
why it did not use the maximum radii
as its Level B harassment zones in deep
water. L–DEO used the maximum deepwater radii to estimate the scaling
factors discussed by the Commission, as
the isopleths are not spherical. The
highest scaling factor (2.08) is obtained
for the maximum radii and when
scaling to account for differences in
towed depths and/or volumes between
sources, L–DEO uses the highest scaling
factor to be conservative. However, the
maximum deep-water radii are not used
for defining the Level B harassment
zones in deep water, but rather the radii
at 2,000 m depth.
The maximum radii for the 6,600 and
3,300 in3 arrays are at depths of 10,129
m and 4,700 m, depths that are well
below where marine mammals would be
encountered. Given the sound
propagation loss in water, the maximum
radii would thus not be appropriate to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
define the Level B harassment zones. L–
DEO uses the radius at a 2,000 m depth,
as this is approximately the maximum
relevant water depth for marine
mammals. The maximum radii were
used for both intermediate and shallow
water as the water depth for these depth
strata is less than 2,000 m.
In light of this justification, NMFS
determined that revising the Level B
harassment zones in deep water based
on the maximum radii is not
appropriate, and therefore, re-estimating
the numbers of takes is not warranted.
Comment—The Commission
recommends that NMFS include in the
final authorization a requirement to use
a method believed by the Commission
to be appropriate for estimating the
numbers of marine mammals taken, e.g.,
by applying relevant corrections to
account for animals that are not
detected.
Response—NMFS appreciates the
Commission’s development of a
recommended approach to better
estimate the numbers of marine
mammals that may have been taken
during geophysical survey activities,
including marine mammals that were
not detected. The ‘‘Commission’s
method’’ (see the Commission’s letter
for additional discussion and citation to
a full description provided in an
addendum to a 2019 Commission
comment letter) involves correction of
marine mammal sightings data through
use of proxies for marine mammal
detectability (f(0)) and platform/
observer bias on marine mammal
detection (g(0)), and extrapolation of
corrected marine mammal sightings data
based on the assumed extent of the
Level B harassment zones.
However, NMFS does not concur with
the recommendation to require L–DEO
to implement this approach because we
do not have confidence in the reliability
of estimates of potential marine
mammal take that would result from use
of the approach. The Commission does
not address the multiple assumptions
that must be made in order to have
confidence in the estimates that would
be produced through application of the
method. For example, the assumption
that the application of proxy values for
g(0) and f(0) is appropriate is not
justified (including application of f(0)
values to species for which no value is
available and assuming that application
of f(0) to species in a wholly different
region is appropriate). Notably, g(0)
values are typically derived on a
platform-specific basis, and even for
specific observers—not generalized
across platforms, as the Commission’s
method would require.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
Separately, the appropriate
application of distance sampling
methods requires that certain
assumptions are valid, and the
Commission does not explain why these
assumptions should be assumed to be
valid during a seismic survey, as
compared with typical line-transect
surveys operating without an active
acoustic source. For example, a key
underlying concept of distance
sampling methodology is that the
probability of detecting an animal
decreases as its distance from the
observer increases. This cannot be
assumed true during an active seismic
survey. NMFS believes it unlikely that
the numerous assumptions inherent to
application of the Commission’s method
would be accepted in a research context
(where distance sampling approaches
are typically applied).
Furthermore, the area over which
observations are to be extrapolated
through the Commission’s method is a
modeled ensonified area. We do not
believe it appropriate to assume a
modeled ensonified area is always
accurate for purposes of estimating total
take. In purporting to estimate total
takes, the method ignores the fact that
marine mammals exposed to a level of
received sound assumed to cause take
for analytical purposes may not in fact
respond behaviorally in a way that
equates to take, especially at great
distance from the source.
NMFS believes it is important to focus
on collection and reporting of empirical
data that can directly inform an
assessment of the effects of a specified
activity on the affected species or stock.
While there may be value in an
assessment of potential unobserved
take, we need to proceed cautiously in
the development of derived values given
our low confidence in multiple inputs.
NMFS is currently more broadly
evaluating monitoring requirements,
including data collection, interpretation,
and reporting, as well as the specific
issue the Commission has raised, and is
committed to developing improved
approaches.
Comment—The Commission
recommends that NMFS require L–DEO
to specify in the final monitoring report
(1) the number of days on which the
airgun array was active and (2) the
percentage of time and total time the
array was active during daylight versus
nighttime hours (including dawn and
dusk), and further recommends that
NMFS require L–DEO to include in its
monitoring report all data to be
collected under section 5(d)(ii), (iii), and
(iv) through specific stipulations in
section 6(a) of the final authorization.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
Response—NMFS concurs with the
recommendation and has included these
requirements in the IHA.
Comment—The Commission asserts
that L–DEO and other NSF-affiliated
entities have not complied with all of
the requirements set forth in certain
final IHAs, and recommends that,
should the alleged shortcomings occur
again, NMFS refrain from issuing any
further authorizations to L–DEO and
other NSF-affiliated entities until such
time that the monitoring reports include
all of the required information.
Response—NMFS appreciates the
Commission’s concern but will consider
any future requests for incidental take
authorization from NSF-affiliated
entities according to the requirements of
the MMPA.
Comment—The Commission asserts
that ‘‘only one of the last six monitoring
reports involving geophysical surveys
conducted by L–DEO and other NSFaffiliated entities has been posted on
NMFS’ website,’’ and recommends that
NMFS post all final monitoring reports
on its website as soon as they are
available.
Response—NMFS concurs with the
Commission’s recommendation and it is
our practice to post all final monitoring
reports on its website as soon as they are
available. All available monitoring
reports involving geophysical surveys
conducted by L–DEO and other NSFaffiliated entities are currently available
on NMFS’ website. We note that reports
are not yet available for the three most
recent IHAs issued for these activities.
Comment—The Commission
recommends that NMFS include in all
draft and final IHAs the explicit
requirements to cease activities if a
marine mammal is injured or killed
during the specified activities, including
by vessel strike, until NMFS reviews the
circumstances involving any injury or
death that is likely attributable to the
activities and determines what
additional measures are necessary to
minimize additional injuries or deaths.
Response—NMFS does not expect
that the proposed activities have the
potential to result in injury or mortality
to marine mammals and therefore does
not agree that a blanket requirement for
project activities to cease would be
warranted. NMFS does not agree that a
requirement for a vessel that is
operating on the open water to suddenly
stop operating is practicable, and it is
unclear what mitigation benefit would
result from such a requirement in
relation to vessel strike. The
Commission does not suggest what
measures other than those prescribed in
this IHA would potentially prove more
effective in reducing the risk of strike.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55649
Therefore, we have not included this
requirement in the authorization. NMFS
retains authority to modify the IHA and
cease all activities immediately based
on a vessel strike and will exercise that
authority if warranted.
With respect to the Commission’s
recommendation that NMFS include
these requirements in all proposed and
final IHAs, NMFS determines the
requirements for mitigation measures in
each authorization based on numerous
case-specific factors, including the
practicability of the measures for
applicant implementation, which may
consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military
readiness activity, personnel safety,
practicality of implementation, and
impact on the effectiveness of the
military readiness activity. As NMFS
must make these determinations on a
case by case basis, we therefore do not
agree with this recommendation.
Comment—The Commission
recommends that NMFS refrain from
issuing a renewal for any authorization
unless it is consistent with the
procedural requirements specified in
section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the MMPA.
Response—In prior responses to
comments about IHA Renewals (e.g., 84
FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR
53342; August 28, 2020), NMFS has
explained how the Renewal process, as
implemented, is consistent with the
statutory requirements contained in
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA and,
therefore, we plan to continue to issue
qualifying Renewals when the
requirements outlined on our website
are met. Thus, NMFS agrees with the
Commission’s recommendation that we
should not issue a Renewal for any
authorization unless it is consistent
with the procedural requirements
specified in section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of
the MMPA. NMFS has found that the
Renewal process is consistent with the
statutory requirements of the MMPA
and, further, promotes NMFS’ goals of
improving conservation of marine
mammals and increasing efficiency in
the MMPA compliance process.
Therefore, we intend to continue
implementing the Renewal process.
Changes From the Proposed IHA
The only substantive change from the
proposed IHA is the revision of take
estimates. As noted in the notice of
proposed IHA, L–DEO agreed to modify
its originally proposed tracklines in
order to avoid takes of sea otters
(through consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service) and to minimize
impacts on Steller sea lions (by moving
tracklines near specific, known sea lion
rookeries such that the track is
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55650
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
sufficiently distant from shore that the
estimated Level B harassment zone does
not overlap with a 3,000 ft (0.9-km)
buffer around these areas). Although L–
DEO had committed to these changes at
the time of publication of the notice of
proposed IHA, take estimates had not
yet been revised accordingly. In
addition, the take estimate for Steller
sea lions was revised through use of the
adjusted density value recommended by
the Marine Mammal Commission (as
discussed above). For species where the
take number changed, all take numbers
decreased, except for the Steller sea
lion, where the increased density value
led to an increase in the take estimate.
During the public review period,
NMFS-affiliated scientists noted that a
newly described species of beaked
whale (Berardius minimus; Yamada et
al., 2019) could be present in the survey
area. At least five specimens of Sato’s
beaked whale have been reported from
U.S. waters in the vicinity of the eastern
Aleutian Islands, St. George Island, and
the southern Alaska Peninsula (Morin et
al., 2017). No information is available
regarding the occurrence of this species.
Therefore, NMFS has authorized take of
one group of the species, as represented
by the average group size of Berardius
spp. from Barlow (2016).
Finally, NMFS has included reporting
requirements recommended by the
Marine Mammal Commission
(discussed above).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history, of the potentially
affected species. Additional information
regarding population trends and threats
may be found in NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SARs;
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more
general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s
website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies).
Table 1 lists all species with expected
potential for occurrence in the survey
area and summarizes information
related to the population or stock,
including regulatory status under the
MMPA and Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and potential biological removal
(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we
follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020).
PBR is defined by the MMPA as the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS’s
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated
or authorized here, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here
as gross indicators of the status of the
species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’s stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’s U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs.
All MMPA stock information presented
in Table 1 is the most recent available
at the time of publication and is
available in the 2019 SARs (Caretta et
al., 2020; Muto et al., 2020).
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae:
North Pacific right whale
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale .....................
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Humpback whale ............
Minke whale ...................
Sei whale ........................
Fin whale ........................
Blue whale ......................
Eubalaena japonica ..............
Eastern North Pacific (ENP)
E/D; Y
31 (0.226; 26; 2015) ............
0.05
0
Eschrichtius robustus ...........
ENP ......................................
Western North Pacific
(WNP).
-; N
E/D; Y
26,960 (0.05; 25,849; 2016)
290 (n/a; 271; 2016 ..............
801
0.12
139
Unk
Megaptera novaeangliae
kuzira.
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
scammoni.
B. borealis borealis ..............
B. physalus physalus ...........
B. musculus musculus .........
Central North Pacific (CNP) *
Western North Pacific * ........
Alaska * .................................
E/D; Y
E/D; Y
-; N
10,103 (0.3; 7,891; 2006) ....
1,107 (0.3; 865; 2006) .........
Unknown ..............................
83
3
n/a
25
2.6
0
ENP ......................................
Northeast Pacific * ................
ENP ......................................
E/D; Y
E/D; Y
E/D; Y
519 (0.4; 374; 2014) ............
Unknown ..............................
1,496 (0.44; 1,050; 2014) ....
0.75
n/a
6 1.2
≥0.2
0.4
≥19.4
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale ..................
Family Ziphiidae (beaked
whales):
Cuvier’s beaked whale ...
Baird’s beaked whale .....
Sato’s beaked whale ......
Stejneger’s beaked
whale.
Family Delphinidae:
Pacific white-sided dolphin.
Northern right whale dolphin.
Risso’s dolphin ...............
Killer whale .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Physeter macrocephalus ......
North Pacific * .......................
E/D; Y
Unknown ..............................
n/a
4.7
Ziphius cavirostris ................
Berardius bairdii ...................
B. minimus ...........................
Mesoplodon stejnegeri .........
Alaska ...................................
Alaska ...................................
n/a ........................................
Alaska ...................................
-;
-;
-;
-;
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
0
0
Lagenorhynchus obliquidens
North Pacific 5 .......................
-; N
26,880 (n/a; 26,880; 1990) ..
n/a
0
Lissodelphis borealis ............
CA/OR/WA * .........................
-; N
26,556 (0.44; 18,608; 2014)
179
3.8
Grampus griseus ..................
Orcinus orca 4 .......................
CA/OR/WA * .........................
ENP Offshore .......................
-; N
-; N
6,336 (0.32; 4,817; 2014) ....
300 (0.1; 276; 2012) ............
46
2.8
≥3.7
0
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
N
N
N
N
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55651
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA—Continued
Common name
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise .............
Dall’s porpoise ................
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
Scientific name
Stock
ENP Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, and Bering Sea
Transient.
ENP Alaska Resident ...........
...............................................
-; N
587 (n/a; 2012) .....................
5.9
1
...............................................
-; N
2,347 (n/a; 2012) ..................
24
1
Bering Sea 5 .........................
-; Y
48,215 (0.22; 40,150; 1999)
n/a
0.2
Alaska 5
-; N
83,400 (0.097; n/a; 1991) ....
n/a
38
Phocoena phocoena
vomerina.
Phocoenoides dalli dalli .......
................................
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Otariidae (eared seals
and sea lions):
Northern fur seal ............
Steller sea lion ...............
Family Phocidae (earless
seals):
Harbor seal .....................
Spotted seal ...................
Ribbon seal ....................
Northern elephant seal ...
Callorhinus ursinus ...............
D; Y
620,660 (0.2; 525,333; 2016)
11,295
399
Eumetopias jubatus jubatus
Pribilof Islands/Eastern Pacific.
Western U.S .........................
E/D; Y
53,624 (n/a; 2018) ................
322
247
Phoca vitulina richardii .........
P. largha ...............................
Histriophoca fasciata ............
Mirounga angustirostris ........
Aleutian Islands ....................
Alaska * .................................
Alaska * .................................
California Breeding ...............
-;
-;
-;
-;
5,588 (n/a; 5,366; 2018) ......
461,625 (n/a; 423,237; 2013)
184,697 (n/a; 163,086; 2013)
179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 2010)
97
12,697
9,785
4,882
90
329
3.9
8.8
N
N
N
N
* Stocks marked with an asterisk were addressed in further detail in the notice of proposed IHA.
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.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For most 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’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum
value. All M/SI values are as presented in the 2019 SARs.
4 Transient and resident killer whales are considered unnamed subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2020).
5 Abundance estimates for these stocks 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.
6 This stock is known to spend a portion of time outside the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, the PBR presented here is the allocation for U.S. waters only and is a portion of
the total. The total PBR for blue whales is 2.1 (7/12 allocation for U.S. waters). Annual M/SI presented for these species is for U.S. waters only.
Prior to 2016, humpback whales were
listed under the ESA as an endangered
species worldwide. Following a 2015
global status review (Bettridge et al.,
2015), NMFS established 14 distinct
population segments (DPS) with
different listing statuses (81 FR 62259;
September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA.
The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do
not necessarily equate to the existing
stocks designated under the MMPA and
shown in Table 1.
Within Alaska waters, four current
humpback whale DPSs may occur: The
Western North Pacific (WNP) DPS
(endangered), Hawaii DPS (not listed),
Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central
America DPS (endangered). Two
humpback whale stocks designated
under the MMPA may occur within
Alaskan waters: The Western North
Pacific Stock and the Central North
Pacific Stock. Both these stocks are
designated as depleted under the
MMPA. According to Wade (2017), in
the Aleutian Islands and Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
encountered whales are most likely to
be from the Hawaii DPS (86.8 percent),
but could be from the Mexico DPS (11
percent) or WNP DPS (2.1 percent). Note
that these probabilities reflect the upper
limit of the 95 percent confidence
interval of the probability of occurrence;
therefore, numbers may not sum to 100
percent for a given area.
Additional detailed information
regarding the potentially affected stocks
of marine mammals was provided in the
notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 45389;
July 28, 2020). No new information is
available, and we do not reprint that
discussion here. Please see the notice of
proposed IHA for additional
information.
Biologically Important Areas (BIA)
Several biologically important areas
for marine mammals are recognized in
the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and
Gulf of Alaska. Critical habitat is
designated for the Steller sea lion (58 FR
45269; August 27, 1993). Critical habitat
is defined by section 3 of the ESA as (1)
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed, on which
are found those physical or biological
features (a) essential to the conservation
of the species and (b) which may require
special management considerations or
protection; and (2) specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation
of the species.
Designated Steller sea lion critical
habitat includes terrestrial, aquatic, and
air zones that extend 3,000 ft (0.9 km)
landward, seaward, and above each
major rookery and major haulout in
Alaska. For the Western DPS, the
aquatic zone extends further, out 20 nmi
(37 km) seaward of major rookeries and
haulouts west of 144ßW. In addition to
major rookeries and haulouts, critical
habitat foraging areas have been
designated in Seguam Pass, Bogoslof
area, and Shelikof Strait. Of the foraging
areas, only Seguam Pass overlaps the
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55652
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
proposed survey area. The Bogoslof
foraging area is located to the east of the
survey area, and Shelikof Strait is in the
western Gulf of Alaska. In addition, ‘‘no
approach’’ buffer areas around rookery
sites of the Western DPS of Steller sea
lions are identified. ‘‘No approach’’
zones are restricted areas wherein no
vessel may approach within 3 nmi (5.6
km) of listed rookeries; some of these
are adjacent to the survey area. In the
Aleutian Islands, critical habitat
includes 66 sites (26 rookeries and 40
haulout sites) and foraging areas in
Seguam Pass (within the proposed
survey area) and the Bogoslof area (east
of the survey area). Please see Figure 1
of L–DEO’s application for additional
detail.
Critical habitat has also been
designated for the North Pacific right
whale (73 FR 19000; April 8, 2008). The
designation includes areas in the Bering
Sea and Gulf of Alaska. However, the
closest critical habitat unit, in the
Bering Sea, is more than 400 km away
from the proposed survey area. There is
no critical habitat designated for any
other species within the region. In
addition, a feeding BIA for right whales
is recognized to the south of Kodiak
Island, and the Bering Sea critical
habitat unit is also recognized as a BIA.
For fin whales, a BIA for feeding is
recognized in Shelikof Strait, between
Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula,
and extending west to the Semidi
Islands. For gray whales, a feeding BIA
is recognized to the south of Kodiak
Island, and a migratory BIA is
recognized as extending along the
continental shelf throughout the Gulf of
Alaska, through Unimak Pass in the
eastern Aleutian Islands, and along the
Bering Sea continental shelf. For
humpback whales, feeding BIAs are
recognized around the Shumagin
Islands and around Kodiak Island.
These areas are sufficiently distant from
the proposed survey area that no effects
to important behaviors occurring in the
BIAs should be expected. Moreover, the
timeframe of the planned survey does
not overlap with expected highest
abundance of whales on the feeding
BIAs or with gray whale migratory
periods.
A separate feeding BIA is recognized
in the Bering Sea for fin whales.
Because the distribution of presumed
feeding fin whales in the Bering Sea is
widespread, a wide region from the
Middle Shelf domain to the slope is
considered to be a BIA. The highest
densities of feeding fin whales in the
Bering Sea likely occur from June
through September. The BIA is
considered as being in waters shallower
than the 1,000-m isobath on the eastern
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
Bering Sea shelf, and does not extend
past approximately Unimak Pass in the
Aleutian Islands. A gray whale feeding
BIA is recognized along the north side
of the Alaska Peninsula. Marine
mammal behavior in these BIAs is
similarly not expected to be affected by
the proposed survey due to distance and
timing.
Large aggregations of feeding
humpback whales have historically
been observed along the northern side of
the eastern Aleutian Islands and Alaska
Peninsula, and a feeding BIA is
recognized. Highest densities are
expected from June through September.
The eastern edge of the planned survey
area is approximately 100 km west of
the western edge of the recognized BIA,
but it is possible that the survey could
affect feeding humpback whales. For
more information on BIAs, please see
Ferguson et al. (2015a, 2015b).
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.’’ For
more information on UMEs, please visit:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-unusual-mortality-events.
Currently recognized UMEs in Alaska
involving species under NMFS’
jurisdiction include those affecting ice
seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas
and gray whales. Since June 1, 2018,
elevated strandings for bearded, ringed
and spotted seals have occurred in the
Bering and Chukchi seas in Alaska, with
causes undetermined. For more
information, please visit:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marinelife-distress/2018-2020-ice-seal-unusualmortality-event-alaska.
Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray
whale strandings have occurred along
the west coast of North America from
Mexico through Alaska. As of June 5,
2020, there have been a total of 340
whales reported in the event, with
approximately 168 dead whales in
Mexico, 159 whales in the United States
(53 in California; 9 in Oregon; 42 in
Washington, 55 in Alaska), and 13
whales in British Columbia, Canada. For
the United States, the historical 18-year
5-month average (Jan–May) is 14.8
whales for the four states for this same
time-period. Several dead whales have
been emaciated with moderate to heavy
whale lice (cyamid) loads. Necropsies
have been conducted on a subset of
whales with additional findings of
vessel strike in three whales and
entanglement in one whale. In Mexico,
50–55 percent of the free-ranging whales
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
observed in the lagoons in winter have
been reported as ‘‘skinny’’ compared to
the annual average of 10–12 percent
‘‘skinny’’ whales normally seen. The
cause of the UME is as yet
undetermined. For more information,
please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-life-distress/2019-2020gray-whale-unusual-mortality-eventalong-west-coast-and.
Another recent, notable UME
involved large whales and occurred in
the western Gulf of Alaska and off of
British Columbia, Canada. Beginning in
May 2015, elevated large whale
mortalities (primarily fin and humpback
whales) occurred in the areas around
Kodiak Island, Afognak Island, Chirikof
Island, the Semidi Islands, and the
southern shoreline of the Alaska
Peninsula. Although most carcasses
have been non-retrievable as they were
discovered floating and in a state of
moderate to severe decomposition, the
UME is likely attributable to ecological
factors, i.e., the 2015 El Nin˜o, ‘‘warm
water blob,’’ and the Pacific Coast
domoic acid bloom. The UME was
closed in 2016. More information is
available online at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/2015-2016-largewhale-unusual-mortality-event-westerngulf-alaska.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species
have equal hearing capabilities (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007)
recommended that marine mammals be
divided into functional hearing groups
based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral response data, audiograms
derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for low-
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
frequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine
mammal hearing groups and their
55653
associated hearing ranges are provided
in Table 2.
TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS (NMFS, 2018)
Hearing group
Generalized hearing range *
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ............................................................................................................
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ..................................
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger &
L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ..........................................................................................................
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .....................................................................................
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information. Twenty-four
marine mammal species (18 cetacean
and six pinniped (two otariid and four
phocid) species) are considered herein.
Of the cetacean species that may be
present, seven are classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete
species), nine are classified as midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid
and ziphiid species and the sperm
whale), and two are classified as highfrequency cetaceans (i.e., porpoises).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
Detailed descriptions of the potential
effects of similar specified activities
have been provided in other recent
Federal Register notices, including for
activities occurring within the same
specified geographical region (e.g., 83
FR 29212, June 22, 2018; 84 FR 14200,
April 9, 2019; 85 FR 19580, April 7,
2020). Section 7 of L–DEO’s application
provides a comprehensive discussion of
the potential effects of the proposed
survey. We have reviewed L–DEO’s
application and believe it is accurate
and complete. No significant new
information is available. The
information in L–DEO’s application and
in the referenced Federal Register
notices are sufficient to inform our
determinations regarding the potential
effects of L–DEO’s specified activity on
marine mammals and their habitat. We
refer the reader to these documents
rather than repeating the information
here. The referenced information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
includes a summary and discussion of
the ways that the specified activity may
impact marine mammals and their
habitat. Consistent with the analysis in
our prior Federal Register notices for
similar L–DEO surveys and after
independently evaluating the analysis
in L–DEO’s application, we determine
that the survey is likely to result in the
takes described in the Estimated Take
section of this document and that other
forms of take are not expected to occur.
The Estimated Take section includes
a quantitative analysis of the number of
individuals that are expected to be taken
by this activity. The Negligible Impact
Analysis and Determination section
considers the potential effects of the
specified activity, the Estimated Take
section, and the Mitigation section, to
draw conclusions regarding the likely
impacts of these activities on the
reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and how those impacts on
individuals are likely to impact marine
mammal species or stocks.
Description of Active Acoustic Sound
Sources
The notice of proposed IHA provided
a brief technical background on sound,
on the characteristics of certain sound
types, and on metrics used in this
proposal inasmuch as the information is
relevant to the specified activity and to
a discussion of the potential effects of
the specified activity on marine
mammals found later in this document.
Please see that document (85 FR 45389;
July 28, 2020) for additional
information. For general information on
sound and its interaction with the
marine environment, please see, e.g., Au
and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al.
(1995); Urick (1983).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes
authorized through the IHA, which will
inform both NMFS’ consideration of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible
impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are primarily by
Level B harassment, as use of seismic
airguns has the potential to result in
disruption of behavioral patterns for
individual marine mammals. There is
also some potential for auditory injury
(Level A harassment) for mysticetes and
high-frequency cetaceans (i.e.,
porpoises). The mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to
minimize the severity of such taking to
the extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take
by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds
above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally harassed
or incur some degree of permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) and the number of days of
activities. We note that while these
basic factors can contribute to a basic
calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional
information that can qualitatively
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55654
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
inform take estimates is also sometimes
available (e.g., previous monitoring
results or average group size). Below, we
describe the factors considered here in
more detail and present the take
numbers.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that
identify the received level of
underwater sound above which exposed
marine mammals would be reasonably
expected to be behaviorally harassed
(equated to Level B harassment) or to
incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of
some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive
sources—Though significantly driven by
received level, the onset of behavioral
disturbance from anthropogenic noise
exposure is also informed to varying
degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry), and the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context) and
can be difficult to predict (Southall et
al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). NMFS
uses a generalized acoustic threshold
based on received level to estimate the
onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS
predicts that marine mammals may be
behaviorally harassed (i.e., Level B
harassment) when exposed to
underwater anthropogenic noise above a
received level of 160 dB re 1
microPascal (mPa) root mean square
(rms) for the impulsive source (i.e.,
seismic airguns) evaluated here.
Level A harassment for non-explosive
sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance
for Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies
dual criteria to assess auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to five different
marine mammal groups (based on
hearing sensitivity) as a result of
exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). L–DEO’s seismic survey
includes the use of impulsive (seismic
airguns) sources.
These thresholds are provided in the
table below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the
development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2018 Technical
Guidance, which may be accessed at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset acoustic thresholds*
(received level)
Hearing group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ......................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ......................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .....................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .............................
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .............................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
1:
3:
5:
7:
9:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
Lpk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
Non-impulsive
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .........................
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB .......................
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB .......................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should
also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s.
In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure
is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being
included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated
with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that feed into identifying the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, which include source levels
and acoustic propagation modeling.
L–DEO’s modeling methodologies are
described in greater detail in Appendix
A of L–DEO’s IHA application. The
survey would acquire data using the 36airgun array with a total discharge
volume of 6,600 in3 at a maximum tow
depth of 9 m. During approximately 10
percent of the planned survey
tracklines, the array would be used at
half the total volume (i.e., an 18-airgun
array with total volume of 3,300 in3). L–
DEO’s modeling approach uses ray
tracing for the direct wave traveling
from the array to the receiver and its
associated source ghost (reflection at the
air-water interface in the vicinity of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
array), in a constant-velocity half-space
(infinite homogeneous ocean layer,
unbounded by a seafloor). To validate
the model results, L–DEO measured
propagation of pulses from the 36airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m in
the Gulf of Mexico, for deep water
(1,600 m), intermediate water depth on
the slope (600–1,100 m), and shallow
water (50 m) (Tolstoy et al., 2009;
Diebold et al., 2010).
L–DEO collected a MCS data set from
R/V Langseth on an 8 km streamer in
2012 on the shelf of the Cascadia Margin
off of Washington in water up to 200 m
deep that allowed Crone et al. (2014) to
analyze the hydrophone streamer
(>1,100 individual shots). These
empirical data were then analyzed to
determine in situ sound levels for
shallow and upper intermediate water
depths. These data suggest that modeled
radii were 2–3 times larger than the
measured radii in shallow water.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Similarly, data collected by Crone et al.
(2017) during a survey off New Jersey in
2014 and 2015 confirmed that in situ
measurements collected by R/V
Langseth hydrophone streamer were 2–
3 times smaller than the predicted radii.
L–DEO model results are used to
determine the assumed radial distance
to the 160-dB rms threshold for these
arrays in deep water (>1,000 m) (down
to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m).
Water depths in the project area may be
up to 7,100 m, but marine mammals in
the region are generally not anticipated
to dive below 2,000 m (Costa and
Williams, 1999). For the 36-airgun array,
the estimated radial distance for
intermediate (100–1,000 m) and shallow
(<100 m) water depths is taken from
Crone et al. (2014). L–DEO typically
derives estimated distances for
intermediate water depths by applying a
correction factor of 1.5 to the model
results for deep water. The Crone et al.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
(2014) empirical data produce results
consistent with L–DEO’s typical
approach (8,233 m versus 8,444 m). For
the 18-airgun array, the radii for shallow
and intermediate-water depths are taken
from Crone et al. (2014) and scaled to
account for the difference in airgun
volume.
55655
The estimated distances to the Level
B harassment isopleths for the arrays are
shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD
Tow depth
(m)
Source and volume
36 airgun array; 6,600 in 3 ...........................................................................................................
Water depth
(m)
9
18 airgun array; 3,300 in 3 ...........................................................................................................
9
>1,000
100–1,000
<100
>1,000
100–1,000
<100
Level B
harassment
zone
(m)
1 5,629
3 8,233
3 11,000
1 3,562
2 3,939
2 5,263
1 Distance
2 Based
based on L–DEO model results.
on empirical data from Crone et al. (2014) with scaling factor based on deep-water modeling applied to account for differences in array
size.
3 Based on empirical data from Crone et al. (2014).
Predicted distances to Level A
harassment isopleths, which vary based
on marine mammal hearing groups,
were calculated based on modeling
performed by L–DEO using the
NUCLEUS source modeling software
program and the NMFS User
Spreadsheet, described below. The
acoustic thresholds for impulsive
sounds (e.g., airguns) contained in the
Technical Guidance were presented as
dual metric acoustic thresholds using
both cumulative sound exposure level
(SELcum) and peak sound pressure
metrics (NMFS 2018). As dual metrics,
NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A
harassment) to have occurred when
either one of the two metrics is
exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the
largest isopleth). The SELcum metric
considers both level and duration of
exposure, as well as auditory weighting
functions by marine mammal hearing
group. In recognition of the fact that the
requirement to calculate Level A
harassment ensonified areas could be
more technically challenging to predict
due to the duration component and the
use of weighting functions in the new
SELcum thresholds, NMFS developed an
optional User Spreadsheet that includes
tools to help predict a simple isopleth
that can be used in conjunction with
marine mammal density or occurrence
to facilitate the estimation of take
numbers.
The values for SELcum and peak sound
pressure level (SPL) for the Langseth
airgun arrays were derived from
calculating the modified far-field
signature. The farfield signature is often
used as a theoretical representation of
the source level. To compute the farfield
signature, the source level is estimated
at a large distance below the array (e.g.,
9 km), and this level is back projected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
mathematically to a notional distance of
1 m from the array’s geometrical center.
However, when the source is an array of
multiple airguns separated in space, the
source level from the theoretical farfield
signature is not necessarily the best
measurement of the source level that is
physically achieved at the source
(Tolstoy et al., 2009). Near the source (at
short ranges, distances <1 km), the
pulses of sound pressure from each
individual airgun in the source array do
not stack constructively, as they do for
the theoretical farfield signature. The
pulses from the different airguns spread
out in time such that the source levels
observed or modeled are the result of
the summation of pulses from a few
airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al.,
2009). At larger distances, away from
the source array center, sound pressure
of all the airguns in the array stack
coherently, but not within one time
sample, resulting in smaller source
levels (a few dB) than the source level
derived from the farfield signature.
Because the farfield signature does not
take into account the large array effect
near the source and is calculated as a
point source, the modified farfield
signature is a more appropriate measure
of the sound source level for distributed
sound sources, such as airgun arrays. L–
DEO used the acoustic modeling
methodology as used for estimating
Level B harassment distances with a
small grid step of 1 m in both the inline
and depth directions. The propagation
modeling takes into account all airgun
interactions at short distances from the
source, including interactions between
subarrays, which are modeled using the
NUCLEUS software to estimate the
notional signature and MATLAB
software to calculate the pressure signal
at each mesh point of a grid.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In order to more realistically
incorporate the Technical Guidance’s
weighting functions over the seismic
array’s full acoustic band, unweighted
spectrum data for the Langseth’s airgun
array (modeled in 1 Hz bands) were
used to make adjustments (dB) to the
unweighted spectrum levels, by
frequency, according to the weighting
functions for each relevant marine
mammal hearing group. These adjusted/
weighted spectrum levels were then
converted to pressures (mPa) in order to
integrate them over the entire
broadband spectrum, resulting in
broadband weighted source levels by
hearing group that could be directly
incorporated within the User
Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the
Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting
factor adjustment). Using the User
Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’
methodology for mobile sources
(described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the
hearing group-specific weighted source
levels, and inputs assuming spherical
spreading propagation and source
velocities and shot intervals specific to
the planned survey, potential radial
distances to auditory injury zones were
then calculated for SELcum thresholds.
Inputs to the User Spreadsheet in the
form of estimated source levels are
shown in Appendix A of L–DEO’s
application. User Spreadsheets used by
L–DEO to estimate distances to Level A
harassment isopleths for the airgun
arrays are also provided in Appendix A
of the application. Outputs from the
User Spreadsheets in the form of
estimated distances to Level A
harassment isopleths for the survey are
shown in Table 5. As described above,
NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A
harassment) to have occurred when
either one of the dual metrics (SELcum
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55656
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
and Peak SPLflat) is exceeded (i.e.,
metric resulting in the largest isopleth).
TABLE 5—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS
Source
(volume)
Level A harassment zone
(m)
Threshold
LF cetaceans
36-airgun array (6,600 in3) ......................
18-airgun array (3,300 in3) ......................
SELcum ...........
Peak ...............
SELcum ...........
Peak ...............
Note that because of some of the
assumptions included in the methods
used (e.g., stationary receiver with no
vertical or horizontal movement in
response to the acoustic source),
isopleths produced may be
overestimates to some degree, which
will ultimately result in some degree of
overestimation of Level A harassment.
However, these tools offer the best way
to predict appropriate isopleths when
more sophisticated modeling methods
are not available, and NMFS continues
to develop ways to quantitatively refine
these tools and will qualitatively
address the output where appropriate.
For mobile sources, such as this seismic
survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts
the closest distance at which a
stationary animal would not incur PTS
if the sound source traveled by the
animal in a straight line at a constant
speed.
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur
for mid-frequency cetaceans, otariid
pinnipeds, and phocid pinnipeds given
very small modeled zones of injury for
those species (all estimated zones less
than 15 m for mid-frequency cetaceans
and otariid pinnipeds, up to a maximum
of 42 m for phocid pinnipeds), in
context of distributed source dynamics.
The source level of the array is a
theoretical definition assuming a point
source and measurement in the far-field
of the source (MacGillivray, 2006). As
described by Caldwell and Dragoset
(2000), an array is not a point source,
but one that spans a small area. In the
far-field, individual elements in arrays
will effectively work as one source
because individual pressure peaks will
have coalesced into one relatively broad
pulse. The array can then be considered
a ‘‘point source.’’ For distances within
the near-field, i.e., approximately 2–3
times the array dimensions, pressure
peaks from individual elements do not
arrive simultaneously because the
observation point is not equidistant
from each element. The effect is
destructive interference of the outputs
of each element, so that peak pressures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
MF cetaceans
HF cetaceans
0
14
0
11
1
229
0
119
376
39
55
23
in the near-field will be significantly
lower than the output of the largest
individual element. Here, the peak
isopleth distances would in all cases be
expected to be within the near-field of
the array where the definition of source
level breaks down. Therefore, actual
locations within this distance of the
array center where the sound level
exceeds peak SPL isopleth distances
would not necessarily exist. In general,
Caldwell and Dragoset (2000) suggest
that the near-field for airgun arrays is
considered to extend out to
approximately 250 m. We provided
additional discussion and quantitative
support for this theoretical argument in
the notice of proposed IHA. Please see
that notice (85 FR 45389; July 28, 2020)
for additional information.
In consideration of the received sound
levels in the near-field as described
above, we expect the potential for Level
A harassment of mid-frequency
cetaceans, otariid pinnipeds, and
phocid pinnipeds to be de minimis,
even before the likely moderating effects
of aversion and/or other compensatory
behaviors (e.g., Nachtigall et al., 2018)
are considered. We do not believe that
Level A harassment is a likely outcome
for any mid-frequency cetacean, otariid
pinniped, or phocid pinniped and do
not propose to authorize any Level A
harassment for these species. Any
estimated exposures above Level A
harassment criteria are assumed to be
takes by Level B harassment instead (see
Table 6).
Marine Mammal Occurrence
Information about the presence,
density, and group dynamics of marine
mammals that informs the take
calculations was provided in our notice
of proposed IHA (85 FR 45389; July 28,
2020). That information is not re-printed
here. For additional detail, please see
the proposed IHA notice and Appendix
B of L–DEO’s application. Density
values are provided in Table B–1 of L–
DEO’s application. No new information
is available since we published the
notice of proposed IHA, and no changes
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Phocids
Otariids
10
42
2
25
0
11
0
10
have been made, other than those
described in the Changes from the
Proposed IHA section, provided
previously in this document.
The Marine Mammal Commission
noted several concerns with the density
values used for Steller sea lions. As
noted by the Commission, L–DEO used
data from Department of the Navy
(2014), which relied on abundance
estimates from the 2008 stock
assessment report divided by an area.
The Commission raised the following
issues: (1) Abundance estimates have
increased since the 2008 SAR and the
original estimates were based on
portions of the eastern stock of Steller
sea lions that would not occur in L–
DEO’s survey area; (2) the density value
should be corrected on the basis of
telemetry data, as done in Department of
the Navy (2019); and (3) true density
estimates may be even greater in
shallow waters near critical habitat
areas. For these reasons, the
Commission recommended use of a
corrected, revised density value of
0.0392 sea lions/km2 in shallow- and
intermediate-water depths, while
retaining the estimate of 0.0098 sea
lions/km2 in deep water. NMFS
concurred with the recommendation
and the take calculations for shallowand intermediate-water depths were
revised accordingly.
In addition, as described in Changes
from the Proposed IHA, NMFS was
made aware of the potential occurrence
of Sato’s beaked whale (a newly
described species previously considered
to be a conspecific form of Baird’s
beaked whale) in the survey area and
added a nominal amount of take in the
form of one mean group size. This
inclusion likely represents an
overestimate of actual take, as
occurrence of Sato’s beaked whale
would have been accounted for in the
existing density estimates for Baird’s
beaked whale. However, we determined
it appropriate to acknowledge the
presence and potential exposure of this
new species.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55657
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information
provided above is brought together to
produce a quantitative take estimate. In
order to estimate the number of marine
mammals predicted to be exposed to
sound levels that would result in Level
A or Level B harassment, radial
distances from the airgun array to
predicted isopleths corresponding to the
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds are calculated, as
described above. Those radial distances
are then used to calculate the area(s)
around the airgun array predicted to be
ensonified to sound levels that exceed
the Level A and Level B harassment
thresholds. The distance for the 160-dB
threshold (based on L–DEO model
results) was used to draw a buffer
around every transect line in a
geographic information system (GIS) to
determine the total ensonified area in
each depth category. Estimated
incidents of exposure above Level A and
Level B harassment criteria are
presented in Table 6. As noted
previously, L–DEO has added 25
percent in the form of operational days,
which is equivalent to adding 25
percent to the proposed line-kms to be
surveyed. This accounts for the
possibility that additional operational
days are required, but likely results in
an overestimate of actual exposures.
The estimated marine mammal
exposures above harassment thresholds
are generally assumed here to equate to
take, and the estimates form the basis
for our take authorization numbers. For
the species for which NMFS does not
expect there to be a reasonable potential
for take by Level A harassment to occur,
i.e., mid-frequency cetaceans and all
pinnipeds, the estimated exposures
above Level A harassment thresholds
have been added to the estimated
exposures above the Level B harassment
threshold to produce a total number of
incidents of take by Level B harassment
that is authorized. Estimated exposures
and authorized take numbers are shown
in Table 6. Regarding humpback whale
take numbers, we assume that whales
encountered will follow Wade (2017),
i.e., that 86.8 percent of takes would
accrue to the Hawaii DPS, 11 percent to
the Mexico DPS, and 2.1 percent to the
WNP DPS. Of the estimated take of gray
whales, we assume that 1.1 percent of
encountered whales would be from the
WNP stock (Carretta et al., 2019) and
authorize take accordingly.
Importantly, as described in the
Changes from the Proposed IHA section,
revised take numbers have been
produced after accounting for
modification of planned tracklines to
avoid take of sea otters and to maintain
a larger buffer around specific Steller
sea lion haul-outs and rookeries. Aside
from the change to Steller sea lion
density in shallow- and intermediatedepth waters and the addition of take of
Sato’s beaked whale, all changes to take
numbers from the notice of proposed
IHA result from revised calculations
accounting for these shifts in planned
tracklines.
TABLE 6—ESTIMATED TAKING BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION
Species
Stock 1
Estimated
Level A
harassment
Estimated
Level B
harassment
Authorized
Level A
harassment
Authorized
Level B
harassment
Total take
North Pacific right whale 2 .......................
Humpback whale .....................................
....................
WNP ..........
CNP ...........
....................
....................
....................
....................
ENP ...........
WNP ..........
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Offshore .....
Transient ....
Resident .....
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
0
106
....................
2
104
0
2
1
0
0
0
....................
0
0
2
....................
0
0
....................
....................
157
23
1
2
1
1
....................
....................
0
1,842
....................
23
1,650
5
27
61
1
43
24
....................
47
106
1,000
....................
0
141
....................
....................
4,312
679
788
907
105
148
....................
....................
0
106
....................
2
104
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
....................
....................
157
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1,842
....................
23
1,650
5
27
61
1
43
24
9
47
106
1,002
58
22
141
....................
....................
4,312
679
789
909
106
149
5
5
2
1,948
....................
25
1,754
5
29
62
1
43
24
9
47
106
1,002
58
22
141
....................
....................
4,469
702
789
909
106
149
5
5
Blue whale ...............................................
Fin whale 5 ...............................................
Sei whale .................................................
Minke whale 5 ...........................................
Gray whale ...............................................
Sperm whale 5 ..........................................
Baird’s beaked whale 5 ............................
Sato’s beaked whale 5 .............................
Stejneger’s beaked whale 3 5 ...................
Cuvier’s beaked whale 5 ..........................
Pacific white-sided dolphin ......................
Northern right whale dolphin 3 .................
Risso’s dolphin 3 ......................................
Killer whale ..............................................
Dall’s porpoise .........................................
Harbor porpoise .......................................
Northern fur seal ......................................
Steller sea lion .........................................
Northern elephant seal ............................
Harbor seal ..............................................
Spotted seal 4 ...........................................
Ribbon seal 4 ............................................
Percent of
stock 1
6.5
176.0
19.3
1.7
n/a
1.0
n/a
0.2
0.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.7
0.2
0.3
47.0
24.0
6.0
5.4
1.5
0.1
1.7
0.1
2.7
0.0
0.0
1 In most cases, where multiple stocks are being affected, for the purposes of calculating the percentage of the stock impacted, the take is
being analyzed as if all takes occurred within each stock. Where necessary, additional discussion is provided in the ‘‘Small Numbers Analysis’’
section.
2 In the notice of proposed IHA, estimated exposure of one whale was increased to group size of two (Shelden et al., 2005; Waite et al., 2003;
Wade et al., 2011). Following revision of the take estimates, no exposures of North Pacific right whale are predicted. We retain the take number,
reflecting potential exposure of one group of two whales.
3 L–DEO requested authorization of northern right whale dolphin take equivalent to exposure of one group. In the notice of proposed IHA, estimated exposure of one Risso’s dolphin was increased to group size of 22. Following revision of the take estimates, no exposures of Risso’s dolphin are predicted. We retain the take number, reflecting potential exposure of one group of 22 dolphins. Take of Sato’s beaked whale reflects
mean group size information for Baird’s beaked whale. Group sizes for these species follow Barlow (2016).
4 L–DEO requested authorization of five takes each of spotted seal and ribbon seal.
5 As noted in Table 1, there is no estimate of abundance available for these species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55658
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting
the least practicable impact on the
species or stock and its habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of
the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable
for this action). NMFS regulations
require applicants for incidental take
authorizations to include information
about the availability and feasibility
(economic and technological) of
equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting the activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, we carefully consider two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned), the
likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned);
and
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
As described previously, L–DEO
agreed to modify certain tracklines in
order to reduce the number and
intensity of acoustic exposures of Steller
sea lions in waters around the specific
haul-outs and rookeries of greatest
importance for the stock. Tracklines
were modified to ensure that the vessel
maintains a standoff distance sufficient
to prevent the assumed Level B
harassment zone from overlapping with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
a 3,000-ft (0.9-km) buffer around those
haul-outs and rookeries.
Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation
Monitoring
Visual monitoring requires the use of
trained observers (herein referred to as
visual protected species observers
(PSO)) to scan the ocean surface for the
presence of marine mammals. The area
to be scanned visually includes
primarily the exclusion zone, within
which observation of certain marine
mammals requires shutdown of the
acoustic source, but also a buffer zone.
The buffer zone means an area beyond
the exclusion zone to be monitored for
the presence of marine mammals that
may enter the exclusion zone. During
pre-clearance monitoring (i.e., before
ramp-up begins), the buffer zone also
acts as an extension of the exclusion
zone in that observations of marine
mammals within the buffer zone would
also prevent airgun operations from
beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The buffer
zone encompasses the area at and below
the sea surface from the edge of the 0–
500 m exclusion zone, out to a radius
of 1,000 m from the edges of the airgun
array (500–1,000 m). Visual monitoring
of the exclusion zone and adjacent
waters is intended to establish and,
when visual conditions allow, maintain
zones around the sound source that are
clear of marine mammals, thereby
reducing or eliminating the potential for
injury and minimizing the potential for
more severe behavioral reactions for
animals occurring closer to the vessel.
Visual monitoring of the buffer zone is
intended to (1) provide additional
protection to naı¨ve marine mammals
that may be in the area during preclearance, and (2) during airgun use, aid
in establishing and maintaining the
exclusion zone by alerting the visual
observer and crew of marine mammals
that are outside of, but may approach
and enter, the exclusion zone.
L–DEO must use dedicated, trained,
NMFS-approved PSOs. The PSOs must
have no tasks other than to conduct
observational effort, record
observational data, and communicate
with and instruct relevant vessel crew
with regard to the presence of marine
mammals and mitigation requirements.
PSO resumes shall be provided to
NMFS for approval.
At least one of the visual and two of
the acoustic PSOs (discussed below)
aboard the vessel must have a minimum
of 90 days at-sea experience working in
those roles, respectively, with no more
than 18 months elapsed since the
conclusion of the at-sea experience. One
visual PSO with such experience shall
be designated as the lead for the entire
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
protected species observation team. The
lead PSO shall serve as primary point of
contact for the vessel operator and
ensure all PSO requirements per the
IHA are met. To the maximum extent
practicable, the experienced PSOs
should be scheduled to be on duty with
those PSOs with appropriate training
but who have not yet gained relevant
experience.
During survey operations (e.g., any
day on which use of the acoustic source
is planned to occur, and whenever the
acoustic source is in the water, whether
activated or not), a minimum of two
visual PSOs must be on duty and
conducting visual observations at all
times during daylight hours (i.e., from
30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30
minutes following sunset). Visual
monitoring of the exclusion and buffer
zones must begin no less than 30
minutes prior to ramp-up and must
continue until one hour after use of the
acoustic source ceases or until 30
minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall
coordinate to ensure 360° visual
coverage around the vessel from the
most appropriate observation posts, and
shall conduct visual observations using
binoculars and the naked eye while free
from distractions and in a consistent,
systematic, and diligent manner.
PSOs shall establish and monitor the
exclusion and buffer zones. These zones
shall be based upon the radial distance
from the edges of the acoustic source
(rather than being based on the center of
the array or around the vessel itself).
During use of the acoustic source (i.e.,
anytime airguns are active, including
ramp-up), detections of marine
mammals within the buffer zone (but
outside the exclusion zone) shall be
communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown of
the acoustic source.
During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime
the acoustic source is active, including
ramp-up), detections of marine
mammals within the buffer zone (but
outside the exclusion zone) should be
communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown of
the acoustic source. Visual PSOs will
immediately communicate all
observations to the on duty acoustic
PSO(s), including any determination by
the PSO regarding species
identification, distance, and bearing and
the degree of confidence in the
determination. Any observations of
marine mammals by crew members
shall be relayed to the PSO team. During
good conditions (e.g., daylight hours;
Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), visual
PSOs shall conduct observations when
the acoustic source is not operating for
comparison of sighting rates and
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
behavior with and without use of the
acoustic source and between acquisition
periods, to the maximum extent
practicable.
Visual PSOs may be on watch for a
maximum of four consecutive hours
followed by a break of at least one hour
between watches and may conduct a
maximum of 12 hours of observation per
24-hour period. Combined observational
duties (visual and acoustic but not at
same time) may not exceed 12 hours per
24-hour period for any individual PSO.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring
Acoustic monitoring means the use of
trained personnel (sometimes referred to
as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)
operators, herein referred to as acoustic
PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to
acoustically detect the presence of
marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring
involves acoustically detecting marine
mammals regardless of distance from
the source, as localization of animals
may not always be possible. Acoustic
monitoring is intended to further
support visual monitoring (during
daylight hours) in maintaining an
exclusion zone around the sound source
that is clear of marine mammals. In
cases where visual monitoring is not
effective (e.g., due to weather,
nighttime), acoustic monitoring may be
used to allow certain activities to occur,
as further detailed below.
PAM would take place in addition to
the visual monitoring program. Visual
monitoring typically is not effective
during periods of poor visibility or at
night, and even with good visibility, is
unable to detect marine mammals when
they are below the surface or beyond
visual range. Acoustic monitoring can
be used in addition to visual
observations to improve detection,
identification, and localization of
cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring
would serve to alert visual PSOs (if on
duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are
detected. It is only useful when marine
mammals call, but it can be effective
either by day or by night, and does not
depend on good visibility. It would be
monitored in real time so that the visual
observers can be advised when
cetaceans are detected.
The R/V Langseth will use a towed
PAM system, which must be monitored
by at a minimum one on duty acoustic
PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior
to ramp-up and at all times during use
of the acoustic source. Acoustic PSOs
may be on watch for a maximum of four
consecutive hours followed by a break
of at least one hour between watches
and may conduct a maximum of 12
hours of observation per 24-hour period.
Combined observational duties (acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
and visual but not at same time) may
not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period
for any individual PSO.
Survey activity may continue for 30
minutes when the PAM system
malfunctions or is damaged, while the
PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the
diagnosis indicates that the PAM system
must be repaired to solve the problem,
operations may continue for an
additional five hours without acoustic
monitoring during daylight hours only
under the following conditions:
• Sea state is less than or equal to
Beaufort sea state (BSS) 4;
• No marine mammals (excluding
delphinids) detected solely by PAM in
the applicable exclusion zone in the
previous two hours;
• NMFS is notified via email as soon
as practicable with the time and
location in which operations began
occurring without an active PAM
system; and
• Operations with an active acoustic
source, but without an operating PAM
system, do not exceed a cumulative total
of five hours in any 24-hour period.
Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer
Zones
An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined
area within which occurrence of a
marine mammal triggers mitigation
action intended to reduce the potential
for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory
injury, disruption of critical behaviors.
The PSOs will establish a minimum EZ
with a 500-m radius. The 500-m EZ is
based on radial distance from the edge
of the airgun array (rather than being
based on the center of the array or
around the vessel itself). With certain
exceptions (described below), if a
marine mammal appears within or
enters this zone, the acoustic source will
be shut down.
The 500-m EZ is intended to be
precautionary in the sense that it would
be expected to contain sound exceeding
the injury criteria for all cetacean
hearing groups, (based on the dual
criteria of SELcum and peak SPL), while
also providing a consistent, reasonably
observable zone within which PSOs
would typically be able to conduct
effective observational effort.
Additionally, a 500-m EZ is expected to
minimize the likelihood that marine
mammals will be exposed to levels
likely to result in more severe
behavioral responses. Although
significantly greater distances may be
observed from an elevated platform
under good conditions, we believe that
500 m is likely regularly attainable for
PSOs using the naked eye during typical
conditions.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55659
An extended EZ of 1,500 m must be
enforced for all beaked whales. No
buffer of this extended EZ is required.
Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up
Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as
‘‘soft start’’) means the gradual and
systematic increase of emitted sound
levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up
begins by first activating a single airgun
of the smallest volume, followed by
doubling the number of active elements
in stages until the full complement of an
array’s airguns are active. Each stage
should be approximately the same
duration, and the total duration should
not be less than approximately 20
minutes. The intent of pre-clearance
observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no
protected species are observed within
the buffer zone prior to the beginning of
ramp-up. During pre-clearance is the
only time observations of protected
species in the buffer zone would
prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of
ramp-up). The intent of ramp-up is to
warn protected species of pending
seismic operations and to allow
sufficient time for those animals to leave
the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up
procedure, involving a step-wise
increase in the number of airguns firing
and total array volume until all
operational airguns are activated and
the full volume is achieved, is required
at all times as part of the activation of
the acoustic source. All operators must
adhere to the following pre-clearance
and ramp-up requirements:
• The operator must notify a
designated PSO of the planned start of
ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead
PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the
planned ramp-up in order to allow the
PSOs time to monitor the exclusion and
buffer zones for 30 minutes prior to the
initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance);
• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as
to minimize the time spent with the
source activated prior to reaching the
designated run-in;
• One of the PSOs conducting preclearance observations must be notified
again immediately prior to initiating
ramp-up procedures and the operator
must receive confirmation from the PSO
to proceed;
• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any
marine mammal is within the applicable
exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine
mammal is observed within the
applicable exclusion zone or the buffer
zone during the 30 minute pre-clearance
period, ramp-up may not begin until the
animal(s) has been observed exiting the
zones or until an additional time period
has elapsed with no further sightings
(15 minutes for small odontocetes and
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55660
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for all
mysticetes and all other odontocetes,
including sperm whales, beaked whales,
and large delphinids, such as killer
whales and Risso’s dolphins);
• Ramp-up shall begin by activating a
single airgun of the smallest volume in
the array and shall continue in stages by
doubling the number of active elements
at the commencement of each stage,
with each stage of approximately the
same duration. Duration shall not be
less than 20 minutes. The operator must
provide information to the PSO
documenting that appropriate
procedures were followed;
• PSOs must monitor the exclusion
and buffer zones during ramp-up, and
ramp-up must cease and the source
must be shut down upon detection of a
marine mammal within the applicable
exclusion zone. Once ramp-up has
begun, detections of marine mammals
within the buffer zone do not require
shutdown, but such observation shall be
communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown;
• Ramp-up may occur at times of
poor visibility, including nighttime, if
appropriate acoustic monitoring has
occurred with no detections in the 30
minutes prior to beginning ramp-up.
Acoustic source activation may only
occur at times of poor visibility where
operational planning cannot reasonably
avoid such circumstances;
• If the acoustic source is shut down
for brief periods (i.e., less than 30
minutes) for reasons other than that
described for shutdown (e.g.,
mechanical difficulty), it may be
activated again without ramp-up if PSOs
have maintained constant visual and/or
acoustic observation and no visual or
acoustic detections of marine mammals
have occurred within the applicable
exclusion zone. For any longer
shutdown, pre-clearance observation
and ramp-up are required. For any
shutdown at night or in periods of poor
visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), rampup is required, but if the shutdown
period was brief and constant
observation was maintained, preclearance watch of 30 minutes is not
required; and
• Testing of the acoustic source
involving all elements requires rampup. Testing limited to individual source
elements or strings does not require
ramp-up but does require pre-clearance
of 30 min.
Shutdown
The shutdown of an airgun array
requires the immediate de-activation of
all individual airgun elements of the
array. Any PSO on duty will have the
authority to delay the start of survey
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
operations or to call for shutdown of the
acoustic source if a marine mammal is
detected within the applicable
exclusion zone. The operator must also
establish and maintain clear lines of
communication directly between PSOs
on duty and crew controlling the
acoustic source to ensure that shutdown
commands are conveyed swiftly while
allowing PSOs to maintain watch. When
both visual and acoustic PSOs are on
duty, all detections will be immediately
communicated to the remainder of the
on-duty PSO team for potential
verification of visual observations by the
acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections
by visual PSOs. When the airgun array
is active (i.e., anytime one or more
airguns is active, including during
ramp-up) and (1) a marine mammal
appears within or enters the applicable
exclusion zone and/or (2) a marine
mammal (other than delphinids, see
below) is detected acoustically and
localized within the applicable
exclusion zone, the acoustic source will
be shut down. When shutdown is called
for by a PSO, the acoustic source will
be immediately deactivated and any
dispute resolved only following
deactivation. Additionally, shutdown
will occur whenever PAM alone
(without visual sighting), confirms
presence of marine mammal(s) in the
EZ. If the acoustic PSO cannot confirm
presence within the EZ, visual PSOs
will be notified but shutdown is not
required.
Following a shutdown, airgun activity
will not resume until the marine
mammal has cleared the 500-m EZ. The
animal would be considered to have
cleared the 500-m EZ if it is visually
observed to have departed the 500-m
EZ, or it has not been seen within the
500-m EZ for 15 min in the case of small
odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in
the case of mysticetes and large
odontocetes, including sperm whales,
beaked whales, killer whales, and
Risso’s dolphins.
The shutdown requirement can be
waived for small dolphins if an
individual is visually detected within
the exclusion zone. As defined here, the
small dolphin group is intended to
encompass those members of the Family
Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily
approach the source vessel for purposes
of interacting with the vessel and/or
airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This
exception to the shutdown requirement
applies solely to specific genera of small
dolphins (Lagenorhynchus and
Lissodelphis).
We include this small dolphin
exception because shutdown
requirements for small dolphins under
all circumstances represent
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
practicability concerns without likely
commensurate benefits for the animals
in question. Small dolphins are
generally the most commonly observed
marine mammals in the specific
geographic region and would typically
be the only marine mammals likely to
intentionally approach the vessel. As
described above, auditory injury is
extremely unlikely to occur for midfrequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids),
as this group is relatively insensitive to
sound produced at the predominant
frequencies in an airgun pulse while
also having a relatively high threshold
for the onset of auditory injury (i.e.,
PTS).
A large body of anecdotal evidence
indicates that small dolphins commonly
approach vessels and/or towed arrays
during active sound production for
purposes of bow riding, with no
apparent effect observed in those
delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012,
2018). The potential for increased
shutdowns resulting from such a
measure would require the Langseth to
revisit the missed track line to reacquire
data, resulting in an overall increase in
the total sound energy input to the
marine environment and an increase in
the total duration over which the survey
is active in a given area. Although other
mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g.,
large delphinids) are no more likely to
incur auditory injury than are small
dolphins, they are much less likely to
approach vessels. Therefore, retaining a
shutdown requirement for large
delphinids would not have similar
impacts in terms of either practicability
for the applicant or corollary increase in
sound energy output and time on the
water. We do anticipate some benefit for
a shutdown requirement for large
delphinids in that it simplifies
somewhat the total range of decisionmaking for PSOs and may preclude any
potential for physiological effects other
than to the auditory system as well as
some more severe behavioral reactions
for any such animals in close proximity
to the source vessel.
Visual PSOs shall use best
professional judgment in making the
decision to call for a shutdown if there
is uncertainty regarding identification
(i.e., whether the observed marine
mammal(s) belongs to one of the
delphinid genera for which shutdown is
waived or one of the species with a
larger exclusion zone).
Upon implementation of shutdown,
the source may be reactivated after the
marine mammal(s) has been observed
exiting the applicable exclusion zone
(i.e., animal is not required to fully exit
the buffer zone where applicable) or
following 15 minutes for small
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
odontocetes and pinnipeds, and 30
minutes for mysticetes and all other
odontocetes, including sperm whales,
beaked whales, killer whales, and
Risso’s dolphins, with no further
observation of the marine mammal(s).
L–DEO must implement shutdown if
a marine mammal species for which
take was not authorized, or a species for
which authorization was granted but the
takes have been met, approaches the
Level A or Level B harassment zones. L–
DEO must also implement shutdown if
any of the following are observed at any
distance:
• Any large whale (defined as a
sperm whale or any mysticete species)
with a calf (defined as an animal less
than two-thirds the body size of an adult
observed to be in close association with
an adult);
• An aggregation of six or more large
whales; and/or
• A North Pacific right whale.
Vessel Strike Avoidance
1. Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all
protected species and slow down, stop
their vessel, or alter course, as
appropriate and regardless of vessel
size, to avoid striking any protected
species. A visual observer aboard the
vessel must monitor a vessel strike
avoidance zone around the vessel
(distances stated below). Visual
observers monitoring the vessel strike
avoidance zone may be third-party
observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew members,
but crew members responsible for these
duties must be provided sufficient
training to (1) distinguish protected
species from other phenomena and (2)
broadly to identify a marine mammal as
a right whale, other whale (defined in
this context as sperm whales or baleen
whales other than right whales), or other
marine mammal.
2. Vessel speeds must also be reduced
to 10 knots or less when mother/calf
pairs, pods, or large assemblages of
cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
3. All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales. If a whale is observed
but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right
whale and take appropriate action.
4. All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from sperm whales and all other baleen
whales.
5. All vessels must, to the maximum
extent practicable, attempt to maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other protected species, with an
understanding that at times this may not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
be possible (e.g., for animals that
approach the vessel).
6. When protected species are sighted
while a vessel is underway, the vessel
shall take action as necessary to avoid
violating the relevant separation
distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel
to the animal’s course, avoid excessive
speed or abrupt changes in direction
until the animal has left the area). If
protected species are sighted within the
relevant separation distance, the vessel
must reduce speed and shift the engine
to neutral, not engaging the engines
until animals are clear of the area. This
does not apply to any vessel towing gear
or any vessel that is navigationally
constrained.
7. These requirements do not apply in
any case where compliance would
create an imminent and serious threat to
a person or vessel or to the extent that
a vessel is restricted in its ability to
maneuver and, because of the
restriction, cannot comply.
We have carefully evaluated the suite
of mitigation measures described here
and considered a range of other
measures in the context of ensuring that
we prescribe the means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on the
affected marine mammal species and
stocks and their habitat. Based on our
evaluation of the proposed measures, as
well as other measures considered by
NMFS described above, NMFS has
determined that the mitigation measures
provide the means effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) 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 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.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55661
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (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 marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
As described above, PSO observations
will take place during daytime airgun
operations. During seismic operations,
at least five visual PSOs would be based
aboard the Langseth. Two visual PSOs
would be on duty at all time during
daytime hours. Monitoring shall be
conducted in accordance with the
following requirements:
• The operator shall provide PSOs
with bigeye binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150;
2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus;
height control) of appropriate quality
(i.e., Fujinon or equivalent) solely for
PSO use. These shall be pedestalmounted on the deck at the most
appropriate vantage point that provides
for optimal sea surface observation, PSO
safety, and safe operation of the vessel;
and
• The operator will work with the
selected third-party observer provider to
ensure PSOs have all equipment
(including backup equipment) needed
to adequately perform necessary tasks,
including accurate determination of
distance and bearing to observed marine
mammals. PSOs must have the
following requirements and
qualifications:
• PSOs shall be independent,
dedicated, trained visual and acoustic
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55662
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
PSOs and must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider;
• PSOs shall have no tasks other than
to conduct observational effort (visual or
acoustic), collect data, and
communicate with and instruct relevant
vessel crew with regard to the presence
of protected species and mitigation
requirements (including brief alerts
regarding maritime hazards);
• PSOs shall have successfully
completed an approved PSO training
course appropriate for their designated
task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs
are required to complete specialized
training for operating PAM systems and
are encouraged to have familiarity with
the vessel with which they will be
working;
• PSOs can act as acoustic or visual
observers (but not at the same time) as
long as they demonstrate that their
training and experience are sufficient to
perform the task at hand;
• NMFS must review and approve
PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant
training course information packet that
includes the name and qualifications
(i.e., experience, training completed, or
educational background) of the
instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material
as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course;
• NMFS shall have one week to
approve PSOs from the time that the
necessary information is submitted,
after which PSOs meeting the minimum
requirements shall automatically be
considered approved;
• PSOs must successfully complete
relevant training, including completion
of all required coursework and passing
(80 percent or greater) a written and/or
oral examination developed for the
training program;
• PSOs must have successfully
attained a bachelor’s degree from an
accredited college or university with a
major in one of the natural sciences, a
minimum of 30 semester hours or
equivalent in the biological sciences,
and at least one undergraduate course in
math or statistics; and
• The educational requirements may
be waived if the PSO has acquired the
relevant skills through alternate
experience. Requests for such a waiver
shall be submitted to NMFS and must
include written justification. Requests
shall be granted or denied (with
justification) by NMFS within one week
of receipt of submitted information.
Alternate experience that may be
considered includes, but is not limited
to (1) secondary education and/or
experience comparable to PSO duties;
(2) previous work experience
conducting academic, commercial, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
government-sponsored protected
species surveys; or (3) previous work
experience as a PSO; the PSO should
demonstrate good standing and
consistently good performance of PSO
duties.
For data collection purposes, PSOs
shall use standardized data collection
forms, whether hard copy or electronic.
PSOs shall record detailed information
about any implementation of mitigation
requirements, including the distance of
animals to the acoustic source and
description of specific actions that
ensued, the behavior of the animal(s),
any observed changes in behavior before
and after implementation of mitigation,
and if shutdown was implemented, the
length of time before any subsequent
ramp-up of the acoustic source. If
required mitigation was not
implemented, PSOs should record a
description of the circumstances. At a
minimum, the following information
must be recorded:
• Vessel names (source vessel and
other vessels associated with survey)
and call signs;
• PSO names and affiliations;
• Dates of departures and returns to
port with port name;
• Date and participants of PSO
briefings;
• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean
Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort;
• Vessel location (latitude/longitude)
when survey effort began and ended and
vessel location at beginning and end of
visual PSO duty shifts;
• Vessel heading and speed at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change;
• Environmental conditions while on
visual survey (at beginning and end of
PSO shift and whenever conditions
changed significantly), including BSS
and any other relevant weather
conditions including cloud cover, fog,
sun glare, and overall visibility to the
horizon;
• Factors that may have contributed
to impaired observations during each
PSO shift change or as needed as
environmental conditions changed (e.g.,
vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions);
and
• Survey activity information, such as
acoustic source power output while in
operation, number and volume of
airguns operating in the array, tow
depth of the array, and any other notes
of significance (i.e., pre-clearance, rampup, shutdown, testing, shooting, rampup completion, end of operations,
streamers, etc.).
The following information should be
recorded upon visual observation of any
protected species:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Watch status (sighting made by PSO
on/off effort, opportunistic, crew,
alternate vessel/platform);
• PSO who sighted the animal;
• Time of sighting;
• Vessel location at time of sighting;
• Water depth;
• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass
direction);
• Direction of animal’s travel relative
to the vessel;
• Pace of the animal;
• Estimated distance to the animal
and its heading relative to vessel at
initial sighting;
• Identification of the animal (e.g.,
genus/species, lowest possible
taxonomic level, or unidentified) and
the composition of the group if there is
a mix of species;
• Estimated number of animals (high/
low/best);
• Estimated number of animals by
cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles,
calves, group composition, etc.);
• Description (as many distinguishing
features as possible of each individual
seen, including length, shape, color,
pattern, scars or markings, shape and
size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and
blow characteristics);
• Detailed behavior observations (e.g.,
number of blows/breaths, number of
surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving,
feeding, traveling; as explicit and
detailed as possible; note any observed
changes in behavior);
• Animal’s closest point of approach
and/or closest distance from any
element of the acoustic source;
• Platform activity at time of sighting
(e.g., deploying, recovering, testing,
shooting, data acquisition, other); and
• Description of any actions
implemented in response to the sighting
(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and
time and location of the action.
If a marine mammal is detected while
using the PAM system, the following
information should be recorded:
• An acoustic encounter
identification number, and whether the
detection was linked with a visual
sighting;
• Date and time when first and last
heard;
• Types and nature of sounds heard
(e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst
pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of
signal); and
• Any additional information
recorded such as water depth of the
hydrophone array, bearing of the animal
to the vessel (if determinable), species
or taxonomic group (if determinable),
spectrogram screenshot, and any other
notable information.
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
Reporting
A report must be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the end of the
cruise. The report would describe the
operations that were conducted and
sightings of marine mammals near the
operations. The report would provide
full documentation of methods, results,
and interpretation pertaining to all
monitoring. The 90-day report must
summarize the dates and locations of
seismic operations, all marine mammal
sightings (dates, times, locations,
activities, associated seismic survey
activities), and all information required
to be collected (as listed in the
preceding section).
The draft report shall also include
geo-referenced time-stamped vessel
tracklines for all time periods during
which airguns were operating.
Tracklines should include points
recording any change in airgun status
(e.g., when the airguns began operating,
when they were turned off, or when
they changed from full array to single
gun or vice versa). GIS files shall be
provided in ESRI shapefile format and
include the UTC date and time, latitude
in decimal degrees, and longitude in
decimal degrees. All coordinates shall
be referenced to the WGS84 geographic
coordinate system. In addition to the
report, all raw observational data shall
be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize the data collected as
described above and in the IHA. A final
report must be submitted within 30 days
following resolution of any comments
on the draft report.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine
Mammals
Discovery of injured or dead marine
mammals—In the event that personnel
involved in survey activities covered by
the authorization discover an injured or
dead marine mammal, the L–DEO shall
report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and
to the NMFS Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
report must include the following
information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the first discovery (and
updated location information if known
and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s)
(including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the
animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which
the animal was discovered.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
Vessel strike—In the event of a ship
strike of a marine mammal by any vessel
involved in the activities covered by the
authorization, L–DEO shall report the
incident to OPR, NMFS and to the
NMFS Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
report must include the following
information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
• Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
• Vessel’s course/heading and what
operations were being conducted (if
applicable);
• Status of all sound sources in use;
• Description of avoidance measures/
requirements that were in place at the
time of the strike and what additional
measure were taken, if any, to avoid
strike;
• Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, visibility)
immediately preceding the strike;
• Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Estimated size and length of the
animal that was struck;
• Description of the behavior of the
animal immediately preceding and
following the strike;
• If available, description of the
presence and behavior of any other
marine mammals present immediately
preceding the strike;
• Estimated fate of the animal (e.g.,
dead, injured but alive, injured and
moving, blood or tissue observed in the
water, status unknown, disappeared);
and
• To the extent practicable,
photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
Actions To Minimize Additional Harm
to Live-Stranded (or Milling) Marine
Mammals
In the event of a live stranding (or
near-shore atypical milling) event
within 50 km of the survey operations,
where the NMFS stranding network is
engaged in herding or other
interventions to return animals to the
water, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or
designee) will advise L–DEO of the need
to implement shutdown procedures for
all active acoustic sources operating
within 50 km of the stranding.
Shutdown procedures for live stranding
or milling marine mammals include the
following: If at any time, the marine
mammal the marine mammal(s) die or
are euthanized, or if herding/
intervention efforts are stopped, the
Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee)
will advise the IHA-holder that the
shutdown around the animals’ location
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55663
is no longer needed. Otherwise,
shutdown procedures will remain in
effect until the Director of OPR, NMFS
(or designee) determines and advises L–
DEO that all live animals involved have
left the area (either of their own volition
or following an intervention).
If further observations of the marine
mammals indicate the potential for restranding, additional coordination with
the IHA-holder will be required to
determine what measures are necessary
to minimize that likelihood (e.g.,
extending the shutdown or moving
operations farther away) and to
implement those measures as
appropriate.
Additional Information Requests—if
NMFS determines that the
circumstances of any marine mammal
stranding found in the vicinity of the
activity suggest investigation of the
association with survey activities is
warranted, and an investigation into the
stranding is being pursued, NMFS will
submit a written request to L–DEO
indicating that the following initial
available information must be provided
as soon as possible, but no later than 7
business days after the request for
information:
• Status of all sound source use in the
48 hours preceding the estimated time
of stranding and within 50 km of the
discovery/notification of the stranding
by NMFS; and
• If available, description of the
behavior of any marine mammal(s)
observed preceding (i.e., within 48
hours and 50 km) and immediately after
the discovery of the stranding.
In the event that the investigation is
still inconclusive, the investigation of
the association of the survey activities is
still warranted, and the investigation is
still being pursued, NMFS may provide
additional information requests, in
writing, regarding the nature and
location of survey operations prior to
the time period above.
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55664
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any responses (e.g., intensity,
duration), the context of any responses
(e.g., critical reproductive time or
location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the
number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this
information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’s implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, our analysis
applies to all species listed in Tables 1,
given that NMFS expects the anticipated
effects of the planned geophysical
survey to be similar in nature. Where
there are meaningful differences
between species or stocks, or groups of
species, in anticipated individual
responses to activities, impact of
expected take on the population due to
differences in population status, or
impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified
species-specific factors to inform the
analysis.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious
injury or mortality would occur as a
result of L–DEO’s planned survey, even
in the absence of mitigation, and none
is authorized. Similarly, non-auditory
physical effects, stranding, and vessel
strike are not expected to occur.
We are authorizing a limited number
of instances of Level A harassment of
seven species (low- and high-frequency
cetacean hearing groups only) and Level
B harassment only of the remaining
marine mammal species. However, we
believe that any PTS incurred in marine
mammals as a result of the planned
activity would be in the form of only a
small degree of PTS, not total deafness,
because of the constant movement of
both the R/V Langseth and of the marine
mammals in the project areas, as well as
the fact that the vessel is not expected
to remain in any one area in which
individual marine mammals would be
expected to concentrate for an extended
period of time. Since the duration of
exposure to loud sounds will be
relatively short it would be unlikely to
affect the fitness of any individuals.
Also, as described above, we expect that
marine mammals would likely move
away from a sound source that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
represents an aversive stimulus,
especially at levels that would be
expected to result in PTS, given
sufficient notice of the R/V Langseth’s
approach due to the vessel’s relatively
low speed when conducting seismic
surveys. We expect that the majority of
takes would be in the form of short-term
Level B behavioral harassment in the
form of temporary avoidance of the area
or decreased foraging (if such activity
were occurring), reactions that are
considered to be of low severity and
with no lasting biological consequences
(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al.,
2012).
Marine mammal habitat may be
impacted by elevated sound levels, but
these impacts would be temporary. Prey
species are mobile and are broadly
distributed throughout the project areas;
therefore, marine mammals that may be
temporarily displaced during survey
activities are expected to be able to
resume foraging once they have moved
away from areas with disturbing levels
of underwater noise. Because of the
relatively short duration (16 days) and
temporary nature of the disturbance, the
availability of similar habitat and
resources in the surrounding area, the
impacts to marine mammals and the
food sources that they utilize are not
expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual
marine mammals or their populations.
The tracklines of this survey either
traverse or are proximal to critical
habitat areas for the Steller sea lion and
to a feeding BIA for humpback whales.
However, only a portion of seismic
survey days would actually occur in or
near these areas. As described
previously, L–DEO’s planned tracklines
do not extend within 3 nmi of any
island, and L–DEO has agreed to reduce
the active array by half of the elements,
also reducing the total array volume by
half, over the 10 percent of planned
tracklines that are closest to shore.
Finally, L–DEO has agreed to maintain
a standoff distance around specific
Steller sea lion haul-outs and rookeries
such that the modeled Level B
harassment zone would not overlap a
3,000-ft (0.9-km) buffer around those
areas. Impacts to Steller sea lions within
these areas, and throughout the survey
area, are expected to be limited to shortterm behavioral disturbance, with no
lasting biological consequences.
Yazvenko et al. (2007b) reported no
apparent changes in the frequency of
feeding activity in Western gray whales
exposed to airgun sounds in their
feeding grounds near Sakhalin Island.
Goldbogen et al. (2013) found blue
whales feeding on highly concentrated
prey in shallow depths (such as the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conditions expected within humpback
feeding BIAs) were less likely to
respond and cease foraging than whales
feeding on deep, dispersed prey when
exposed to simulated sonar sources,
suggesting that the benefits of feeding
for humpbacks foraging on high-density
prey may outweigh perceived harm
from the acoustic stimulus, such as the
seismic survey (Southall et al., 2016).
Additionally, L–DEO will shut down
the airgun array upon observation of an
aggregation of six or more large whales,
which would reduce impacts to
cooperatively foraging animals. For all
habitats, no physical impacts to habitat
are anticipated from seismic activities.
While SPLs of sufficient strength have
been known to cause injury to fish and
fish and invertebrate mortality, in
feeding habitats, the most likely impact
to prey species from survey activities
would be temporary avoidance of the
affected area and any injury or mortality
of prey species would be localized
around the survey and not of a degree
that would adversely impact marine
mammal foraging. The duration of fish
avoidance of a given area after survey
effort stops is unknown, but a rapid
return to normal recruitment,
distribution and behavior is expected.
Given the short operational seismic time
near or traversing important habitat
areas, as well as the ability of cetaceans
and prey species to move away from
acoustic sources, NMFS expects that
there would be, at worst, minimal
impacts to animals and habitat within
these areas.
Negligible Impact Conclusions
The survey will be of short duration
(16 days of seismic operations), and the
acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the survey will
be small relative to the ranges of the
marine mammals that would potentially
be affected. Sound levels will increase
in the marine environment in a
relatively small area surrounding the
vessel compared to the range of the
marine mammals within the survey
area. Short-term exposures to survey
operations are not likely to significantly
disrupt marine mammal behavior, and
the potential for longer-term avoidance
of important areas is limited. The survey
vessel would pass Steller sea lion
critical habitat only briefly, and would
operate at half volume during the ten
percent of tracklines closest to the
islands.
The required mitigation measures are
expected to reduce the number and/or
severity of takes by allowing for
detection of marine mammals in the
vicinity of the vessel by visual and
acoustic observers, and by minimizing
the severity of any potential exposures
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
via shutdowns of the airgun array.
Based on previous monitoring reports
for substantially similar activities that
have been previously authorized by
NMFS, we expect that the mitigation
will be effective in preventing, at least
to some extent, potential PTS in marine
mammals that may otherwise occur in
the absence of the mitigation (although
all authorized PTS has been accounted
for in this analysis).
NMFS concludes that exposures to
marine mammal species and stocks due
to L–DEO’s survey will result in only
short-term (temporary and short in
duration) effects to individuals exposed,
over relatively small areas of the
affected animals’ ranges. Animals may
temporarily avoid the immediate area,
but are not expected to permanently
abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat
use, distribution, or foraging success are
not expected. NMFS does not anticipate
the takes to impact annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our determination that the impacts
resulting from this activity are not
expected to adversely affect the species
or stock through effects on annual rates
of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized;
• The activity is temporary and of
relatively short duration (16 days);
• The anticipated impacts of the
activity on marine mammals would
primarily be temporary behavioral
changes due to avoidance of the area
around the survey vessel;
• The number of instances of
potential PTS that may occur are
expected to be very small in number.
Instances of potential PTS that are
incurred in marine mammals are
expected to be of a low level, due to
constant movement of the vessel and of
the marine mammals in the area, and
the nature of the survey design (not
concentrated in areas of high marine
mammal concentration);
• The availability of alternate areas of
similar habitat value for marine
mammals to temporarily vacate the
survey area during the survey to avoid
exposure to sounds from the activity;
• The potential adverse effects on fish
or invertebrate species that serve as prey
species for marine mammals from the
survey will be temporary and spatially
limited, and impacts to marine mammal
foraging will be minimal; and
• The mitigation measures, including
visual and acoustic monitoring,
shutdowns, and use of the reduced array
in certain areas adjacent to Steller sea
lion critical habitat are expected to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
minimize potential impacts to marine
mammals (both amount and severity).
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
mitigation and monitoring measures,
NMFS finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity
will have a negligible impact on all
affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of
the MMPA for specified activities other
than military readiness activities. The
MMPA does not define small numbers
and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares
the number of individuals taken to the
most appropriate estimation of
abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether
an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. When the
predicted number of individuals to be
taken is fewer than one-third of the
species or stock abundance, the take is
considered to be of small numbers.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
There are several stocks for which the
estimated instances of take appear high
when compared to the stock abundance
(Table 6), or for which there is no
currently accepted stock abundance
estimate. These include the humpback
whale, fin whale, minke whale, sperm
whale, four species of beaked whale,
and the offshore stock of killer whales.
However, when other qualitative factors
are used to inform an assessment of the
likely number of individual marine
mammals taken, the resulting numbers
are appropriately considered small. We
discuss these in further detail below.
For all other stocks (aside from those
referenced above and discussed below),
the authorized take is less than onethird of the best available stock
abundance (recognizing that some of
those takes may be repeats of the same
individual, thus rendering the actual
percentage even lower).
Existing stock abundance estimates
for humpback whales, based on 2006
surveys, are 10,103 animals for the CNP
stock and 1,107 animals for the WNP
stock. If all takes are assumed to accrue
to the WNP stock, the resulting
percentage would not be a small
number. Here, we refer to additional
pieces of information that demonstrate
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55665
the authorized taking to be of no greater
than small numbers. First, Wade (2017)
provides a more recent estimate of
14,693 whales for the summer (feeding
area) abundance in the Aleutian Islands
and Bering Sea, which includes the
survey area. The total estimated take of
humpback whale (1,948 take incidents)
would be 13.3 percent of this estimated
summer abundance, i.e., less than
NMFS’ small numbers threshold of onethird of the best available abundance
estimate. Second, we expect that only
2.1 percent of whales encountered in
this area would be from the WNP DPS.
If we consider the WNP DPS to be a
reasonable approximation of the historic
WNP stock designation, then
approximately 41 takes should be
expected to accrue to the stock (or
approximately 3.7 percent of the 2006
abundance estimate for the WNP stock).
This information supports a
determination that the take
authorization for humpback whales
would be of no greater than small
numbers, for any stock.
The stock abundance estimates for the
fin, minke, beaked, and sperm whale
stocks that occur in the survey area are
unknown, according to the latest SARs.
Therefore, we reviewed other scientific
information in making our small
numbers determinations for these
species. As noted previously, partial
abundance estimates of 1,233 and 2,020
minke whales are available for shelf and
nearshore waters between the Kenai
Peninsula and Amchitka Pass and for
the eastern Bering Sea shelf,
respectively. For the minke whale, these
partial abundance estimates alone are
sufficient to demonstrate that the take
number of 29 is of small numbers. The
same surveys produced partial
abundance estimates of 1,652 and 1,061
fin whales, for the same areas,
respectively. For the fin whale, we must
turn to the only available region-wide
abundance estimate. Ohsumi and Wada
(1974) provided an estimated North
Pacific abundance of 13,620–18,680
whales. Using the lower bound
produces a proportion of 12.9 percent.
As noted previously, Kato and
Miyashita (1998) produced an
abundance estimate of 102,112 sperm
whales in the western North Pacific.
However, this estimate is believed to be
positively biased. We therefore refer to
Barlow and Taylor (2005)’s estimate of
26,300 sperm whales in the northeast
temperate Pacific to demonstrate that
the take number of 43 is a small
number. There is no abundance
information available for any Alaskan
stock of beaked whale. However, the
take numbers are sufficiently small
(ranging from 9–106) that we can safely
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
55666
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 175 / Wednesday, September 9, 2020 / Notices
assume that they are small relative to
any reasonable assumption of likely
population abundance for these stocks.
For reference, current abundance
estimates for other Pacific beaked whale
stocks include 3,044 Mesoplodont
beaked whales (California/Oregon/
Washington stock), 3,274 Cuvier’s
beaked whales (CA/OR/WA stock),
2,105 Blainville’s beaked whales
(Hawaii Pelagic stock), 7,619 Longman’s
beaked whales (Hawaii stock), and 723
Cuvier’s beaked whales (HI Pelagic
stock).
For the offshore stock of killer whale,
it would be unreasonable to assume that
all takes would accrue to this stock
(which would result in the take of 47
percent of the population). During
surveys from the Kenai Fjords to
Amchitka Pass in the central Aleutian
Islands, 59 groups totaling 1,038
individual killer whales were seen,
including 39 (66 percent) residents, 14
(24 percent) transients, 2 (3 percent)
offshore, and 4 (7 percent) unknown
(Wade et al., 2003). Based on this
information, we assume it relatively
unlikely that encountered killer whales
will be of the offshore stock, and that
take of offshore killer whales, if any,
would be of small numbers.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the activity (including the
mitigation and monitoring measures)
and the anticipated take of marine
mammals, NMFS finds that small
numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
There is some sealing by indigenous
groups in the survey area in the
Aleutian Islands. However, given the
temporary nature of the planned
activities and the fact that all operations
would occur more than 3 nmi from
shore, the activity would not be
expected to have any impact on the
availability of the species or stocks for
subsistence users. L–DEO conducted
outreach to the Aleut Marine Mammal
Commission and to the Alaska Sea Otter
and Steller Sea Lion Commission to
notify subsistence hunters of the
planned survey, to identify the
measures that would be taken to
minimize any effects on the availability
of marine mammals for subsistence
uses, and to provide an opportunity for
comment on these measures. L–DEO
received confirmation from the Aleut
Marine Mammal Commissioners that
there were no concerns regarding the
potential effects of the planned survey
on the potential availability of marine
mammals for subsistence uses. NMFS is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Sep 08, 2020
Jkt 250001
unaware of any other subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species that could be implicated by this
action. Therefore, NMFS has
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.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by
the regulations published by the
Council on Environmental Quality (40
CFR parts 1500–1508), the National
Science Foundation prepared an
Environmental Analysis (EA) to
consider the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects to the human
environment from this marine
geophysical survey in the Aleutian
Islands. NSF’s EA was made available to
the public for review and comment in
relation to its suitability for adoption by
NMFS in order to assess the impacts to
the human environment of issuance of
an IHA to L–DEO. In compliance with
NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well
as NOAA Administrative Order 216–6,
NMFS has reviewed the NSF’s EA,
determined it to be sufficient, and
adopted that EA and signed a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI). NSF’s
EA is available at www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/
envcomp/, and NMFS’ FONSI is
available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
action/incidental-take-authorizationlamont-doherty-earth-observatorymarine-geophysical-survey-2.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species.
The NMFS Office of Protected
Resources (OPR) ESA Interagency
Cooperation Division issued a Biological
Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on
the issuance of an IHA to L–DEO under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the
NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation
Division. The Biological Opinion
concluded that the proposed action is
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the sei whale, fin whale,
blue whale, sperm whale, humpback
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
whale (Western North Pacific DPS and
Mexico DPS), western North Pacific gray
whale, and western DPS of Steller sea
lion.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations,
NMFS has issued an IHA to L–DEO for
conducting a marine geophysical survey
in the Aleutian Islands beginning in
September 2020, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated.
Dated: September 2, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–19815 Filed 9–8–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XA426]
Caribbean Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Caribbean Fishery
Management Council (CFMC) will hold
its 171st public meeting (virtual) to
address the items contained in the
tentative agenda included in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
DATES: The CFMC 171st public meeting
(virtual) will be held on September 25,
2020, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting
will be at Eastern Day Time.
ADDRESSES: You may join the CFMC
171st public meeting (virtual) via
GoToMeeting from a computer, tablet or
smartphone by entering the following
address:
SUMMARY:
CFMC September 25, 2020, 9 a.m. to
3 p.m.
Please join the meeting from your
computer, tablet or smartphone. https://
global.gotomeeting.com/join/971749317
You can also dial in using your
phone.
United States: +1 (408) 650–3123.
Access Code: 971–749–317.
New to GoToMeeting? Get the app
now and be ready when the first
meeting starts:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/install/
971749317
In case there are problems with
GoToMeeting, and we cannot reconnect
E:\FR\FM\09SEN1.SGM
09SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55645-55666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19815]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XA439]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the
Aleutian Islands
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (L-DEO) to
incidentally harass marine mammals during a marine geophysical survey
in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska.
DATES: The authorization is effective for a period of one year, from
September 1, 2020, through August 31, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Laws, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as
well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be
obtained online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-lamont-doherty-earth-observatory-marine-geophysical-survey-2. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call
the contact listed above.
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On March 27, 2020, NMFS received a request from L-DEO for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey along and
across the Aleutian Andreanof Arc in Alaska. L-DEO submitted a revised
version of the application, which was deemed adequate and complete, on
June 25, 2020. NMFS published a proposed IHA for public review and
comment on July 28, 2020 (85 FR 45389). NMFS has authorized take of 24
species of marine mammals by harassment. For seven of these species,
taking by Level A and Level B harassment is authorized, with only Level
B harassment authorized for the remaining 17 species.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Researchers from L-DEO and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(WHOI), with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF),
proposed to conduct a high-energy seismic survey from the Research
Vessel (R/V) Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth) along and across the
Aleutian Andreanof Arc in Alaska during September-October 2020. The
two-dimensional (2-D) seismic survey will occur within the Exclusive
[[Page 55646]]
Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States. The survey will use a 36-
airgun towed array with a total discharge volume of ~6,600 cubic inches
(in\3\) (108,155 cm\3\) as an acoustic source, acquiring return signals
using both a towed streamer as well as ocean bottom seismometers
(OBSs).
The study will use 2-D seismic surveying to seismically image the
structure of the crust along and across the Andreanof segment of the
Aleutian Arc, an intact arc segment with a simple and well known
history. Existing geochemical analyses of igneous rocks from this
segment suggest an along-segment trend in crustal-scale fractionation
processes. Seismic velocity provides strong constraints on bulk
composition, and so seismic images will reveal the constructional
architecture, vertical fractionation patterns, and along-arc trends in
both of those things. Together with existing observations from surface
rocks (e.g., bulk composition, volatile content) and forcing parameters
(e.g., slab geometry, sediment input, deformation-inferred stress
regime), hypotheses related to controls on oceanic-arc crustal
construction and fractionation can be tested and refined.
Dates and Duration
The survey is expected to last for approximately 48 days, including
approximately 16 days of seismic operations, 19 days of equipment
deployment/retrieval, and 8 days of transits, and 5 contingency days
(accounting for potential delays due to, e.g., weather). R/V Langseth
will likely leave out of and return to port in Dutch Harbor, Alaska,
during September-October 2020.
Specific Geographic Region
The survey will occur within the area of approximately 49-53.5[deg]
N and approximately 172.5-179[deg] W. Representative survey tracklines
are shown in Figure 1, available online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-lamont-doherty-earth-observatory-marine-geophysical-survey-2. Tracklines in the vicinity of specific
Steller sea lion haul-outs and rookeries are designed to ensure that
the area assumed to be ensonified above the Level B harassment
threshold (see Estimated Take section) does not extend beyond a 3,000
ft (0.9 kilometers (km)) buffer around those areas. In addition, the
survey vessel will not physically travel within 3 nautical miles (nmi)
(5.5 km) of listed Steller sea lion rookeries. Some deviation in actual
track lines, including the order of survey operations, could be
necessary for reasons such as science drivers, poor data quality,
inclement weather, or mechanical issues with the research vessel and/or
equipment. The survey will occur within the EEZ of the United States,
including Alaskan state waters, ranging in depth from 35-7,100 meters
(m). Approximately 3,224 km of transect lines will be surveyed. Most of
the survey (73 percent) would occur in deep water (>1,000 m), 26
percent would occur in intermediate water (100-1,000 m deep), and
approximately 1 percent would take place in shallow water <100 m deep.
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
The procedures to be used for the survey would be similar to those
used during previous seismic surveys by L-DEO and involve conventional
seismic methodology. The survey will involve one source vessel, R/V
Langseth, which is owned by NSF and operated on its behalf by L-DEO. R/
V Langseth will deploy an array of 36 airguns as an energy source with
a total volume of 6,600 in\3\. The array consists of 36 elements,
including 20 Bolt 1500LL airguns with volumes of 180 to 360 in\3\
(2,950-5,800 cm\3\) and 16 Bolt 1900LLX airguns with volumes of 40 to
120 in\3\ (655-1,966 cm\3\). The airgun array configuration is
illustrated in Figure 2-11 of NSF and USGS's Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (PEIS; NSF-USGS, 2011). (The PEIS is available online
at: www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/usgs-nsf-marine-seismic-research/nsf-usgs-final-eis-oeis-with-appendices.pdf). The vessel speed during
seismic operations will be approximately 4.5 knots (~8.3 km/hour)
during the survey and the airgun array will be towed at a depth of 9 m.
The receiving system consists of OBSs and a towed hydrophone streamer
with a nominal length of 8 km. As the airguns are towed along the
survey lines, the hydrophone streamer transfers the data to the on-
board processing system, and the OBSs receive and store the returning
acoustic signals internally for later analysis.
The study consists of one east-west strike-line transect (~540 km),
two north-south dip-line transects (~420 km and ~285 km), connecting
multi-channel seismic (MCS) transects (~480 km), and an MCS survey of
the Amlia Fracture Zone (~285 km). (See Figure 1, available online.)
The representative tracklines have a total length of 2,010 km. The
strike- and dip-line transects will first be acquired using OBSs, which
will be deployed along one line at a time, the line will be surveyed,
and the OBSs will then be recovered, before moving onto the next line.
After all refraction data is acquired, the strike and dip lines will be
acquired a second time using MCS. The MCS transect lines and Amlia
Fracture Zone transect lines will be acquired only once using MCS.
Thus, the line km to be acquired during the entire survey is expected
to be approximately 3,255 km. There could be additional seismic
operations associated with turns, airgun testing, and repeat coverage
of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard, and 25 percent
has been added to the assumed survey line-kilometers to account for
this potential.
For the majority of the survey (90 percent), R/V Langseth will tow
the full array, consisting of four strings with 36 airguns (plus 4
spares) with a total discharge volume of 6,600 in\3\. In certain
locations (see Figure 1) closest to islands, only half the array (18
airguns) would be operated, with a total volume of approximately 3,300
in\3\ (54,077 cm\3\). The airguns would fire at a shot interval of 22
seconds (s) during MCS shooting with the hydrophone streamer and at a
120-s interval during refraction surveying to OBSs.
The seismometers consist of short-period multi-component OBSs from
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO). Fifty OBSs will be deployed
and subsequently retrieved by R/V Langseth prior to MCS surveying. When
an OBS is ready to be retrieved, an acoustic release transponder
(pinger) interrogates the instrument at a frequency of 12 kiloHertz
(kHz); a response is received at the same frequency. The burn-wire
release assembly is then activated, and the instrument is released from
its 36-kilogram iron grate anchor to float to the surface. Take of
marine mammals is not expected to occur incidental to L-DEO's use of
OBSs.
In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a multibeam
echosounder (MBES), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP), and an Acoustic
Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) will be operated from R/V Langseth
continuously during the seismic surveys, but not during transit to and
from the survey area. Take of marine mammals is not expected to occur
incidental to use of the MBES, SBP, or ADCP because they will be
operated only during seismic acquisition, and it is assumed that,
during simultaneous operations of the airgun array and the other
sources, any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the MBES,
SBP, and ADCP would already be affected by the airguns. However,
whether or not the airguns are operating simultaneously with the other
sources, given their characteristics (e.g., narrow downward-directed
beam), marine mammals would experience no more than one or two
[[Page 55647]]
brief ping exposures, if any exposure were to occur. Mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in
this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting).
Comments and Responses
A notice of proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on
July 28, 2020 (85 FR 45389). During the 30-day public comment period,
NMFS received a letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).
Please see the Commission's letter for full details regarding their
recommendations and rationale. The letter is available online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-lamont-doherty-earth-observatory-marine-geophysical-survey-2. A summary of the
Commission's recommendations as well as NMFS' responses is below.
Comment--Noting certain inconsistencies and errors in information
provided in L-DEO's application and NMFS' Federal Register notice, the
Commission recommends that NMFS (1) determine what the percentages of
the survey tracklines in the three depth strata should be, (2) ensure
that the same percentages of survey tracklines are used for Level A and
B harassment in each of the three depth strata, (3) re-estimate the
numbers of Level A and B harassment takes accordingly, and (4) ensure
that the total takes of low-frequency and high-frequency cetaceans and
Level B harassment takes of mid-frequency cetaceans, otariids, and
phocids are based on the Level A and B harassment takes added together.
Response--As noted in the Commission's letter, L-DEO provided
revised tables C-1 and D-1, which corrected various minor errors
described in the Commission's letter. Of greater substance, L-DEO also
revised the estimated take numbers to reflect the movement of certain
tracklines to minimize impacts on areas of importance to Steller sea
lions and sea otters, as described above (see Changes from the Proposed
IHA below for additional discussion). Correct values representing the
proportion of trackline in each depth stratum and associated size of
ensonified area were used in calculating the estimated takes, and the
total takes authorized represent the sum of estimated instances of
Level A harassment and Level B harassment, as recommended by the
Commission. NMFS does note that the supposed ``discrepancies''
referenced by the Commission regarding percentages of survey trackline
in each depth stratum appear instead to be a misunderstanding about
what these values represent. The values referenced by the Commission
from revised Table C-1 are not percentages of survey trackline, but
rather percentages of ensonified area in each depth stratum. Due to the
large size of the estimated Level B harassment ensonified areas
relative to the estimated Level A harassment ensonified areas, the
percentages of ensonified area within each depth stratum will be
different. Because the Level A harassment ensonified areas are all
generally small, the percentages of ensonified area per depth stratum
are essentially the same as the percentages of trackline per depth
stratum.
Comment--Describing what it believes to be the best available
information regarding Steller sea lion occurrence in the survey area,
the Commission recommends that NMFS ensure that the number of Level B
harassment takes of Steller sea lions are correct based on a revised
density of 0.0392 sea lions/km\2\ in shallow- and intermediate-water
depths and the same revised percentages of survey tracklines for Level
A and B harassment in each of the three depth strata.
Response--NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has
adopted it. Estimated takes of Steller sea lion have been revised in
part through incorporation of the recommended density values.
Comment--The Commission recommends that NMFS adjust the marine
mammal density estimates used in estimating potential takes using
either coefficients of variation (CVs) or standard deviations for L-
DEO's proposed survey, and reiterates a previous recommendation that
NMFS develop a policy and consistent approach for how L-DEO and other
NSF-affiliated entities should incorporate uncertainty in density
estimates that have been extrapolated from other areas or during other
times of the years or when the data themselves include high
uncertainty.
Response--NMFS does not concur with the Commission's recommendation
and does not adopt it. As noted by the Commission, it has previously
provided this same recommendation. NMFS has previously expressed its
disagreement with the recommendation, which we reiterate here.
The Commission states that ``[u]sing only the mean densities would
likely result in an underestimation of takes due to the CVs being so
much greater than the mean estimates.'' A CV simply shows the extent of
variability in relation to the mean of the population, but does not
indicate in which direction relative to the mean a true outcome will
lie. The Commission does not explain why use of the mean densities
would result in an underestimate of takes versus an overestimate of
takes and, in fact, both outcomes should be considered equally likely.
Therefore, the Commission's suggested approach of increasing the
density estimate through, e.g., use of the mean plus the CV, would be
unnecessarily precautionary. NMFS' implementing regulations state that
NMFS should rely on the best scientific evidence available in making
findings of negligible impact and no unmitigable adverse impact. There
is no requirement in the MMPA or NMFS' implementing regulations to
introduce unwarranted precaution into the analyses. While NMFS
acknowledges that there is uncertainty associated with any density
estimate, the take estimate methodology used here produces the most
appropriate estimate of potential takes.
NMFS indicated in its previous response to this comment that it is
open to consideration of specific correction factors for use for
specific circumstances or species in future IHAs and to further
discussion with the Commission. However, it appears that the Commission
misunderstood this comment as a commitment to take action. The
Commission states in its letter that ``[i]t has been more than a year
and NMFS has not contacted the Commission regarding this matter'' and
that ``NMFS has yet to advance the issue.'' NMFS does not believe that
it needs to develop a policy regarding this issue and, therefore, NMFS
does not intend to contact the Commission or take steps to advance an
issue that it does not believe requires action. However, NMFS
reiterates its willingness to discuss the issue with the Commission in
greater detail.
Comment--Noting its disagreement with L-DEO's approach to
estimating the size of various ensonified areas, the Commission
recommends that NMFS require L-DEO to either (1) re-estimate the
proposed Level A and B harassment zones and associated takes of marine
mammals using (a) both operational and site-specific environmental
parameters, (b) what the Commission believes to be a comprehensive
source model and (c) what the Commission believes to be an appropriate
sound propagation model for the proposed IHA or (2) collect or provide
the relevant acoustic data to substantiate that its modeling approach
is conservative for both deep- and intermediate-water depths beyond the
Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the Commission recommends that NMFS (1)
explain why sound channels with downward refraction, as well as
seafloor
[[Page 55648]]
reflections, are not likely to occur during the geophysical survey, (2)
specify the degree to which both of those parameters would affect the
estimation (or underestimation) of Level B harassment zones in deep-
and intermediate-water depths, (3) explain why L-DEO's model and other
modeling approaches provide more accurate, realistic, and appropriate
Level A and B harassment zones than BELLHOP (a different propagation
model favored by the Commission), particularly for deep- and
intermediate-water depths, and (4) explain why, if L-DEO's model and
other modeling approaches are considered best available science, other
action proponents that conduct seismic surveys are not implementing
similar methods, particularly given their simplicity.
Response--As noted by the Commission, these comments reflect a
longstanding disagreement between NMFS and the Commission regarding L-
DEO's approach to modeling the output of their airgun array and its
propagation through the water column. NMFS has previously responded to
similar Commission comments on L-DEO's modeling approach. We refer the
reader to previous Federal Register notices providing responses rather
than repeat them here (e.g., 84 FR 60059, November 07, 2019; 84 FR
54849, October 11, 2019; 84 FR 35073, July 22, 2019). Regardless of the
addition of slightly different points or modifications to the language
with which the Commission expresses these points, the gist of the
Commission's disagreement with L-DEO's modeling approach remains the
same. NMFS believes that its prior responses have adequately explained
the rationale for not following the Commission's recommendations and,
importantly, why L-DEO's modeling approach is adequate. NMFS will,
however, provide an additional detailed explanation of the reasons why
the Commission's recommendations regarding this matter are not followed
within 120 days, as suggested by the Commission and required by section
202 of the MMPA.
Comment--The Commission recommends that NMFS require L-DEO to (1)
analyze the data recorded on the OBSs to determine the extents of the
Level B harassment zones in shallow-, intermediate-, and deep-water
depths and specify how the in-situ zones compare to the Level B
harassment zones specified in the final authorization, (2) justify why
it did not use the maximum radii as its Level B harassment zones in
deep water for both the 36- and 18-airgun array as it did for
intermediate and shallow water, and (3) if the justification is
inconsistent with the approach taken for intermediate and shallow
water, revise the Level B harassment zones in deep water based on the
maximum radii and re-estimate the numbers of takes accordingly.
Response--Regarding the Commission's recommendation to conduct
analysis of OBS data, L-DEO has not previously undertaken the type of
analysis suggested by the Commission, and indicated to NMFS that it
does not have the expertise or capability to do so at this time. In
addition, we note that the Commission's recommendation is vague;
detailed direction would be needed from the Commission on how to
accomplish the recommended effort. This would need to include agreement
on the analytical approach in order to meet expectations and to ensure
acceptance of results. The Commission's recommendation does not
acknowledge the time it would take to perform the analysis or the level
of effort and cost that would be involved, e.g., experts needed to
obtain and review data, perform detailed comparative analysis,
preparation of a report. Based on these concerns, NMFS believes that
the recommendation is not practicable.
Also, implementation of this recommendation would not provide any
additional conservation value (e.g., improvement in mitigation
effectiveness) for the proposed survey. The analysis would be
retrospective and could be used to help inform analysis of future
surveys in the same area. However, there are no NSF-proposed seismic
surveys on the R/V Langseth for this region in the foreseeable future.
The Commission also recommended that NMFS require L-DEO to justify
why it did not use the maximum radii as its Level B harassment zones in
deep water. L-DEO used the maximum deep-water radii to estimate the
scaling factors discussed by the Commission, as the isopleths are not
spherical. The highest scaling factor (2.08) is obtained for the
maximum radii and when scaling to account for differences in towed
depths and/or volumes between sources, L-DEO uses the highest scaling
factor to be conservative. However, the maximum deep-water radii are
not used for defining the Level B harassment zones in deep water, but
rather the radii at 2,000 m depth.
The maximum radii for the 6,600 and 3,300 in\3\ arrays are at
depths of 10,129 m and 4,700 m, depths that are well below where marine
mammals would be encountered. Given the sound propagation loss in
water, the maximum radii would thus not be appropriate to define the
Level B harassment zones. L-DEO uses the radius at a 2,000 m depth, as
this is approximately the maximum relevant water depth for marine
mammals. The maximum radii were used for both intermediate and shallow
water as the water depth for these depth strata is less than 2,000 m.
In light of this justification, NMFS determined that revising the
Level B harassment zones in deep water based on the maximum radii is
not appropriate, and therefore, re-estimating the numbers of takes is
not warranted.
Comment--The Commission recommends that NMFS include in the final
authorization a requirement to use a method believed by the Commission
to be appropriate for estimating the numbers of marine mammals taken,
e.g., by applying relevant corrections to account for animals that are
not detected.
Response--NMFS appreciates the Commission's development of a
recommended approach to better estimate the numbers of marine mammals
that may have been taken during geophysical survey activities,
including marine mammals that were not detected. The ``Commission's
method'' (see the Commission's letter for additional discussion and
citation to a full description provided in an addendum to a 2019
Commission comment letter) involves correction of marine mammal
sightings data through use of proxies for marine mammal detectability
(f(0)) and platform/observer bias on marine mammal detection (g(0)),
and extrapolation of corrected marine mammal sightings data based on
the assumed extent of the Level B harassment zones.
However, NMFS does not concur with the recommendation to require L-
DEO to implement this approach because we do not have confidence in the
reliability of estimates of potential marine mammal take that would
result from use of the approach. The Commission does not address the
multiple assumptions that must be made in order to have confidence in
the estimates that would be produced through application of the method.
For example, the assumption that the application of proxy values for
g(0) and f(0) is appropriate is not justified (including application of
f(0) values to species for which no value is available and assuming
that application of f(0) to species in a wholly different region is
appropriate). Notably, g(0) values are typically derived on a platform-
specific basis, and even for specific observers--not generalized across
platforms, as the Commission's method would require.
[[Page 55649]]
Separately, the appropriate application of distance sampling
methods requires that certain assumptions are valid, and the Commission
does not explain why these assumptions should be assumed to be valid
during a seismic survey, as compared with typical line-transect surveys
operating without an active acoustic source. For example, a key
underlying concept of distance sampling methodology is that the
probability of detecting an animal decreases as its distance from the
observer increases. This cannot be assumed true during an active
seismic survey. NMFS believes it unlikely that the numerous assumptions
inherent to application of the Commission's method would be accepted in
a research context (where distance sampling approaches are typically
applied).
Furthermore, the area over which observations are to be
extrapolated through the Commission's method is a modeled ensonified
area. We do not believe it appropriate to assume a modeled ensonified
area is always accurate for purposes of estimating total take. In
purporting to estimate total takes, the method ignores the fact that
marine mammals exposed to a level of received sound assumed to cause
take for analytical purposes may not in fact respond behaviorally in a
way that equates to take, especially at great distance from the source.
NMFS believes it is important to focus on collection and reporting
of empirical data that can directly inform an assessment of the effects
of a specified activity on the affected species or stock. While there
may be value in an assessment of potential unobserved take, we need to
proceed cautiously in the development of derived values given our low
confidence in multiple inputs. NMFS is currently more broadly
evaluating monitoring requirements, including data collection,
interpretation, and reporting, as well as the specific issue the
Commission has raised, and is committed to developing improved
approaches.
Comment--The Commission recommends that NMFS require L-DEO to
specify in the final monitoring report (1) the number of days on which
the airgun array was active and (2) the percentage of time and total
time the array was active during daylight versus nighttime hours
(including dawn and dusk), and further recommends that NMFS require L-
DEO to include in its monitoring report all data to be collected under
section 5(d)(ii), (iii), and (iv) through specific stipulations in
section 6(a) of the final authorization.
Response--NMFS concurs with the recommendation and has included
these requirements in the IHA.
Comment--The Commission asserts that L-DEO and other NSF-affiliated
entities have not complied with all of the requirements set forth in
certain final IHAs, and recommends that, should the alleged
shortcomings occur again, NMFS refrain from issuing any further
authorizations to L-DEO and other NSF-affiliated entities until such
time that the monitoring reports include all of the required
information.
Response--NMFS appreciates the Commission's concern but will
consider any future requests for incidental take authorization from
NSF-affiliated entities according to the requirements of the MMPA.
Comment--The Commission asserts that ``only one of the last six
monitoring reports involving geophysical surveys conducted by L-DEO and
other NSF-affiliated entities has been posted on NMFS' website,'' and
recommends that NMFS post all final monitoring reports on its website
as soon as they are available.
Response--NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and it
is our practice to post all final monitoring reports on its website as
soon as they are available. All available monitoring reports involving
geophysical surveys conducted by L-DEO and other NSF-affiliated
entities are currently available on NMFS' website. We note that reports
are not yet available for the three most recent IHAs issued for these
activities.
Comment--The Commission recommends that NMFS include in all draft
and final IHAs the explicit requirements to cease activities if a
marine mammal is injured or killed during the specified activities,
including by vessel strike, until NMFS reviews the circumstances
involving any injury or death that is likely attributable to the
activities and determines what additional measures are necessary to
minimize additional injuries or deaths.
Response--NMFS does not expect that the proposed activities have
the potential to result in injury or mortality to marine mammals and
therefore does not agree that a blanket requirement for project
activities to cease would be warranted. NMFS does not agree that a
requirement for a vessel that is operating on the open water to
suddenly stop operating is practicable, and it is unclear what
mitigation benefit would result from such a requirement in relation to
vessel strike. The Commission does not suggest what measures other than
those prescribed in this IHA would potentially prove more effective in
reducing the risk of strike. Therefore, we have not included this
requirement in the authorization. NMFS retains authority to modify the
IHA and cease all activities immediately based on a vessel strike and
will exercise that authority if warranted.
With respect to the Commission's recommendation that NMFS include
these requirements in all proposed and final IHAs, NMFS determines the
requirements for mitigation measures in each authorization based on
numerous case-specific factors, including the practicability of the
measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things
as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case of a military readiness
activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact
on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. As NMFS must
make these determinations on a case by case basis, we therefore do not
agree with this recommendation.
Comment--The Commission recommends that NMFS refrain from issuing a
renewal for any authorization unless it is consistent with the
procedural requirements specified in section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the
MMPA.
Response--In prior responses to comments about IHA Renewals (e.g.,
84 FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 53342; August 28, 2020), NMFS
has explained how the Renewal process, as implemented, is consistent
with the statutory requirements contained in section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA and, therefore, we plan to continue to issue qualifying
Renewals when the requirements outlined on our website are met. Thus,
NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendation that we should not
issue a Renewal for any authorization unless it is consistent with the
procedural requirements specified in section 101(a)(5)(D)(iii) of the
MMPA. NMFS has found that the Renewal process is consistent with the
statutory requirements of the MMPA and, further, promotes NMFS' goals
of improving conservation of marine mammals and increasing efficiency
in the MMPA compliance process. Therefore, we intend to continue
implementing the Renewal process.
Changes From the Proposed IHA
The only substantive change from the proposed IHA is the revision
of take estimates. As noted in the notice of proposed IHA, L-DEO agreed
to modify its originally proposed tracklines in order to avoid takes of
sea otters (through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) and to minimize impacts on Steller sea lions (by moving
tracklines near specific, known sea lion rookeries such that the track
is
[[Page 55650]]
sufficiently distant from shore that the estimated Level B harassment
zone does not overlap with a 3,000 ft (0.9-km) buffer around these
areas). Although L-DEO had committed to these changes at the time of
publication of the notice of proposed IHA, take estimates had not yet
been revised accordingly. In addition, the take estimate for Steller
sea lions was revised through use of the adjusted density value
recommended by the Marine Mammal Commission (as discussed above). For
species where the take number changed, all take numbers decreased,
except for the Steller sea lion, where the increased density value led
to an increase in the take estimate.
During the public review period, NMFS-affiliated scientists noted
that a newly described species of beaked whale (Berardius minimus;
Yamada et al., 2019) could be present in the survey area. At least five
specimens of Sato's beaked whale have been reported from U.S. waters in
the vicinity of the eastern Aleutian Islands, St. George Island, and
the southern Alaska Peninsula (Morin et al., 2017). No information is
available regarding the occurrence of this species. Therefore, NMFS has
authorized take of one group of the species, as represented by the
average group size of Berardius spp. from Barlow (2016).
Finally, NMFS has included reporting requirements recommended by
the Marine Mammal Commission (discussed above).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and
more general information about these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's website
(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the survey area and summarizes information related to the population or
stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known.
For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by
the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable
population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and
mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross
indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. All MMPA stock information
presented in Table 1 is the most recent available at the time of
publication and is available in the 2019 SARs (Caretta et al., 2020;
Muto et al., 2020).
Table 1--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the Survey Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/SI
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae:
North Pacific right whale...... Eubalaena japonica.... Eastern North Pacific E/D; Y 31 (0.226; 26; 2015).. 0.05 0
(ENP).
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale..................... Eschrichtius robustus. ENP................... -; N 26,960 (0.05; 25,849; 801 139
2016).
Western North Pacific E/D; Y 290 (n/a; 271; 2016... 0.12 Unk
(WNP).
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback whale................. Megaptera novaeangliae Central North Pacific E/D; Y 10,103 (0.3; 7,891; 83 25
kuzira. (CNP) *. E/D; Y 2006). 3 2.6
Western North Pacific 1,107 (0.3; 865; 2006)
*.
Minke whale.................... Balaenoptera Alaska *.............. -; N Unknown............... n/a 0
acutorostrata
scammoni.
Sei whale...................... B. borealis borealis.. ENP................... E/D; Y 519 (0.4; 374; 2014).. 0.75 >=0.2
Fin whale...................... B. physalus physalus.. Northeast Pacific *... E/D; Y Unknown............... n/a 0.4
Blue whale..................... B. musculus musculus.. ENP................... E/D; Y 1,496 (0.44; 1,050; \6\ 1.2 >=19.4
2014).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale.................... Physeter macrocephalus North Pacific *....... E/D; Y Unknown............... n/a 4.7
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales):
Cuvier's beaked whale.......... Ziphius cavirostris... Alaska................ -; N Unknown............... n/a 0
Baird's beaked whale........... Berardius bairdii..... Alaska................ -; N Unknown............... n/a 0
Sato's beaked whale............ B. minimus............ n/a................... -; N Unknown............... n/a 0
Stejneger's beaked whale....... Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Alaska................ -; N Unknown............... n/a 0
Family Delphinidae:
Pacific white-sided dolphin.... Lagenorhynchus North Pacific \5\..... -; N 26,880 (n/a; 26,880; n/a 0
obliquidens. 1990).
Northern right whale dolphin... Lissodelphis borealis. CA/OR/WA *............ -; N 26,556 (0.44; 18,608; 179 3.8
2014).
Risso's dolphin................ Grampus griseus....... CA/OR/WA *............ -; N 6,336 (0.32; 4,817; 46 >=3.7
2014).
Killer whale................... Orcinus orca \4\...... ENP Offshore.......... -; N 300 (0.1; 276; 2012).. 2.8 0
[[Page 55651]]
ENP Gulf of Alaska, ...................... -; N 587 (n/a; 2012)....... 5.9 1
Aleutian Islands, and
Bering Sea Transient.
ENP Alaska Resident... ...................... -; N 2,347 (n/a; 2012)..... 24 1
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................ Phocoena phocoena Bering Sea \5\........ -; Y 48,215 (0.22; 40,150; n/a 0.2
vomerina. 1999).
Dall's porpoise................ Phocoenoides dalli Alaska \5\............ -; N 83,400 (0.097; n/a; n/a 38
dalli. 1991).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Otariidae (eared seals and
sea lions):
Northern fur seal.............. Callorhinus ursinus... Pribilof Islands/ D; Y 620,660 (0.2; 525,333; 11,295 399
Eastern Pacific. 2016).
Steller sea lion............... Eumetopias jubatus Western U.S........... E/D; Y 53,624 (n/a; 2018).... 322 247
jubatus.
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Harbor seal.................... Phoca vitulina Aleutian Islands...... -; N 5,588 (n/a; 5,366; 97 90
richardii. 2018).
Spotted seal................... P. largha............. Alaska *.............. -; N 461,625 (n/a; 423,237; 12,697 329
2013).
Ribbon seal.................... Histriophoca fasciata. Alaska *.............. -; N 184,697 (n/a; 163,086; 9,785 3.9
2013).
Northern elephant seal......... Mirounga California Breeding... -; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 4,882 8.8
angustirostris. 2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Stocks marked with an asterisk were addressed in further detail in the notice of proposed IHA.
\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.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is
coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For most 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's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some
cases presented as a minimum value. All M/SI values are as presented in the 2019 SARs.
\4\ Transient and resident killer whales are considered unnamed subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2020).
\5\ Abundance estimates for these stocks 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.
\6\ This stock is known to spend a portion of time outside the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, the PBR presented here is the allocation for U.S. waters only and is
a portion of the total. The total PBR for blue whales is 2.1 (7/12 allocation for U.S. waters). Annual M/SI presented for these species is for U.S.
waters only.
Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an
endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review
(Bettridge et al., 2015), NMFS established 14 distinct population
segments (DPS) with different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; September
8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do not
necessarily equate to the existing stocks designated under the MMPA and
shown in Table 1.
Within Alaska waters, four current humpback whale DPSs may occur:
The Western North Pacific (WNP) DPS (endangered), Hawaii DPS (not
listed), Mexico DPS (threatened), and Central America DPS (endangered).
Two humpback whale stocks designated under the MMPA may occur within
Alaskan waters: The Western North Pacific Stock and the Central North
Pacific Stock. Both these stocks are designated as depleted under the
MMPA. According to Wade (2017), in the Aleutian Islands and Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, encountered whales are most likely to be
from the Hawaii DPS (86.8 percent), but could be from the Mexico DPS
(11 percent) or WNP DPS (2.1 percent). Note that these probabilities
reflect the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval of the
probability of occurrence; therefore, numbers may not sum to 100
percent for a given area.
Additional detailed information regarding the potentially affected
stocks of marine mammals was provided in the notice of proposed IHA (85
FR 45389; July 28, 2020). No new information is available, and we do
not reprint that discussion here. Please see the notice of proposed IHA
for additional information.
Biologically Important Areas (BIA)
Several biologically important areas for marine mammals are
recognized in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska.
Critical habitat is designated for the Steller sea lion (58 FR 45269;
August 27, 1993). Critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the ESA
as (1) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or
biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species
and (b) which may require special management considerations or
protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species.
Designated Steller sea lion critical habitat includes terrestrial,
aquatic, and air zones that extend 3,000 ft (0.9 km) landward, seaward,
and above each major rookery and major haulout in Alaska. For the
Western DPS, the aquatic zone extends further, out 20 nmi (37 km)
seaward of major rookeries and haulouts west of 144[ordm] W. In
addition to major rookeries and haulouts, critical habitat foraging
areas have been designated in Seguam Pass, Bogoslof area, and Shelikof
Strait. Of the foraging areas, only Seguam Pass overlaps the
[[Page 55652]]
proposed survey area. The Bogoslof foraging area is located to the east
of the survey area, and Shelikof Strait is in the western Gulf of
Alaska. In addition, ``no approach'' buffer areas around rookery sites
of the Western DPS of Steller sea lions are identified. ``No approach''
zones are restricted areas wherein no vessel may approach within 3 nmi
(5.6 km) of listed rookeries; some of these are adjacent to the survey
area. In the Aleutian Islands, critical habitat includes 66 sites (26
rookeries and 40 haulout sites) and foraging areas in Seguam Pass
(within the proposed survey area) and the Bogoslof area (east of the
survey area). Please see Figure 1 of L-DEO's application for additional
detail.
Critical habitat has also been designated for the North Pacific
right whale (73 FR 19000; April 8, 2008). The designation includes
areas in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. However, the closest
critical habitat unit, in the Bering Sea, is more than 400 km away from
the proposed survey area. There is no critical habitat designated for
any other species within the region. In addition, a feeding BIA for
right whales is recognized to the south of Kodiak Island, and the
Bering Sea critical habitat unit is also recognized as a BIA.
For fin whales, a BIA for feeding is recognized in Shelikof Strait,
between Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula, and extending west to
the Semidi Islands. For gray whales, a feeding BIA is recognized to the
south of Kodiak Island, and a migratory BIA is recognized as extending
along the continental shelf throughout the Gulf of Alaska, through
Unimak Pass in the eastern Aleutian Islands, and along the Bering Sea
continental shelf. For humpback whales, feeding BIAs are recognized
around the Shumagin Islands and around Kodiak Island. These areas are
sufficiently distant from the proposed survey area that no effects to
important behaviors occurring in the BIAs should be expected. Moreover,
the timeframe of the planned survey does not overlap with expected
highest abundance of whales on the feeding BIAs or with gray whale
migratory periods.
A separate feeding BIA is recognized in the Bering Sea for fin
whales. Because the distribution of presumed feeding fin whales in the
Bering Sea is widespread, a wide region from the Middle Shelf domain to
the slope is considered to be a BIA. The highest densities of feeding
fin whales in the Bering Sea likely occur from June through September.
The BIA is considered as being in waters shallower than the 1,000-m
isobath on the eastern Bering Sea shelf, and does not extend past
approximately Unimak Pass in the Aleutian Islands. A gray whale feeding
BIA is recognized along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula. Marine
mammal behavior in these BIAs is similarly not expected to be affected
by the proposed survey due to distance and timing.
Large aggregations of feeding humpback whales have historically
been observed along the northern side of the eastern Aleutian Islands
and Alaska Peninsula, and a feeding BIA is recognized. Highest
densities are expected from June through September. The eastern edge of
the planned survey area is approximately 100 km west of the western
edge of the recognized BIA, but it is possible that the survey could
affect feeding humpback whales. For more information on BIAs, please
see Ferguson et al. (2015a, 2015b).
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.'' For more information on
UMEs, please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-unusual-mortality-events. Currently recognized
UMEs in Alaska involving species under NMFS' jurisdiction include those
affecting ice seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and gray whales.
Since June 1, 2018, elevated strandings for bearded, ringed and spotted
seals have occurred in the Bering and Chukchi seas in Alaska, with
causes undetermined. For more information, please visit:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska.
Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred
along the west coast of North America from Mexico through Alaska. As of
June 5, 2020, there have been a total of 340 whales reported in the
event, with approximately 168 dead whales in Mexico, 159 whales in the
United States (53 in California; 9 in Oregon; 42 in Washington, 55 in
Alaska), and 13 whales in British Columbia, Canada. For the United
States, the historical 18-year 5-month average (Jan-May) is 14.8 whales
for the four states for this same time-period. Several dead whales have
been emaciated with moderate to heavy whale lice (cyamid) loads.
Necropsies have been conducted on a subset of whales with additional
findings of vessel strike in three whales and entanglement in one
whale. In Mexico, 50-55 percent of the free-ranging whales observed in
the lagoons in winter have been reported as ``skinny'' compared to the
annual average of 10-12 percent ``skinny'' whales normally seen. The
cause of the UME is as yet undetermined. For more information, please
visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2020-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and.
Another recent, notable UME involved large whales and occurred in
the western Gulf of Alaska and off of British Columbia, Canada.
Beginning in May 2015, elevated large whale mortalities (primarily fin
and humpback whales) occurred in the areas around Kodiak Island,
Afognak Island, Chirikof Island, the Semidi Islands, and the southern
shoreline of the Alaska Peninsula. Although most carcasses have been
non-retrievable as they were discovered floating and in a state of
moderate to severe decomposition, the UME is likely attributable to
ecological factors, i.e., the 2015 El Ni[ntilde]o, ``warm water blob,''
and the Pacific Coast domoic acid bloom. The UME was closed in 2016.
More information is available online at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2015-2016-large-whale-unusual-mortality-event-western-gulf-alaska.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-
[[Page 55653]]
frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained.
Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are
provided in Table 2.
Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups (NMFS, 2018)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
(baleen whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales,
beaked whales, bottlenose
whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
(true porpoises, Kogia, river
dolphins, cephalorhynchid,
Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(underwater) (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(underwater) (sea lions and fur
seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Twenty-four marine mammal species (18 cetacean and six pinniped (two
otariid and four phocid) species) are considered herein. Of the
cetacean species that may be present, seven are classified as low-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), nine are classified
as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species and
the sperm whale), and two are classified as high-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., porpoises).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of similar specified
activities have been provided in other recent Federal Register notices,
including for activities occurring within the same specified
geographical region (e.g., 83 FR 29212, June 22, 2018; 84 FR 14200,
April 9, 2019; 85 FR 19580, April 7, 2020). Section 7 of L-DEO's
application provides a comprehensive discussion of the potential
effects of the proposed survey. We have reviewed L-DEO's application
and believe it is accurate and complete. No significant new information
is available. The information in L-DEO's application and in the
referenced Federal Register notices are sufficient to inform our
determinations regarding the potential effects of L-DEO's specified
activity on marine mammals and their habitat. We refer the reader to
these documents rather than repeating the information here. The
referenced information includes a summary and discussion of the ways
that the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their
habitat. Consistent with the analysis in our prior Federal Register
notices for similar L-DEO surveys and after independently evaluating
the analysis in L-DEO's application, we determine that the survey is
likely to result in the takes described in the Estimated Take section
of this document and that other forms of take are not expected to
occur.
The Estimated Take section includes a quantitative analysis of the
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity.
The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the
potential effects of the specified activity, the Estimated Take
section, and the Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the
likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are
likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.
Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources
The notice of proposed IHA provided a brief technical background on
sound, on the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics
used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the
specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Please see that document (85 FR 45389; July 28, 2020) for additional
information. For general information on sound and its interaction with
the marine environment, please see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008);
Richardson et al. (1995); Urick (1983).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through the IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes are primarily by Level B harassment, as use of
seismic airguns has the potential to result in disruption of behavioral
patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential
for auditory injury (Level A harassment) for mysticetes and high-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., porpoises). The mitigation and monitoring
measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the
extent practicable.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the
take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
[[Page 55654]]
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the take numbers.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of
underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably
expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or
to incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to
Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2012). NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based
on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS
predicts that marine mammals may be behaviorally harassed (i.e., Level
B harassment) when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above a
received level of 160 dB re 1 microPascal ([mu]Pa) root mean square
(rms) for the impulsive source (i.e., seismic airguns) evaluated here.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources
(impulsive or non-impulsive). L-DEO's seismic survey includes the use
of impulsive (seismic airguns) sources.
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds\*\ (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater).... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE)
has a reference value of 1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American
National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as
incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript
``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could
be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible,
it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and acoustic
propagation modeling.
L-DEO's modeling methodologies are described in greater detail in
Appendix A of L-DEO's IHA application. The survey would acquire data
using the 36-airgun array with a total discharge volume of 6,600 in\3\
at a maximum tow depth of 9 m. During approximately 10 percent of the
planned survey tracklines, the array would be used at half the total
volume (i.e., an 18-airgun array with total volume of 3,300 in\3\). L-
DEO's modeling approach uses ray tracing for the direct wave traveling
from the array to the receiver and its associated source ghost
(reflection at the air-water interface in the vicinity of the array),
in a constant-velocity half-space (infinite homogeneous ocean layer,
unbounded by a seafloor). To validate the model results, L-DEO measured
propagation of pulses from the 36-airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m in
the Gulf of Mexico, for deep water (1,600 m), intermediate water depth
on the slope (600-1,100 m), and shallow water (50 m) (Tolstoy et al.,
2009; Diebold et al., 2010).
L-DEO collected a MCS data set from R/V Langseth on an 8 km
streamer in 2012 on the shelf of the Cascadia Margin off of Washington
in water up to 200 m deep that allowed Crone et al. (2014) to analyze
the hydrophone streamer (>1,100 individual shots). These empirical data
were then analyzed to determine in situ sound levels for shallow and
upper intermediate water depths. These data suggest that modeled radii
were 2-3 times larger than the measured radii in shallow water.
Similarly, data collected by Crone et al. (2017) during a survey off
New Jersey in 2014 and 2015 confirmed that in situ measurements
collected by R/V Langseth hydrophone streamer were 2-3 times smaller
than the predicted radii.
L-DEO model results are used to determine the assumed radial
distance to the 160-dB rms threshold for these arrays in deep water
(>1,000 m) (down to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m). Water depths in
the project area may be up to 7,100 m, but marine mammals in the region
are generally not anticipated to dive below 2,000 m (Costa and
Williams, 1999). For the 36-airgun array, the estimated radial distance
for intermediate (100-1,000 m) and shallow (<100 m) water depths is
taken from Crone et al. (2014). L-DEO typically derives estimated
distances for intermediate water depths by applying a correction factor
of 1.5 to the model results for deep water. The Crone et al.
[[Page 55655]]
(2014) empirical data produce results consistent with L-DEO's typical
approach (8,233 m versus 8,444 m). For the 18-airgun array, the radii
for shallow and intermediate-water depths are taken from Crone et al.
(2014) and scaled to account for the difference in airgun volume.
The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleths for the
arrays are shown in Table 4.
Table 4--Predicted Radial Distances to Isopleths Corresponding to Level B Harassment Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Source and volume Tow depth (m) Water depth harassment
(m) zone (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36 airgun array; 6,600 in \3\................................... 9 >1,000 \1\ 5,629
100-1,000 \3\ 8,233
<100 \3\ 11,000
18 airgun array; 3,300 in \3\................................... 9 >1,000 \1\ 3,562
100-1,000 \2\ 3,939
<100 \2\ 5,263
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distance based on L-DEO model results.
\2\ Based on empirical data from Crone et al. (2014) with scaling factor based on deep-water modeling applied to
account for differences in array size.
\3\ Based on empirical data from Crone et al. (2014).
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary
based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on
modeling performed by L-DEO using the NUCLEUS source modeling software
program and the NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The acoustic
thresholds for impulsive sounds (e.g., airguns) contained in the
Technical Guidance were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds
using both cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) and peak
sound pressure metrics (NMFS 2018). As dual metrics, NMFS considers
onset of PTS (Level A harassment) to have occurred when either one of
the two metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the largest
isopleth). The SELcum metric considers both level and
duration of exposure, as well as auditory weighting functions by marine
mammal hearing group. In recognition of the fact that the requirement
to calculate Level A harassment ensonified areas could be more
technically challenging to predict due to the duration component and
the use of weighting functions in the new SELcum thresholds,
NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine
mammal density or occurrence to facilitate the estimation of take
numbers.
The values for SELcum and peak sound pressure level
(SPL) for the Langseth airgun arrays were derived from calculating the
modified far-field signature. The farfield signature is often used as a
theoretical representation of the source level. To compute the farfield
signature, the source level is estimated at a large distance below the
array (e.g., 9 km), and this level is back projected mathematically to
a notional distance of 1 m from the array's geometrical center.
However, when the source is an array of multiple airguns separated in
space, the source level from the theoretical farfield signature is not
necessarily the best measurement of the source level that is physically
achieved at the source (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Near the source (at
short ranges, distances <1 km), the pulses of sound pressure from each
individual airgun in the source array do not stack constructively, as
they do for the theoretical farfield signature. The pulses from the
different airguns spread out in time such that the source levels
observed or modeled are the result of the summation of pulses from a
few airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al., 2009). At larger
distances, away from the source array center, sound pressure of all the
airguns in the array stack coherently, but not within one time sample,
resulting in smaller source levels (a few dB) than the source level
derived from the farfield signature. Because the farfield signature
does not take into account the large array effect near the source and
is calculated as a point source, the modified farfield signature is a
more appropriate measure of the sound source level for distributed
sound sources, such as airgun arrays. L-DEO used the acoustic modeling
methodology as used for estimating Level B harassment distances with a
small grid step of 1 m in both the inline and depth directions. The
propagation modeling takes into account all airgun interactions at
short distances from the source, including interactions between
subarrays, which are modeled using the NUCLEUS software to estimate the
notional signature and MATLAB software to calculate the pressure signal
at each mesh point of a grid.
In order to more realistically incorporate the Technical Guidance's
weighting functions over the seismic array's full acoustic band,
unweighted spectrum data for the Langseth's airgun array (modeled in 1
Hz bands) were used to make adjustments (dB) to the unweighted spectrum
levels, by frequency, according to the weighting functions for each
relevant marine mammal hearing group. These adjusted/weighted spectrum
levels were then converted to pressures ([mu]Pa) in order to integrate
them over the entire broadband spectrum, resulting in broadband
weighted source levels by hearing group that could be directly
incorporated within the User Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the
Spreadsheet's more simple weighting factor adjustment). Using the User
Spreadsheet's ``safe distance'' methodology for mobile sources
(described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the hearing group-specific
weighted source levels, and inputs assuming spherical spreading
propagation and source velocities and shot intervals specific to the
planned survey, potential radial distances to auditory injury zones
were then calculated for SELcum thresholds.
Inputs to the User Spreadsheet in the form of estimated source
levels are shown in Appendix A of L-DEO's application. User
Spreadsheets used by L-DEO to estimate distances to Level A harassment
isopleths for the airgun arrays are also provided in Appendix A of the
application. Outputs from the User Spreadsheets in the form of
estimated distances to Level A harassment isopleths for the survey are
shown in Table 5. As described above, NMFS considers onset of PTS
(Level A harassment) to have occurred when either one of the dual
metrics (SELcum
[[Page 55656]]
and Peak SPLflat) is exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the
largest isopleth).
Table 5--Modeled Radial Distances (m) to Isopleths Corresponding to Level A Harassment Thresholds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zone (m)
Source (volume) Threshold -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids Otariids
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-airgun array (6,600 in\3\)........... SELcum........................ 376 0 1 10 0
Peak.......................... 39 14 229 42 11
18-airgun array (3,300 in\3\)........... SELcum........................ 55 0 0 2 0
Peak.......................... 23 11 119 25 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that because of some of the assumptions included in the
methods used (e.g., stationary receiver with no vertical or horizontal
movement in response to the acoustic source), isopleths produced may be
overestimates to some degree, which will ultimately result in some
degree of overestimation of Level A harassment. However, these tools
offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not available, and NMFS continues to
develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools and will
qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For mobile sources,
such as this seismic survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest
distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound
source traveled by the animal in a straight line at a constant speed.
Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans,
otariid pinnipeds, and phocid pinnipeds given very small modeled zones
of injury for those species (all estimated zones less than 15 m for
mid-frequency cetaceans and otariid pinnipeds, up to a maximum of 42 m
for phocid pinnipeds), in context of distributed source dynamics. The
source level of the array is a theoretical definition assuming a point
source and measurement in the far-field of the source (MacGillivray,
2006). As described by Caldwell and Dragoset (2000), an array is not a
point source, but one that spans a small area. In the far-field,
individual elements in arrays will effectively work as one source
because individual pressure peaks will have coalesced into one
relatively broad pulse. The array can then be considered a ``point
source.'' For distances within the near-field, i.e., approximately 2-3
times the array dimensions, pressure peaks from individual elements do
not arrive simultaneously because the observation point is not
equidistant from each element. The effect is destructive interference
of the outputs of each element, so that peak pressures in the near-
field will be significantly lower than the output of the largest
individual element. Here, the peak isopleth distances would in all
cases be expected to be within the near-field of the array where the
definition of source level breaks down. Therefore, actual locations
within this distance of the array center where the sound level exceeds
peak SPL isopleth distances would not necessarily exist. In general,
Caldwell and Dragoset (2000) suggest that the near-field for airgun
arrays is considered to extend out to approximately 250 m. We provided
additional discussion and quantitative support for this theoretical
argument in the notice of proposed IHA. Please see that notice (85 FR
45389; July 28, 2020) for additional information.
In consideration of the received sound levels in the near-field as
described above, we expect the potential for Level A harassment of mid-
frequency cetaceans, otariid pinnipeds, and phocid pinnipeds to be de
minimis, even before the likely moderating effects of aversion and/or
other compensatory behaviors (e.g., Nachtigall et al., 2018) are
considered. We do not believe that Level A harassment is a likely
outcome for any mid-frequency cetacean, otariid pinniped, or phocid
pinniped and do not propose to authorize any Level A harassment for
these species. Any estimated exposures above Level A harassment
criteria are assumed to be takes by Level B harassment instead (see
Table 6).
Marine Mammal Occurrence
Information about the presence, density, and group dynamics of
marine mammals that informs the take calculations was provided in our
notice of proposed IHA (85 FR 45389; July 28, 2020). That information
is not re-printed here. For additional detail, please see the proposed
IHA notice and Appendix B of L-DEO's application. Density values are
provided in Table B-1 of L-DEO's application. No new information is
available since we published the notice of proposed IHA, and no changes
have been made, other than those described in the Changes from the
Proposed IHA section, provided previously in this document.
The Marine Mammal Commission noted several concerns with the
density values used for Steller sea lions. As noted by the Commission,
L-DEO used data from Department of the Navy (2014), which relied on
abundance estimates from the 2008 stock assessment report divided by an
area. The Commission raised the following issues: (1) Abundance
estimates have increased since the 2008 SAR and the original estimates
were based on portions of the eastern stock of Steller sea lions that
would not occur in L-DEO's survey area; (2) the density value should be
corrected on the basis of telemetry data, as done in Department of the
Navy (2019); and (3) true density estimates may be even greater in
shallow waters near critical habitat areas. For these reasons, the
Commission recommended use of a corrected, revised density value of
0.0392 sea lions/km\2\ in shallow- and intermediate-water depths, while
retaining the estimate of 0.0098 sea lions/km\2\ in deep water. NMFS
concurred with the recommendation and the take calculations for
shallow- and intermediate-water depths were revised accordingly.
In addition, as described in Changes from the Proposed IHA, NMFS
was made aware of the potential occurrence of Sato's beaked whale (a
newly described species previously considered to be a conspecific form
of Baird's beaked whale) in the survey area and added a nominal amount
of take in the form of one mean group size. This inclusion likely
represents an overestimate of actual take, as occurrence of Sato's
beaked whale would have been accounted for in the existing density
estimates for Baird's beaked whale. However, we determined it
appropriate to acknowledge the presence and potential exposure of this
new species.
[[Page 55657]]
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate
the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels
that would result in Level A or Level B harassment, radial distances
from the airgun array to predicted isopleths corresponding to the Level
A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as
described above. Those radial distances are then used to calculate the
area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound
levels that exceed the Level A and Level B harassment thresholds. The
distance for the 160-dB threshold (based on L-DEO model results) was
used to draw a buffer around every transect line in a geographic
information system (GIS) to determine the total ensonified area in each
depth category. Estimated incidents of exposure above Level A and Level
B harassment criteria are presented in Table 6. As noted previously, L-
DEO has added 25 percent in the form of operational days, which is
equivalent to adding 25 percent to the proposed line-kms to be
surveyed. This accounts for the possibility that additional operational
days are required, but likely results in an overestimate of actual
exposures.
The estimated marine mammal exposures above harassment thresholds
are generally assumed here to equate to take, and the estimates form
the basis for our take authorization numbers. For the species for which
NMFS does not expect there to be a reasonable potential for take by
Level A harassment to occur, i.e., mid-frequency cetaceans and all
pinnipeds, the estimated exposures above Level A harassment thresholds
have been added to the estimated exposures above the Level B harassment
threshold to produce a total number of incidents of take by Level B
harassment that is authorized. Estimated exposures and authorized take
numbers are shown in Table 6. Regarding humpback whale take numbers, we
assume that whales encountered will follow Wade (2017), i.e., that 86.8
percent of takes would accrue to the Hawaii DPS, 11 percent to the
Mexico DPS, and 2.1 percent to the WNP DPS. Of the estimated take of
gray whales, we assume that 1.1 percent of encountered whales would be
from the WNP stock (Carretta et al., 2019) and authorize take
accordingly.
Importantly, as described in the Changes from the Proposed IHA
section, revised take numbers have been produced after accounting for
modification of planned tracklines to avoid take of sea otters and to
maintain a larger buffer around specific Steller sea lion haul-outs and
rookeries. Aside from the change to Steller sea lion density in
shallow- and intermediate-depth waters and the addition of take of
Sato's beaked whale, all changes to take numbers from the notice of
proposed IHA result from revised calculations accounting for these
shifts in planned tracklines.
Table 6--Estimated Taking by Level A and Level B Harassment, and Percentage of Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Authorized Authorized
Species Stock \1\ Level A Level B Level A Level B Total take Percent of
harassment harassment harassment harassment stock \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Pacific right whale \2\.............. ............................. 0 0 0 2 2 6.5
Humpback whale............................. WNP.......................... 106 1,842 106 1,842 1,948 176.0
CNP.......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 19.3
Blue whale................................. ............................. 2 23 2 23 25 1.7
Fin whale \5\.............................. ............................. 104 1,650 104 1,650 1,754 n/a
Sei whale.................................. ............................. 0 5 0 5 5 1.0
Minke whale \5\............................ ............................. 2 27 2 27 29 n/a
Gray whale................................. ENP.......................... 1 61 1 61 62 0.2
WNP.......................... 0 1 0 1 1 0.3
Sperm whale \5\............................ ............................. 0 43 0 43 43 n/a
Baird's beaked whale \5\................... ............................. 0 24 0 24 24 n/a
Sato's beaked whale \5\.................... ............................. ........... ........... 0 9 9 n/a
Stejneger's beaked whale 3 5............... ............................. 0 47 0 47 47 n/a
Cuvier's beaked whale \5\.................. ............................. 0 106 0 106 106 n/a
Pacific white-sided dolphin................ ............................. 2 1,000 0 1,002 1,002 3.7
Northern right whale dolphin \3\........... ............................. ........... ........... 0 58 58 0.2
Risso's dolphin \3\........................ ............................. 0 0 0 22 22 0.3
Killer whale............................... Offshore..................... 0 141 0 141 141 47.0
Transient.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 24.0
Resident..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 6.0
Dall's porpoise............................ ............................. 157 4,312 157 4,312 4,469 5.4
Harbor porpoise............................ ............................. 23 679 23 679 702 1.5
Northern fur seal.......................... ............................. 1 788 0 789 789 0.1
Steller sea lion........................... ............................. 2 907 0 909 909 1.7
Northern elephant seal..................... ............................. 1 105 0 106 106 0.1
Harbor seal................................ ............................. 1 148 0 149 149 2.7
Spotted seal \4\........................... ............................. ........... ........... 0 5 5 0.0
Ribbon seal \4\............................ ............................. ........... ........... 0 5 5 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In most cases, where multiple stocks are being affected, for the purposes of calculating the percentage of the stock impacted, the take is being
analyzed as if all takes occurred within each stock. Where necessary, additional discussion is provided in the ``Small Numbers Analysis'' section.
\2\ In the notice of proposed IHA, estimated exposure of one whale was increased to group size of two (Shelden et al., 2005; Waite et al., 2003; Wade et
al., 2011). Following revision of the take estimates, no exposures of North Pacific right whale are predicted. We retain the take number, reflecting
potential exposure of one group of two whales.
\3\ L-DEO requested authorization of northern right whale dolphin take equivalent to exposure of one group. In the notice of proposed IHA, estimated
exposure of one Risso's dolphin was increased to group size of 22. Following revision of the take estimates, no exposures of Risso's dolphin are
predicted. We retain the take number, reflecting potential exposure of one group of 22 dolphins. Take of Sato's beaked whale reflects mean group size
information for Baird's beaked whale. Group sizes for these species follow Barlow (2016).
\4\ L-DEO requested authorization of five takes each of spotted seal and ribbon seal.
\5\ As noted in Table 1, there is no estimate of abundance available for these species.
[[Page 55658]]
Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness activity.
As described previously, L-DEO agreed to modify certain tracklines
in order to reduce the number and intensity of acoustic exposures of
Steller sea lions in waters around the specific haul-outs and rookeries
of greatest importance for the stock. Tracklines were modified to
ensure that the vessel maintains a standoff distance sufficient to
prevent the assumed Level B harassment zone from overlapping with a
3,000-ft (0.9-km) buffer around those haul-outs and rookeries.
Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation Monitoring
Visual monitoring requires the use of trained observers (herein
referred to as visual protected species observers (PSO)) to scan the
ocean surface for the presence of marine mammals. The area to be
scanned visually includes primarily the exclusion zone, within which
observation of certain marine mammals requires shutdown of the acoustic
source, but also a buffer zone. The buffer zone means an area beyond
the exclusion zone to be monitored for the presence of marine mammals
that may enter the exclusion zone. During pre-clearance monitoring
(i.e., before ramp-up begins), the buffer zone also acts as an
extension of the exclusion zone in that observations of marine mammals
within the buffer zone would also prevent airgun operations from
beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The buffer zone encompasses the area at and
below the sea surface from the edge of the 0-500 m exclusion zone, out
to a radius of 1,000 m from the edges of the airgun array (500-1,000
m). Visual monitoring of the exclusion zone and adjacent waters is
intended to establish and, when visual conditions allow, maintain zones
around the sound source that are clear of marine mammals, thereby
reducing or eliminating the potential for injury and minimizing the
potential for more severe behavioral reactions for animals occurring
closer to the vessel. Visual monitoring of the buffer zone is intended
to (1) provide additional protection to na[iuml]ve marine mammals that
may be in the area during pre-clearance, and (2) during airgun use, aid
in establishing and maintaining the exclusion zone by alerting the
visual observer and crew of marine mammals that are outside of, but may
approach and enter, the exclusion zone.
L-DEO must use dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved PSOs. The PSOs
must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record
observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel
crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation
requirements. PSO resumes shall be provided to NMFS for approval.
At least one of the visual and two of the acoustic PSOs (discussed
below) aboard the vessel must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea
experience working in those roles, respectively, with no more than 18
months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. One
visual PSO with such experience shall be designated as the lead for the
entire protected species observation team. The lead PSO shall serve as
primary point of contact for the vessel operator and ensure all PSO
requirements per the IHA are met. To the maximum extent practicable,
the experienced PSOs should be scheduled to be on duty with those PSOs
with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant
experience.
During survey operations (e.g., any day on which use of the
acoustic source is planned to occur, and whenever the acoustic source
is in the water, whether activated or not), a minimum of two visual
PSOs must be on duty and conducting visual observations at all times
during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise through
30 minutes following sunset). Visual monitoring of the exclusion and
buffer zones must begin no less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and
must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic source ceases or
until 30 minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure
360[deg] visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate
observation posts, and shall conduct visual observations using
binoculars and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a
consistent, systematic, and diligent manner.
PSOs shall establish and monitor the exclusion and buffer zones.
These zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the edges of
the acoustic source (rather than being based on the center of the array
or around the vessel itself). During use of the acoustic source (i.e.,
anytime airguns are active, including ramp-up), detections of marine
mammals within the buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) shall
be communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown
of the acoustic source.
During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime the acoustic source is
active, including ramp-up), detections of marine mammals within the
buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) should be communicated to
the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown of the acoustic
source. Visual PSOs will immediately communicate all observations to
the on duty acoustic PSO(s), including any determination by the PSO
regarding species identification, distance, and bearing and the degree
of confidence in the determination. Any observations of marine mammals
by crew members shall be relayed to the PSO team. During good
conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less),
visual PSOs shall conduct observations when the acoustic source is not
operating for comparison of sighting rates and
[[Page 55659]]
behavior with and without use of the acoustic source and between
acquisition periods, to the maximum extent practicable.
Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four consecutive hours
followed by a break of at least one hour between watches and may
conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period.
Combined observational duties (visual and acoustic but not at same
time) may not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period for any individual
PSO.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring
Acoustic monitoring means the use of trained personnel (sometimes
referred to as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) operators, herein
referred to as acoustic PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to acoustically
detect the presence of marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring involves
acoustically detecting marine mammals regardless of distance from the
source, as localization of animals may not always be possible. Acoustic
monitoring is intended to further support visual monitoring (during
daylight hours) in maintaining an exclusion zone around the sound
source that is clear of marine mammals. In cases where visual
monitoring is not effective (e.g., due to weather, nighttime), acoustic
monitoring may be used to allow certain activities to occur, as further
detailed below.
PAM would take place in addition to the visual monitoring program.
Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor
visibility or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to
detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual
range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual
observations to improve detection, identification, and localization of
cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring would serve to alert visual PSOs (if
on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It is only useful when
marine mammals call, but it can be effective either by day or by night,
and does not depend on good visibility. It would be monitored in real
time so that the visual observers can be advised when cetaceans are
detected.
The R/V Langseth will use a towed PAM system, which must be
monitored by at a minimum one on duty acoustic PSO beginning at least
30 minutes prior to ramp-up and at all times during use of the acoustic
source. Acoustic PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four consecutive
hours followed by a break of at least one hour between watches and may
conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period.
Combined observational duties (acoustic and visual but not at same
time) may not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period for any individual
PSO.
Survey activity may continue for 30 minutes when the PAM system
malfunctions or is damaged, while the PAM operator diagnoses the issue.
If the diagnosis indicates that the PAM system must be repaired to
solve the problem, operations may continue for an additional five hours
without acoustic monitoring during daylight hours only under the
following conditions:
Sea state is less than or equal to Beaufort sea state
(BSS) 4;
No marine mammals (excluding delphinids) detected solely
by PAM in the applicable exclusion zone in the previous two hours;
NMFS is notified via email as soon as practicable with the
time and location in which operations began occurring without an active
PAM system; and
Operations with an active acoustic source, but without an
operating PAM system, do not exceed a cumulative total of five hours in
any 24-hour period.
Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer Zones
An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined area within which occurrence of
a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the
potential for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory injury, disruption of
critical behaviors. The PSOs will establish a minimum EZ with a 500-m
radius. The 500-m EZ is based on radial distance from the edge of the
airgun array (rather than being based on the center of the array or
around the vessel itself). With certain exceptions (described below),
if a marine mammal appears within or enters this zone, the acoustic
source will be shut down.
The 500-m EZ is intended to be precautionary in the sense that it
would be expected to contain sound exceeding the injury criteria for
all cetacean hearing groups, (based on the dual criteria of
SELcum and peak SPL), while also providing a consistent,
reasonably observable zone within which PSOs would typically be able to
conduct effective observational effort. Additionally, a 500-m EZ is
expected to minimize the likelihood that marine mammals will be exposed
to levels likely to result in more severe behavioral responses.
Although significantly greater distances may be observed from an
elevated platform under good conditions, we believe that 500 m is
likely regularly attainable for PSOs using the naked eye during typical
conditions.
An extended EZ of 1,500 m must be enforced for all beaked whales.
No buffer of this extended EZ is required.
Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up
Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as ``soft start'') means the gradual
and systematic increase of emitted sound levels from an airgun array.
Ramp-up begins by first activating a single airgun of the smallest
volume, followed by doubling the number of active elements in stages
until the full complement of an array's airguns are active. Each stage
should be approximately the same duration, and the total duration
should not be less than approximately 20 minutes. The intent of pre-
clearance observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no protected species
are observed within the buffer zone prior to the beginning of ramp-up.
During pre-clearance is the only time observations of protected species
in the buffer zone would prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of
ramp-up). The intent of ramp-up is to warn protected species of pending
seismic operations and to allow sufficient time for those animals to
leave the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up procedure, involving a step-
wise increase in the number of airguns firing and total array volume
until all operational airguns are activated and the full volume is
achieved, is required at all times as part of the activation of the
acoustic source. All operators must adhere to the following pre-
clearance and ramp-up requirements:
The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned
start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification
time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up in
order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the exclusion and buffer zones
for 30 minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance);
Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time
spent with the source activated prior to reaching the designated run-
in;
One of the PSOs conducting pre-clearance observations must
be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures
and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed;
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is
within the applicable exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine mammal is
observed within the applicable exclusion zone or the buffer zone during
the 30 minute pre-clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the
animal(s) has been observed exiting the zones or until an additional
time period has elapsed with no further sightings (15 minutes for small
odontocetes and
[[Page 55660]]
pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for all mysticetes and all other odontocetes,
including sperm whales, beaked whales, and large delphinids, such as
killer whales and Risso's dolphins);
Ramp-up shall begin by activating a single airgun of the
smallest volume in the array and shall continue in stages by doubling
the number of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with
each stage of approximately the same duration. Duration shall not be
less than 20 minutes. The operator must provide information to the PSO
documenting that appropriate procedures were followed;
PSOs must monitor the exclusion and buffer zones during
ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon
detection of a marine mammal within the applicable exclusion zone. Once
ramp-up has begun, detections of marine mammals within the buffer zone
do not require shutdown, but such observation shall be communicated to
the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown;
Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including
nighttime, if appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic
source activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where
operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances;
If the acoustic source is shut down for brief periods
(i.e., less than 30 minutes) for reasons other than that described for
shutdown (e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be activated again
without ramp-up if PSOs have maintained constant visual and/or acoustic
observation and no visual or acoustic detections of marine mammals have
occurred within the applicable exclusion zone. For any longer shutdown,
pre-clearance observation and ramp-up are required. For any shutdown at
night or in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp-
up is required, but if the shutdown period was brief and constant
observation was maintained, pre-clearance watch of 30 minutes is not
required; and
Testing of the acoustic source involving all elements
requires ramp-up. Testing limited to individual source elements or
strings does not require ramp-up but does require pre-clearance of 30
min.
Shutdown
The shutdown of an airgun array requires the immediate de-
activation of all individual airgun elements of the array. Any PSO on
duty will have the authority to delay the start of survey operations or
to call for shutdown of the acoustic source if a marine mammal is
detected within the applicable exclusion zone. The operator must also
establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between
PSOs on duty and crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that
shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain
watch. When both visual and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all detections
will be immediately communicated to the remainder of the on-duty PSO
team for potential verification of visual observations by the acoustic
PSO or of acoustic detections by visual PSOs. When the airgun array is
active (i.e., anytime one or more airguns is active, including during
ramp-up) and (1) a marine mammal appears within or enters the
applicable exclusion zone and/or (2) a marine mammal (other than
delphinids, see below) is detected acoustically and localized within
the applicable exclusion zone, the acoustic source will be shut down.
When shutdown is called for by a PSO, the acoustic source will be
immediately deactivated and any dispute resolved only following
deactivation. Additionally, shutdown will occur whenever PAM alone
(without visual sighting), confirms presence of marine mammal(s) in the
EZ. If the acoustic PSO cannot confirm presence within the EZ, visual
PSOs will be notified but shutdown is not required.
Following a shutdown, airgun activity will not resume until the
marine mammal has cleared the 500-m EZ. The animal would be considered
to have cleared the 500-m EZ if it is visually observed to have
departed the 500-m EZ, or it has not been seen within the 500-m EZ for
15 min in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in the
case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm whales,
beaked whales, killer whales, and Risso's dolphins.
The shutdown requirement can be waived for small dolphins if an
individual is visually detected within the exclusion zone. As defined
here, the small dolphin group is intended to encompass those members of
the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach the source
vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or airgun array
(e.g., bow riding). This exception to the shutdown requirement applies
solely to specific genera of small dolphins (Lagenorhynchus and
Lissodelphis).
We include this small dolphin exception because shutdown
requirements for small dolphins under all circumstances represent
practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the
animals in question. Small dolphins are generally the most commonly
observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would
typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach
the vessel. As described above, auditory injury is extremely unlikely
to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), as this group
is relatively insensitive to sound produced at the predominant
frequencies in an airgun pulse while also having a relatively high
threshold for the onset of auditory injury (i.e., PTS).
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small dolphins
commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound
production for purposes of bow riding, with no apparent effect observed
in those delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012, 2018). The potential
for increased shutdowns resulting from such a measure would require the
Langseth to revisit the missed track line to reacquire data, resulting
in an overall increase in the total sound energy input to the marine
environment and an increase in the total duration over which the survey
is active in a given area. Although other mid-frequency hearing
specialists (e.g., large delphinids) are no more likely to incur
auditory injury than are small dolphins, they are much less likely to
approach vessels. Therefore, retaining a shutdown requirement for large
delphinids would not have similar impacts in terms of either
practicability for the applicant or corollary increase in sound energy
output and time on the water. We do anticipate some benefit for a
shutdown requirement for large delphinids in that it simplifies
somewhat the total range of decision-making for PSOs and may preclude
any potential for physiological effects other than to the auditory
system as well as some more severe behavioral reactions for any such
animals in close proximity to the source vessel.
Visual PSOs shall use best professional judgment in making the
decision to call for a shutdown if there is uncertainty regarding
identification (i.e., whether the observed marine mammal(s) belongs to
one of the delphinid genera for which shutdown is waived or one of the
species with a larger exclusion zone).
Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be reactivated
after the marine mammal(s) has been observed exiting the applicable
exclusion zone (i.e., animal is not required to fully exit the buffer
zone where applicable) or following 15 minutes for small
[[Page 55661]]
odontocetes and pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for mysticetes and all other
odontocetes, including sperm whales, beaked whales, killer whales, and
Risso's dolphins, with no further observation of the marine mammal(s).
L-DEO must implement shutdown if a marine mammal species for which
take was not authorized, or a species for which authorization was
granted but the takes have been met, approaches the Level A or Level B
harassment zones. L-DEO must also implement shutdown if any of the
following are observed at any distance:
Any large whale (defined as a sperm whale or any mysticete
species) with a calf (defined as an animal less than two-thirds the
body size of an adult observed to be in close association with an
adult);
An aggregation of six or more large whales; and/or
A North Pacific right whale.
Vessel Strike Avoidance
1. Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for
all protected species and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter
course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking
any protected species. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor
a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (distances stated
below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone
may be third-party observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew members, but crew
members responsible for these duties must be provided sufficient
training to (1) distinguish protected species from other phenomena and
(2) broadly to identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale
(defined in this context as sperm whales or baleen whales other than
right whales), or other marine mammal.
2. Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 knots or less when
mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed
near a vessel.
3. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a
species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume that
it is a right whale and take appropriate action.
4. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m
from sperm whales and all other baleen whales.
5. All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to
maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other protected
species, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible
(e.g., for animals that approach the vessel).
6. When protected species are sighted while a vessel is underway,
the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating the
relevant separation distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel to the
animal's course, avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction
until the animal has left the area). If protected species are sighted
within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must reduce speed
and shift the engine to neutral, not engaging the engines until animals
are clear of the area. This does not apply to any vessel towing gear or
any vessel that is navigationally constrained.
7. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance
would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to
the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and,
because of the restriction, cannot comply.
We have carefully evaluated the suite of mitigation measures
described here and considered a range of other measures in the context
of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and
stocks and their habitat. Based on our evaluation of the proposed
measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS described above,
NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means
effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) 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
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. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (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 marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
As described above, PSO observations will take place during daytime
airgun operations. During seismic operations, at least five visual PSOs
would be based aboard the Langseth. Two visual PSOs would be on duty at
all time during daytime hours. Monitoring shall be conducted in
accordance with the following requirements:
The operator shall provide PSOs with bigeye binoculars
(e.g., 25 x 150; 2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus; height
control) of appropriate quality (i.e., Fujinon or equivalent) solely
for PSO use. These shall be pedestal-mounted on the deck at the most
appropriate vantage point that provides for optimal sea surface
observation, PSO safety, and safe operation of the vessel; and
The operator will work with the selected third-party
observer provider to ensure PSOs have all equipment (including backup
equipment) needed to adequately perform necessary tasks, including
accurate determination of distance and bearing to observed marine
mammals. PSOs must have the following requirements and qualifications:
PSOs shall be independent, dedicated, trained visual and
acoustic
[[Page 55662]]
PSOs and must be employed by a third-party observer provider;
PSOs shall have no tasks other than to conduct
observational effort (visual or acoustic), collect data, and
communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the
presence of protected species and mitigation requirements (including
brief alerts regarding maritime hazards);
PSOs shall have successfully completed an approved PSO
training course appropriate for their designated task (visual or
acoustic). Acoustic PSOs are required to complete specialized training
for operating PAM systems and are encouraged to have familiarity with
the vessel with which they will be working;
PSOs can act as acoustic or visual observers (but not at
the same time) as long as they demonstrate that their training and
experience are sufficient to perform the task at hand;
NMFS must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a
relevant training course information packet that includes the name and
qualifications (i.e., experience, training completed, or educational
background) of the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and
course reference material as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course;
NMFS shall have one week to approve PSOs from the time
that the necessary information is submitted, after which PSOs meeting
the minimum requirements shall automatically be considered approved;
PSOs must successfully complete relevant training,
including completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent
or greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the
training program;
PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree
from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the
natural sciences, a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the
biological sciences, and at least one undergraduate course in math or
statistics; and
The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has
acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for
such a waiver shall be submitted to NMFS and must include written
justification. Requests shall be granted or denied (with justification)
by NMFS within one week of receipt of submitted information. Alternate
experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1)
secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2)
previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or
government-sponsored protected species surveys; or (3) previous work
experience as a PSO; the PSO should demonstrate good standing and
consistently good performance of PSO duties.
For data collection purposes, PSOs shall use standardized data
collection forms, whether hard copy or electronic. PSOs shall record
detailed information about any implementation of mitigation
requirements, including the distance of animals to the acoustic source
and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the
animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after
implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the
length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the acoustic source. If
required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should record a
description of the circumstances. At a minimum, the following
information must be recorded:
Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated
with survey) and call signs;
PSO names and affiliations;
Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;
Date and participants of PSO briefings;
Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort;
Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort
began and ended and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts;
Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual
PSO duty shifts and upon any line change;
Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions changed
significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions
including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the
horizon;
Factors that may have contributed to impaired observations
during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions
changed (e.g., vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); and
Survey activity information, such as acoustic source power
output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in
the array, tow depth of the array, and any other notes of significance
(i.e., pre-clearance, ramp-up, shutdown, testing, shooting, ramp-up
completion, end of operations, streamers, etc.).
The following information should be recorded upon visual
observation of any protected species:
Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort,
opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
PSO who sighted the animal;
Time of sighting;
Vessel location at time of sighting;
Water depth;
Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
Pace of the animal;
Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative
to vessel at initial sighting;
Identification of the animal (e.g., genus/species, lowest
possible taxonomic level, or unidentified) and the composition of the
group if there is a mix of species;
Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings,
juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
Description (as many distinguishing features as possible
of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars
or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow
characteristics);
Detailed behavior observations (e.g., number of blows/
breaths, number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding,
traveling; as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed
changes in behavior);
Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance
from any element of the acoustic source;
Platform activity at time of sighting (e.g., deploying,
recovering, testing, shooting, data acquisition, other); and
Description of any actions implemented in response to the
sighting (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and time and location of the
action.
If a marine mammal is detected while using the PAM system, the
following information should be recorded:
An acoustic encounter identification number, and whether
the detection was linked with a visual sighting;
Date and time when first and last heard;
Types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, whistles,
creaks, burst pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of signal); and
Any additional information recorded such as water depth of
the hydrophone array, bearing of the animal to the vessel (if
determinable), species or taxonomic group (if determinable),
spectrogram screenshot, and any other notable information.
[[Page 55663]]
Reporting
A report must be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of
the cruise. The report would describe the operations that were
conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The
report would provide full documentation of methods, results, and
interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report must
summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, all marine
mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated
seismic survey activities), and all information required to be
collected (as listed in the preceding section).
The draft report shall also include geo-referenced time-stamped
vessel tracklines for all time periods during which airguns were
operating. Tracklines should include points recording any change in
airgun status (e.g., when the airguns began operating, when they were
turned off, or when they changed from full array to single gun or vice
versa). GIS files shall be provided in ESRI shapefile format and
include the UTC date and time, latitude in decimal degrees, and
longitude in decimal degrees. All coordinates shall be referenced to
the WGS84 geographic coordinate system. In addition to the report, all
raw observational data shall be made available to NMFS. The report must
summarize the data collected as described above and in the IHA. A final
report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of any
comments on the draft report.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
Discovery of injured or dead marine mammals--In the event that
personnel involved in survey activities covered by the authorization
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the L-DEO shall report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the
NMFS Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
report must include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
Vessel strike--In the event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by
any vessel involved in the activities covered by the authorization, L-
DEO shall report the incident to OPR, NMFS and to the NMFS Alaska
Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report must
include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being
conducted (if applicable);
Status of all sound sources in use;
Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were
in place at the time of the strike and what additional measure were
taken, if any, to avoid strike;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the
strike;
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Estimated size and length of the animal that was struck;
Description of the behavior of the animal immediately
preceding and following the strike;
If available, description of the presence and behavior of
any other marine mammals present immediately preceding the strike;
Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., dead, injured but
alive, injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water,
status unknown, disappeared); and
To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of
the animal(s).
Actions To Minimize Additional Harm to Live-Stranded (or Milling)
Marine Mammals
In the event of a live stranding (or near-shore atypical milling)
event within 50 km of the survey operations, where the NMFS stranding
network is engaged in herding or other interventions to return animals
to the water, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee) will advise L-DEO
of the need to implement shutdown procedures for all active acoustic
sources operating within 50 km of the stranding. Shutdown procedures
for live stranding or milling marine mammals include the following: If
at any time, the marine mammal the marine mammal(s) die or are
euthanized, or if herding/intervention efforts are stopped, the
Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee) will advise the IHA-holder that the
shutdown around the animals' location is no longer needed. Otherwise,
shutdown procedures will remain in effect until the Director of OPR,
NMFS (or designee) determines and advises L-DEO that all live animals
involved have left the area (either of their own volition or following
an intervention).
If further observations of the marine mammals indicate the
potential for re-stranding, additional coordination with the IHA-holder
will be required to determine what measures are necessary to minimize
that likelihood (e.g., extending the shutdown or moving operations
farther away) and to implement those measures as appropriate.
Additional Information Requests--if NMFS determines that the
circumstances of any marine mammal stranding found in the vicinity of
the activity suggest investigation of the association with survey
activities is warranted, and an investigation into the stranding is
being pursued, NMFS will submit a written request to L-DEO indicating
that the following initial available information must be provided as
soon as possible, but no later than 7 business days after the request
for information:
Status of all sound source use in the 48 hours preceding
the estimated time of stranding and within 50 km of the discovery/
notification of the stranding by NMFS; and
If available, description of the behavior of any marine
mammal(s) observed preceding (i.e., within 48 hours and 50 km) and
immediately after the discovery of the stranding.
In the event that the investigation is still inconclusive, the
investigation of the association of the survey activities is still
warranted, and the investigation is still being pursued, NMFS may
provide additional information requests, in writing, regarding the
nature and location of survey operations prior to the time period
above.
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., 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
[[Page 55664]]
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through harassment, NMFS
considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses
(e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g.,
critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects
on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also
assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR
40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the
regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where
known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise
levels).
To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all species listed in
Tables 1, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the
planned geophysical survey to be similar in nature. Where there are
meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species,
in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected
take on the population due to differences in population status, or
impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to
inform the analysis.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would
occur as a result of L-DEO's planned survey, even in the absence of
mitigation, and none is authorized. Similarly, non-auditory physical
effects, stranding, and vessel strike are not expected to occur.
We are authorizing a limited number of instances of Level A
harassment of seven species (low- and high-frequency cetacean hearing
groups only) and Level B harassment only of the remaining marine mammal
species. However, we believe that any PTS incurred in marine mammals as
a result of the planned activity would be in the form of only a small
degree of PTS, not total deafness, because of the constant movement of
both the R/V Langseth and of the marine mammals in the project areas,
as well as the fact that the vessel is not expected to remain in any
one area in which individual marine mammals would be expected to
concentrate for an extended period of time. Since the duration of
exposure to loud sounds will be relatively short it would be unlikely
to affect the fitness of any individuals. Also, as described above, we
expect that marine mammals would likely move away from a sound source
that represents an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would
be expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice of the R/V
Langseth's approach due to the vessel's relatively low speed when
conducting seismic surveys. We expect that the majority of takes would
be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form
of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such
activity were occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low
severity and with no lasting biological consequences (e.g., Southall et
al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012).
Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound levels, but
these impacts would be temporary. Prey species are mobile and are
broadly distributed throughout the project areas; therefore, marine
mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are
expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from
areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the
relatively short duration (16 days) and temporary nature of the
disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources in the
surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources
that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
The tracklines of this survey either traverse or are proximal to
critical habitat areas for the Steller sea lion and to a feeding BIA
for humpback whales. However, only a portion of seismic survey days
would actually occur in or near these areas. As described previously,
L-DEO's planned tracklines do not extend within 3 nmi of any island,
and L-DEO has agreed to reduce the active array by half of the
elements, also reducing the total array volume by half, over the 10
percent of planned tracklines that are closest to shore. Finally, L-DEO
has agreed to maintain a standoff distance around specific Steller sea
lion haul-outs and rookeries such that the modeled Level B harassment
zone would not overlap a 3,000-ft (0.9-km) buffer around those areas.
Impacts to Steller sea lions within these areas, and throughout the
survey area, are expected to be limited to short-term behavioral
disturbance, with no lasting biological consequences.
Yazvenko et al. (2007b) reported no apparent changes in the
frequency of feeding activity in Western gray whales exposed to airgun
sounds in their feeding grounds near Sakhalin Island. Goldbogen et al.
(2013) found blue whales feeding on highly concentrated prey in shallow
depths (such as the conditions expected within humpback feeding BIAs)
were less likely to respond and cease foraging than whales feeding on
deep, dispersed prey when exposed to simulated sonar sources,
suggesting that the benefits of feeding for humpbacks foraging on high-
density prey may outweigh perceived harm from the acoustic stimulus,
such as the seismic survey (Southall et al., 2016). Additionally, L-DEO
will shut down the airgun array upon observation of an aggregation of
six or more large whales, which would reduce impacts to cooperatively
foraging animals. For all habitats, no physical impacts to habitat are
anticipated from seismic activities. While SPLs of sufficient strength
have been known to cause injury to fish and fish and invertebrate
mortality, in feeding habitats, the most likely impact to prey species
from survey activities would be temporary avoidance of the affected
area and any injury or mortality of prey species would be localized
around the survey and not of a degree that would adversely impact
marine mammal foraging. The duration of fish avoidance of a given area
after survey effort stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal
recruitment, distribution and behavior is expected. Given the short
operational seismic time near or traversing important habitat areas, as
well as the ability of cetaceans and prey species to move away from
acoustic sources, NMFS expects that there would be, at worst, minimal
impacts to animals and habitat within these areas.
Negligible Impact Conclusions
The survey will be of short duration (16 days of seismic
operations), and the acoustic ``footprint'' of the survey will be small
relative to the ranges of the marine mammals that would potentially be
affected. Sound levels will increase in the marine environment in a
relatively small area surrounding the vessel compared to the range of
the marine mammals within the survey area. Short-term exposures to
survey operations are not likely to significantly disrupt marine mammal
behavior, and the potential for longer-term avoidance of important
areas is limited. The survey vessel would pass Steller sea lion
critical habitat only briefly, and would operate at half volume during
the ten percent of tracklines closest to the islands.
The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number
and/or severity of takes by allowing for detection of marine mammals in
the vicinity of the vessel by visual and acoustic observers, and by
minimizing the severity of any potential exposures
[[Page 55665]]
via shutdowns of the airgun array. Based on previous monitoring reports
for substantially similar activities that have been previously
authorized by NMFS, we expect that the mitigation will be effective in
preventing, at least to some extent, potential PTS in marine mammals
that may otherwise occur in the absence of the mitigation (although all
authorized PTS has been accounted for in this analysis).
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks
due to L-DEO's survey will result in only short-term (temporary and
short in duration) effects to individuals exposed, over relatively
small areas of the affected animals' ranges. Animals may temporarily
avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon
the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging
success are not expected. NMFS does not anticipate the takes to impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
The activity is temporary and of relatively short duration
(16 days);
The anticipated impacts of the activity on marine mammals
would primarily be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the
area around the survey vessel;
The number of instances of potential PTS that may occur
are expected to be very small in number. Instances of potential PTS
that are incurred in marine mammals are expected to be of a low level,
due to constant movement of the vessel and of the marine mammals in the
area, and the nature of the survey design (not concentrated in areas of
high marine mammal concentration);
The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat
value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during
the survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate
species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the survey
will be temporary and spatially limited, and impacts to marine mammal
foraging will be minimal; and
The mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic
monitoring, shutdowns, and use of the reduced array in certain areas
adjacent to Steller sea lion critical habitat are expected to minimize
potential impacts to marine mammals (both amount and severity).
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 mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the
proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
There are several stocks for which the estimated instances of take
appear high when compared to the stock abundance (Table 6), or for
which there is no currently accepted stock abundance estimate. These
include the humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, sperm whale, four
species of beaked whale, and the offshore stock of killer whales.
However, when other qualitative factors are used to inform an
assessment of the likely number of individual marine mammals taken, the
resulting numbers are appropriately considered small. We discuss these
in further detail below.
For all other stocks (aside from those referenced above and
discussed below), the authorized take is less than one-third of the
best available stock abundance (recognizing that some of those takes
may be repeats of the same individual, thus rendering the actual
percentage even lower).
Existing stock abundance estimates for humpback whales, based on
2006 surveys, are 10,103 animals for the CNP stock and 1,107 animals
for the WNP stock. If all takes are assumed to accrue to the WNP stock,
the resulting percentage would not be a small number. Here, we refer to
additional pieces of information that demonstrate the authorized taking
to be of no greater than small numbers. First, Wade (2017) provides a
more recent estimate of 14,693 whales for the summer (feeding area)
abundance in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, which includes the
survey area. The total estimated take of humpback whale (1,948 take
incidents) would be 13.3 percent of this estimated summer abundance,
i.e., less than NMFS' small numbers threshold of one-third of the best
available abundance estimate. Second, we expect that only 2.1 percent
of whales encountered in this area would be from the WNP DPS. If we
consider the WNP DPS to be a reasonable approximation of the historic
WNP stock designation, then approximately 41 takes should be expected
to accrue to the stock (or approximately 3.7 percent of the 2006
abundance estimate for the WNP stock). This information supports a
determination that the take authorization for humpback whales would be
of no greater than small numbers, for any stock.
The stock abundance estimates for the fin, minke, beaked, and sperm
whale stocks that occur in the survey area are unknown, according to
the latest SARs. Therefore, we reviewed other scientific information in
making our small numbers determinations for these species. As noted
previously, partial abundance estimates of 1,233 and 2,020 minke whales
are available for shelf and nearshore waters between the Kenai
Peninsula and Amchitka Pass and for the eastern Bering Sea shelf,
respectively. For the minke whale, these partial abundance estimates
alone are sufficient to demonstrate that the take number of 29 is of
small numbers. The same surveys produced partial abundance estimates of
1,652 and 1,061 fin whales, for the same areas, respectively. For the
fin whale, we must turn to the only available region-wide abundance
estimate. Ohsumi and Wada (1974) provided an estimated North Pacific
abundance of 13,620-18,680 whales. Using the lower bound produces a
proportion of 12.9 percent.
As noted previously, Kato and Miyashita (1998) produced an
abundance estimate of 102,112 sperm whales in the western North
Pacific. However, this estimate is believed to be positively biased. We
therefore refer to Barlow and Taylor (2005)'s estimate of 26,300 sperm
whales in the northeast temperate Pacific to demonstrate that the take
number of 43 is a small number. There is no abundance information
available for any Alaskan stock of beaked whale. However, the take
numbers are sufficiently small (ranging from 9-106) that we can safely
[[Page 55666]]
assume that they are small relative to any reasonable assumption of
likely population abundance for these stocks. For reference, current
abundance estimates for other Pacific beaked whale stocks include 3,044
Mesoplodont beaked whales (California/Oregon/Washington stock), 3,274
Cuvier's beaked whales (CA/OR/WA stock), 2,105 Blainville's beaked
whales (Hawaii Pelagic stock), 7,619 Longman's beaked whales (Hawaii
stock), and 723 Cuvier's beaked whales (HI Pelagic stock).
For the offshore stock of killer whale, it would be unreasonable to
assume that all takes would accrue to this stock (which would result in
the take of 47 percent of the population). During surveys from the
Kenai Fjords to Amchitka Pass in the central Aleutian Islands, 59
groups totaling 1,038 individual killer whales were seen, including 39
(66 percent) residents, 14 (24 percent) transients, 2 (3 percent)
offshore, and 4 (7 percent) unknown (Wade et al., 2003). Based on this
information, we assume it relatively unlikely that encountered killer
whales will be of the offshore stock, and that take of offshore killer
whales, if any, would be of small numbers.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including
the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the population size of the affected species or
stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There is some sealing by indigenous groups in the survey area in
the Aleutian Islands. However, given the temporary nature of the
planned activities and the fact that all operations would occur more
than 3 nmi from shore, the activity would not be expected to have any
impact on the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence
users. L-DEO conducted outreach to the Aleut Marine Mammal Commission
and to the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission to notify
subsistence hunters of the planned survey, to identify the measures
that would be taken to minimize any effects on the availability of
marine mammals for subsistence uses, and to provide an opportunity for
comment on these measures. L-DEO received confirmation from the Aleut
Marine Mammal Commissioners that there were no concerns regarding the
potential effects of the planned survey on the potential availability
of marine mammals for subsistence uses. NMFS is unaware of any other
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species that
could be implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the
National Science Foundation prepared an Environmental Analysis (EA) to
consider the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the human
environment from this marine geophysical survey in the Aleutian
Islands. NSF's EA was made available to the public for review and
comment in relation to its suitability for adoption by NMFS in order to
assess the impacts to the human environment of issuance of an IHA to L-
DEO. In compliance with NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6, NMFS has reviewed the NSF's EA, determined
it to be sufficient, and adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). NSF's EA is available at www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/, and NMFS' FONSI is available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-lamont-doherty-earth-observatory-marine-geophysical-survey-2.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
The NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) ESA Interagency
Cooperation Division issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the
ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to L-DEO under section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA by the NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation Division. The
Biological Opinion concluded that the proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the sei whale, fin whale, blue
whale, sperm whale, humpback whale (Western North Pacific DPS and
Mexico DPS), western North Pacific gray whale, and western DPS of
Steller sea lion.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to L-
DEO for conducting a marine geophysical survey in the Aleutian Islands
beginning in September 2020, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: September 2, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-19815 Filed 9-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P