Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical Survey in the Arctic Ocean, 46181-46199 [2021-17683]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
of the relevant entries during this
review period. Failure to comply with
this requirement could result in
Commerce’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
Notification Regarding Administrative
Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and the terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
Notification to Interested Parties
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.213(h).
Dated: August 11, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
Appendix
List of Topics Discussed in the Final
Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope of the Order
IV. Final Determination of No Shipments
V. Margin for Companies Not Selected for
Individual Examination
VI. Changes Since the Preliminary Results
VII. Discussion of Comments
Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should
Treat Section 232 Duties as United States
Import Duties and Whether Commerce
Made a Clerical Error When Deducting
Section 232 Duties from U.S. Price
Comment 2: Whether Commerce Made a
Clerical Error Regarding the Treatment of
Early Payment Discounts
Comment 3: Whether Commerce Made a
Clerical Error Regarding the Selection of
Customer Code
VIII. Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2021–17650 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am]
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–533–901]
Organic Soybean Meal From India:
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination in the Less-Than-FairValue Investigation
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Applicable August 18, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–4261.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On April 20, 2021, the Department of
Commerce (Commerce) initiated a lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation(s)
of imports of organic soybean meal from
India.1 Currently, the preliminary
determination is due no later than
September 7, 2021.
Postponement of Preliminary
Determination
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires
Commerce to issue the preliminary
determination in an LTFV investigation
within 140 days after the date on which
Commerce initiated the investigation.
However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act
permits Commerce to postpone the
preliminary determination until no later
than 190 days after the date on which
Commerce initiated the investigation if:
(A) The petitioner 2 makes a timely
request for a postponement; or (B)
Commerce concludes that the parties
concerned are cooperating, that the
investigation is extraordinarily
complicated, and that additional time is
necessary to make a preliminary
determination. Under 19 CFR
351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a
request for postponement 25 days or
more before the scheduled date of the
preliminary determination and must
state the reasons for the request.
Commerce will grant the request unless
1 See Organic Soybean Meal from India: Initiation
of Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation, 86 FR 22146
(April 27, 2021) (Initiation Notice).
2 The petitioners are Organic Soybean Processors
of America and the American Natural Processors,
LLC, Organic Production Services, LLC,
Professional Proteins, Ltd., Sheppard Grain
Enterprises LLC, Simmons Grain Company, Super
Soy, LLC, and Tri-State Crush LLC.
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46181
it finds compelling reasons to deny the
request.
On August 9, 2021, the petitioners
submitted a timely request that
Commerce postpone the preliminary
determinations in this LTFV
investigation.3 The petitioners requested
the postponement to permit Commerce
to ‘‘fully develop the record in this
investigation,’’ assess questionnaire
responses, and issue supplemental
questionnaires.4
For the reasons stated above and
because there are no compelling reasons
to deny the request, Commerce, in
accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of
the Act, is postponing the deadline for
the preliminary determination by 50
days (i.e., 190 days after the date on
which this investigation was initiated).
As a result, Commerce will issue its
preliminary determination no later than
October 27, 2021. In accordance with
section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final
determination of this investigation will
continue to be 75 days after the date of
the preliminary determination, unless
postponed at a later date.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Dated: August 12, 2021.
Christian Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement
and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021–17729 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XB140]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical
Survey in the Arctic Ocean
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an 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
SUMMARY:
3 See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Organic Soybean Meal
from India: Petitioners’ Request to Postpone the
Preliminary Determination,’’ dated August 9, 2021.
4 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
46182
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
University of Alaska Geophysics
Institute (UAGI) to incidentally harass,
by Level B harassment, marine
mammals during geophysical surveys in
the Arctic Ocean. This project is funded
by the National Science Foundation
(NSF).
DATES: This Authorization is effective
for one year, from August 11, 2021
through August 10, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim
Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 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: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case
of problems accessing these documents
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of the takings.
The definitions of all applicable
MMPA statutory terms cited above are
included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On February 12, 2021, NMFS received
a request from UAGI for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to a
geophysical survey in the Arctic Ocean.
The application was deemed adequate
and complete on April 6, 2021. UAGI’s
request is for take of 13 species of
marine mammals, by Level B
harassment only. No Level A
harassment is anticipated. Neither UAGI
nor NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity.
Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Researchers at UAGI, with funding
from NSF, plan to conduct a seismic
survey from the Research Vessel (R/V)
Sikuliaq in the Arctic Ocean to
document the structure and stratigraphy
of the Chukchi Borderland and adjacent
Canada basin (see Figure 1). The
proposed activity is planned to take
place in late summer 2021 (August/
September) with a total of 30 days of
data acquisition. The survey will
include both high-energy and lowenergy components. High-energy ocean
bottom seismometer (OBS) refraction
surveys will use a 6-airgun, 3,120 cubic
inch (in3) array and consist of ∼12
percent of total survey effort (henceforth
referred to as high-energy survey). Lowenergy multi-channel seismic (MCS)
reflection surveys will use a 2-airgun
array with a total discharge volume of
1040 in3 and consist of ∼88 percent of
total survey effort (henceforth referred
to as low-energy survey).
Dates and Duration
The activity will occur between
August and September, 2021. The
activity is planned to occur for 45 days
total, with ∼30 days dedicated to
seismic data acquisition (with 24-hours
a day operations), ∼8 days devoted to
transit and 7 days used for equipment
deployment and recovery.
Specific Geographic Region
The surveys will occur within ∼73.5–
81.0° N, ∼139.5–168° W (≥300 kilometer
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(km) north of Utqiag˙vik). Representative
survey track lines can be seen in Figure
1. Some deviation in 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. Thus, the
track lines could occur anywhere within
the coordinates noted above and within
the study area. Four percent of the
surveys will occur within the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with
the remaining part of the survey
occurring beyond the EEZ. The activity
will take place in depths ranging from
200–4,000 meters (m). The R/V Sikuliaq
would likely leave from and return to
Nome, AK.
The low-energy survey activity will
begin ∼300 km from the Alaska coastline
(North of Utqiagvik) and extend ∼800
km north from the initial survey site
(i.e., the survey would occur ∼300–1,100
km from the Alaska coastline). The
high-energy survey activity will only
occur ∼530 km from the coastline and
occur only in the northeastern part of
the survey area (See Figure 1). Eighty
percent of the total survey will occur in
deep waters (>1,000 m) with the
remainder of the survey occurring in
intermediate depth waters (100–
1,000m); no surveying will occur in
waters <100 m deep. All high-energy
surveys (680 km total) will occur in
deep waters, while 67 percent of lowenergy surveys will occur in deep
waters (3,981 km). The remainder of
low-energy surveys (1,189 km or 23
percent) will occur in intermediate
depth waters.
A detailed description of the planned
geophysical survey project is provided
in the Federal Register notice for the
proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28,
2021). Since that time, no changes have
been made to the planned survey
activities. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please
refer to that Federal Register notice for
the description of the specified activity.
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures are described in detail later in
this document (please see Mitigation
and Monitoring and Reporting).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
46183
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue
an IHA to UAGI was published in the
Federal Register on May 28, 2021 (86
FR 28787). That notice described, in
detail, UAGI’s proposed activity, the
marine mammal species that may be
affected by the activity, and the
anticipated effects on marine mammals.
NMFS received a letter from the Alaska
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC),
which was the only comment received
for this project. The letter noted that
AEWC does not oppose UAGI’s project
but expressed concern regarding NMFS’
decision not to subject the associated
monitoring plan to independent peer
review prior to making a decision
regarding the requested IHA. In noting
its concern, AEWC asserted that NMFS
does not have discretion regarding
whether to subject monitoring plans to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
peer review, stating that NMFS’
discretion extends only to how it
engages peer review. While NMFS
agrees with AEWC’s statement in cases
where the proposed activity may affect
the availability of a species or stock of
marine mammals for taking for
subsistence purposes, NMFS’
determined the proposed activity will
not affect the availability of any species
or stock of marine mammals for taking
for subsistence purposes. Therefore,
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
EN18AU21.169
Figure 1. Location of the seismic surveys and OBS deployments in the Arctic Ocean
and Endangered Species Act critical habitat in the U.S.
46184
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
peer review of the monitoring plan is
not required.
NMFS’ conclusion that UAGI’s survey
activity will not affect the availability of
a species or stock of marine mammal for
taking for subsistence purposes was
based on the fact that the activity is a
significant distance from shore and well
beyond traditional hunting areas. The
take UAGI requested will occur
incidental to activities conducted well
beyond 200 km from any hunting area
or buffer. The survey will occur no
closer than 300 km from the Alaska
coastline, with the high-energy portion
of the project occurring no closer than
530 km from the coastline. The
maximum estimated harassment zone
for the survey is 2.4 km and 4.65 km for
the low-energy and high-energy survey
portions, respectively. Therefore, any
take from these activities will not
directly interfere with the hunt.
Furthermore, there is no information
supporting a conclusion that any
behavioral disturbance of bowhead
whales occurring at such great distance
from traditional hunting areas (300–500
km) would affect their subsequent
behavior in a manner that would
interfere with subsistence uses should
those whales later interact with hunters.
As stated above, based on the foregoing
information, NMFS determined that the
activity would not affect the availability
of any species or stock for taking for
subsistence purposes and, therefore,
that peer review of the monitoring plan
was not warranted. No changes have
been made from the proposed IHA to
the final IHA in response to comments.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to
Final IHA
Following the public comment
period, NMFS identified an error in the
calculation of bowhead whale density.
The density value for bowhead whales
described in the notice of proposed IHA
(86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) (0.0124)
was itself correct, but represents the
number of individuals per 100 km2
rather than individuals per 1 km2, as
was assumed for the proposed IHA.
NMFS has corrected this error and, as a
result, the authorized Level B
harassment take number is reduced
from 339 to 3.
Additionally, NMFS identified errors
made when calculating the total take
numbers proposed for authorization for
all species due to use of incorrect
estimated Level A harassment
ensonified areas and double counting of
estimated exposures within Level A
harassment zones (i.e., estimated
exposures were double counted as both
Level B harassment takes and as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
independently estimated exposures
within the Level A harassment zones,
which were also tallied as takes by
Level B harassment). These errors have
been corrected, and the revised
authorized take numbers are shown in
Table 7. All revised take numbers are
lower than those proposed for
authorization (86 FR 28787; May 28,
2021). Please refer to the Estimated Take
section for further detail regarding this
change.
Lastly, we note a mistake in the
proposed IHA that has since been
corrected. One section of the proposed
IHA (4(f)(iv)) described the shutdown
mitigation measure for bowhead whales
to be at any distance while the proposed
FR notice and the rest of the proposed
IHA stated this distance to be at 1,500
m. This has since been corrected for the
final IHA and the shutdown area and
the exclusion zone will be at 1,500 m
bowhead whales. Additionally, the
requirement for bigeye binoculars has
been removed as they are not available
on board the R/V Sikuliaq.
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’ Stock
Assessment Reports (SARs; https://
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’
website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Additional information may be found in
the Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine
Mammals (ASAMM) reports, which are
available online at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marinemammal-protection/aerial-surveysarctic-marine-mammals.
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for
which take is expected and authorized
for this action, 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 from
the Society for Marine Mammalogy
(2021). PBR is defined by the MMPA as
the maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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’ stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprise that stock. For
most species, stock abundance estimates
are based on sightings within the U.S.
EEZ; however, for some species, this
geographic area may extend beyond U.S.
waters. Survey abundance estimates
may be used for other species. Survey
abundance (as compared to stock or
species abundance) is the total number
of individuals estimated within the
survey area, which may or may not align
completely with a stock’s geographic
range as defined in the SARs. These
surveys may also extend beyond U.S.
waters. In this case, the survey area
outside of the U.S. EEZ does not
necessarily overlap with the ranges for
stocks managed by NMFS. However, we
assume that individuals of these species
that may be encountered during the
survey would be part of those stocks.
Additionally, six species listed in Table
1 indicate Unknown abundance
estimates. This may be due to outdated
data and population estimates or data is
not representative of the entire stock.
All managed stocks in this region are
assessed in NMFS’ U.S. Alaska and
Pacific SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2021,
Carretta et al., 2021). All values
presented in Table 1 are the most recent
available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2020 SARs (Muto et
al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021) (available
online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports).
In addition, the Pacific walrus
(Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and the
Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) may be
found in the Arctic. However, Pacific
walruses and Polar bears are managed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and are not considered further in this
document.
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
46185
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
I
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
I
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
I
I
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale .......................
Family Balaenidae:
Bowhead whale ................
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Fin whale ..........................
Humpback whale ..............
Minke whale .....................
Eschrichtius robustus .............
Eastern N Pacific ...................
-, -, N
26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) ..
801
131
Balaena mysticetus ................
Western Arctic ........................
E, D, Y
16,820 ....................................
(0.052,16,100, 2011) ..............
161
56
Balaenoptera physalus ...........
Megaptera novaeangliae ........
Balaenoptera acutorostrata ....
Northeast Pacific 4 * ................
Western N Pacific * ................
Alaska 4 * ................................
E, D, Y
E, D, Y
-, -, N
Unknown ................................
1,107 (0.3, 865, 2006) ...........
Unknown ................................
UND
3
UND
0.6
2.8
0
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Beluga whale ...................
Killer whale .......................
Narwhal ............................
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor Porpoise ...............
Orcinus orca ...........................
Monodon Monoceros .............
Beaufort Sea 4 ........................
Eastern Chukchi .....................
Alaska resident .......................
Unidentified 4 * ........................
-,
-,
-,
-,
N
N
N
N
39,258 (0.229, N/A. 1992) .....
13,305 (0.51, 8,875, 2017) ....
2,347 c (N/A, 2347, 2012) .....
Unknown ................................
UND
178
24
UND
104
55
1
0
Phocoena phocoena ..............
Bering Sea 4 * .........................
-, -, Y
Unknown ................................
UND
0.4
Unknown ................................
184,687 (see SAR, 163,086,
2013).
Unknown ................................
461,625 (see SAR, 423,237,
2013).
UND
9,785
6,709
163
5,100
25,394
6,459
5,254
Delphinapterus leucas ............
-,
-,
-,
-,
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (earless
seals):
Bearded Seal ...................
Ribbon Seal .....................
Erignathus barbatus ...............
Histriophoca fasciata ..............
Beringia 4 * ..............................
Unidentified * ..........................
T, D, Y
-, -, N
Ringed Seal .....................
Spotted Seal ....................
Pusa hispida ...........................
Phoca largha ..........................
Arctic ......................................
Bering .....................................
T, D, Y
-, -, N
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
* Stocks marked with an asterisk are addressed in further detail in the text below.
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 online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; N
min 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’ 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021), represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all
sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike).
4 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 present the best available information for use in
this document.
As indicated above, all 13 species
(with 14 managed stocks) in Table 1
could temporally and spatially co-occur
with the activity to the degree that take
is reasonably likely to occur, and we
have authorized it. All species that
could potentially occur in the survey
areas are included in Table 4 of the IHA
application.
A detailed description of the species
likely to be affected by the geophysical
survey, including brief introductions to
the species and relevant stocks as well
as available information regarding
population trends and threats, and
information regarding local occurrence,
were provided in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR
28787; May 28, 2021); since that time,
we are not aware of any changes in the
status of these species or stocks;
therefore, detailed descriptions are not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
provided here. Please refer to that
Federal Register notice for these
descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’
website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
species/mammals/) for generalized
species accounts.
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
elevated strandings for bearded, ringed
and spotted seals have occurred in the
Bering and Chukchi seas in Alaska, with
causes undetermined. As of August 5,
2021, there have been 357 recorded seal
strandings. For more information, please
visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/
marine-life-distress/2018-2020-ice-sealunusual-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 August 5,
2021, there have been a total of 487
whales reported in the event, with
approximately 225 dead whales in
Mexico, 244 whales in the United States
(including 108 in Alaska), and 18
whales in British Columbia, Canada. For
the United States, the historical 18-year
5-month average (Jan–May) is 14.8
whales for this same time-period.
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
46186
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
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/2019-2020gray-whale-unusual-mortality-eventalong-west-coast-and.
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
Revision to its Technical Guidance for
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic
Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing
(Technical Guidance) (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 lowfrequency 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]
Generalized
hearing range *
Hearing group
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
* 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. Thirteen marine
mammal species (nine cetacean and four
pinniped (all phocid) species) have the
reasonable potential to co-occur with
the survey activities. Please refer to
Table 1. Of the cetacean species that
may be present, five are classified as
low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
mysticete species), three are classified
as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
delphinid species), and one is classified
as high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor
porpoise).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
Detailed descriptions of the potential
effects of similar specified activities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
have been provided in other recent
Federal Register notices, including for
survey activities using the same
methodology and over a similar amount
of time, and affecting similar species
(e.g., 83 FR 29212, June 22, 2018; 84 FR
14200, April 9, 2019; 85 FR 19580, April
7, 2020). Section VII of UAGI’s
application provides a comprehensive
discussion of the potential effects of the
survey. We have reviewed UAGI’s
application and believe it is accurate
and complete. No significant new
information is available. The effects of
underwater noise from UAGI’s
geophysical survey have the potential to
result in behavioral harassment of
marine mammals in the vicinity of the
action area. The Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May
28, 2021) included a discussion of the
effects of anthropogenic noise on marine
mammals, therefore that information is
not repeated here; please to the
aforementioned notice for that
information.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 (86 FR 28787;
May 28, 2021) 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).
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
46187
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes for
authorization through this IHA, which
informed 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 will be by Level B
harassment, as use of seismic airguns
may result, either directly or as a result
of TTS, in disruption of behavioral
patterns of marine mammals. The
mitigation and related monitoring
measures are expected to minimize the
severity of such taking to the extent
practicable. Moreover, based on the
nature of the activity and the
anticipated effectiveness of the
mitigation measures (i.e.,
implementation of extended shutdown
distances for certain species)—
discussed in detail below in the
Mitigation section—Level A harassment
is neither anticipated nor authorized.
As described previously, no 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
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
estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of
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), the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavioral context), and
the distance between the sound source
and the animal, 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 received levels 160 dB re 1 mPa
(rms) for the impulsive sources (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). UAGI’s seismic survey
includes the use of impulsive sources
(seismic airgun).
These thresholds are provided in
Table 3 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
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance.
TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset acoustic thresholds *
(received level)
Hearing group
Impulsive
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) ................................
(Underwater) .................................................
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) ................................
(Underwater) .................................................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Non-impulsive
1: Lpk,flat: 219; dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .......................................
3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .......................................
5 Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................................
7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ......................................
Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ......................................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2:
4:
6:
8:
LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
Cell 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
46188
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that will feed into identifying the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, which include source levels
and acoustic propagation modeling.
The acoustic propagation modeling
methodologies are described in greater
detail in Appendix A of UAGI’s IHA
application. The survey will primarily
acquire data using the 2-airgun array
with a total discharge volume of 1,040
in3 and an approximately 15-second
shot interval. During approximately 12
percent of the planned survey
tracklines, the 6-airgun, 3,120 in3 array
will be used with a 60-second shot
interval. All tracklines will be surveyed
with a maximum tow depth of 9 m. The
modeling assumed an airgun firing
pressure of 2,540 psi. Propagation
modeling for UAGI’s application follows
the approach used by the LamontDoherty Earth Observatory (L–DEO) for
other, similar IHA applications. L–DEO
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 constantvelocity half-space (infinite
homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded
by a seafloor). To validate the model
results, L–DEO measured propagation of
pulses from a 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 Marcus G. Langseth (with the same
36-airgun array referenced above) 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)
(see Table 4). Water depths in the
project area may be up to 4,000 m, but
marine mammals in the region are
generally not anticipated to dive below
2,000 m (Costa and Williams, 1999). The
radii for intermediate water depths
(100–1,000 m) are derived from the
deep-water ones by applying a
correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5.
No survey effort will occur in water
depths <100 m.
The area expected to be ensonified
was determined by entering the planned
survey lines into a GIS and then
‘‘buffering’’ the lines by the applicable
160-dB distance (see Appendix B in IHA
application). The resulting ensonified
areas were then increased by 25 percent
to allow for any necessary additional
operations, such as re-surveying
segments where data quality was
insufficient. This approach assumes that
no marine mammals would move away
or toward the trackline in response to
increasing sound levels before the levels
reach the threshold as R/V Sikuliaq
approaches.
TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD
Tow depth
(m)
Source and volume
Water depth
(m)
6 airgun array; 3,120 in3 ........................................................................................................
9
2 airgun array; 1,040 in3 ........................................................................................................
9
>1,000
100–1,000
>1,000
100–1,000
Level B
harassment zone
(m)
1 4,640
3 6,960
1 1,604
2 2,406
1 Distance
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
2 Based
based on L–DEO model results.
on L–DEO model results with 1.5x correction factor applied.
Predicted distances to Level A
harassment isopleths, which vary based
on marine mammal hearing groups,
were calculated based on L–DEO
modeling performed 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 the 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
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) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
46189
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
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.
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 (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.
For full detail of the modeling
methodology used for estimating
distance to Level A harassment peak
pressure and cumulative SEL criteria,
please see Appendix A of UAGI’s
application.
Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the
form of estimated source levels are
shown in Appendix A of UAGI’s
application. User Spreadsheets used by
UAGI 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
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
6-airgun array (3,120 in3) ............................................................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
2-airgun array (1,040 in3) ............................................................
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. 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 and low-frequency
cetaceans given very small modeled
zones of injury for those species (all
estimated zones less than 10 m for mid-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
SELcum .......
Peak ...........
SELcum .......
Peak ...........
51
30
17
10
frequency cetaceans, up to a maximum
of 51 m for low-frequency cetaceans and
34 m for phocid pinnipeds), in context
of distributed source dynamics.
Similarly, for high-frequency cetaceans,
the maximum modeled injury zone for
the low-energy array (88 percent of
survey effort) is 73 m and auditory
injury would be unlikely to occur
during use of that array. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
MF cetaceans
0
7
0
3
HF cetaceans
0
212
0
73
Phocids
0
34
0
12
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 estimated
Level A harassment isopleth distances
would in all cases (other than for highfrequency cetaceans) 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 relevant
harassment criteria would not
necessarily exist.
In consideration of the received sound
levels in the near-field as described
above, we expect the potential for Level
A harassment of low- and midfrequency cetaceans 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. A similar conclusion may
be drawn for high-frequency cetaceans
relative to use of the low-energy airgun
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
46190
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
array. We do not believe that Level A
harassment is a likely outcome for any
low- or mid-frequency cetacean or
phocid pinniped and are not
authorizing any Level A harassment for
these species. For high-frequency
cetaceans, the larger estimated Level A
harassment zone associated with the
high-energy array will be present for
only 12 percent of total survey effort,
and given the expected rarity of
occurrence for harbor porpoise, no
incidents of Level A harassment are
expected.
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 (86 FR 28787; May 28,
2021). Information that has remained
unchanged is not reprinted here.
Density values are shown in Table 6.
The bowhead whale density value
described in the notice of proposed IHA
(86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) was
correct; however, the incorrect units
were used. The value reported in the
notice of proposed IHA (0.0124 whales/
km2) would correctly be stated as 0.0124
whales/100 km2, and the corrected
density is used here.
TABLE 6—DENSITY VALUES USED FOR determine the total ensonified area in
TAKE ANALYSIS, CALCULATED BY each depth category. Estimated
incidents of exposure above Level A and
UAGI
Density
(individuals/km2)
Species
Bowhead whale ..........
Gray whale .................
Fin whale ....................
Humpback whale ........
Minke whale ................
Beluga whale ..............
Killer whale .................
Narwhal .......................
Harbor porpoise ..........
Bearded seal ..............
Ribbon seal .................
Ringed seal .................
Spotted seal ................
0.000124
0
0
0
0
0.0255
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0.0332
0.0677
0.376
0.0007
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 GIS to
Level B harassment criteria are
presented in Table 7. As noted
previously, UAGI has added 25 percent
in the form of operational days, which
is equivalent to adding 25 percent to the
line-kilometers to be surveyed. This
accounts for the possibility that
additional operational days are
required, and is included in the
estimates of actual exposures.
The number of individual marine
mammals potentially exposed to airgun
sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re
1 mParms (Level B) was estimated
following NSF’s take calculation
method by multiplying the estimated
densities by the total area expected to be
ensonified above the Level threshold.
The total ensonified area was multiplied
by 25 percent to account for any
necessary additional operations, such as
re-surveying segments where data
quality was insufficient. This approach
assumes that no marine mammals
would move away or toward the
trackline in response to increasing
sound levels before the levels reach the
threshold as R/V Sikuliaq approaches.
This value was then multiplied by the
estimated densities for each species to
produce estimated Level B takes. Given
the location of the survey being far
north in the Arctic, we expect that the
density values, and thus estimated take
numbers, are conservative estimates of
what is likely to be encountered during
the survey.
TABLE 7—ESTIMATED TAKING BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION
Species
Stock 1
Estimated
Level B
harassment
Estimated
Level A
harassment
Authorized
Level B
harassment
Authorized
Level A
harassment
Total
take
Percent of
stock 1
Bowhead whale ....................
Humpback whale 2 ................
Fin whale 2 4 ..........................
Gray whale 2 .........................
Minke whale 2 4 .....................
Beluga whale ........................
Western Arctic ......................
WN Pacific ............................
NE Pacific .............................
EN Pacific .............................
Alaska ...................................
Beaufort Sea .........................
Eastern Chukchi ...................
Alaska Resident ....................
Unidentified ...........................
Bering Sea ............................
Beringia .................................
Arctic .....................................
Bering ...................................
Unidentified ...........................
3
0
0
0
0
696
....................
0
0
0
900
10,198
19
1,836
0
0
0
0
0
1
....................
0
0
0
6
70
0
13
3
2
2
2
2
697
....................
6
2
2
907
10,269
19
1,849
0
0
0
0
0
0
....................
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
2
2
2
697
............
6
2
2
907
10,269
19
1,849
0.02
0.01
0.18
0.01
0.01
1.33
....................
0.20
n/a
0.04
0.73
5.99
0.00
1.00
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Killer whale 2 .........................
Narwhal 3 4 ............................
Harbor porpoise 2 4 ................
Bearded seal 5 ......................
Ringed seal 5 .........................
Spotted seal ..........................
Ribbon seal ...........................
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 authorized takes occurred within each stock. Where necessary, additional discussion is provided in the ‘‘Small Numbers
Analysis’’ section.
2 UAGI requests authorization of gray whale, humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, killer whale, and harbor porpoise take equivalent to exposure of one group (Clarke et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2019).
3 UAGI requests authorization of two takes of narwhals.
4 As noted in Table 1, there is no estimate of abundance available for these species. See ‘‘Small Numbers Analysis’’ section for further discussion.
5 Due to rounding, the total estimated Level B harassment does not equal the sum of Level A harassment and Level B harassment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:14 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Although gray whales, fin whales,
humpback whales, minke whales,
narwhals and harbor porpoises are not
expected to occur this far north in the
Arctic, we agree with NSF that there is
possibility that this activity might
encounter these species and thus a
conservative number of takes has been
authorized based on average group size
from yearly Aerial Surveys of Arctic
Marine Mammals (ASAMM) (Clark et
al., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019). As
described previously in the Changes
from the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
section, errors in take estimate
calculations have been corrected from
the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR
18787; May 28, 2021) as shown in Table
7. These changes were made after
identifying that the original estimated
take numbers used the incorrect Level A
harassment ensonified areas in addition
to doubling the estimated exposures
within the Level A harassment zone.
These corrected, authorized take
numbers presented here are either equal
to or smaller than those proposed for
authorization.
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.
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, as well as
subsistence uses. This considers the
nature of the potential adverse impact
being mitigated (likelihood, scope,
range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
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 and
impact on operations.
In order to satisfy the MMPA’s least
practicable adverse impact standard,
NMFS has evaluated a suite of basic
mitigation protocols for seismic surveys
that are required regardless of the status
of a stock. Additional or enhanced
protections may be required for species
whose stocks are in particularly poor
health and/or are subject to some
significant additional stressor that
lessens that stock’s ability to weather
the effects of the specified activities
without worsening its status. We
reviewed seismic mitigation protocols
required or recommended elsewhere
(e.g., HESS, 1999; DOC, 2013; IBAMA,
2018; Kyhn et al., 2011; JNCC, 2017;
DEWHA, 2008; BOEM, 2016; DFO,
2008; GHFS, 2015; MMOA, 2016;
Nowacek et al., 2013; Nowacek and
Southall, 2016), recommendations
received during public comment
periods for previous actions, and the
available scientific literature. We also
considered recommendations given in a
number of review articles (e.g., Weir and
Dolman, 2007; Compton et al., 2008;
Parsons et al., 2009; Wright and
Cosentino, 2015; Stone, 2015b). This
exhaustive review and consideration of
public comments regarding previous,
similar activities has led to development
of the protocols included here.
Due to the use of high- and lowenergy airgun arrays used within this
survey, two separate mitigation
protocols are required for use
throughout the activity depending on
which array is in use (Table 8).
Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation
Monitoring
Visual monitoring requires the use of
trained observers (herein referred to as
visual Protected Species Observers
(PSOs)) to scan the ocean surface for the
presence of marine mammals. The area
to be scanned visually includes
primarily the exclusion zone (EZ),
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 EZ to be monitored for the
presence of marine mammals that may
enter the EZ. During pre-clearance
monitoring (i.e., before ramp-up begins),
the buffer zone also acts as an extension
of the EZ in that observations of marine
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46191
mammals within the buffer zone would
also prevent airgun operations from
beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The standard
EZ is 500 m from the edges of the airgun
array for high-energy surveys and 100 m
for low-energy surveys. For high-energy
surveys, the buffer zone encompasses
the area at and below the sea surface
from the edge of the 0–500 m EZ, out
to a radius of 1,000 m from the edges of
the airgun array (500–1,000 m). For lowenergy surveys, the buffer zone
encompasses the area at and below the
sea surface from the edge of the 0–100
m EZ, out to a radius of 200 m from the
edges of the airgun array (100–200 m).
Visual monitoring of the EZ and
buffer zones 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
pre-clearance, and (2) during airgun use,
aid in establishing and maintaining the
EZ by alerting the visual observer and
crew of marine mammals that are
outside of, but may approach and enter,
the EZ.
UAGI 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 PSOs aboard
the vessel must have a minimum of 90
days at-sea experience working in the
roles, with no more than 18 months
elapsed since the conclusion of the atsea 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
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46192
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
times during daylight hours (i.e., from
30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30
minutes following sunset). Visual
monitoring of the EZ and buffer zone
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
EZ and buffer zone. 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 EZ)
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 EZ) 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
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.
Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer
Zones
An EZ is a defined area within which
occurrence of a marine mammal triggers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
mitigation action intended to reduce the
potential for certain outcomes, e.g.,
auditory injury, disruption of behavioral
patterns. The PSOs would establish a
minimum EZ with a 500- or 100-m
radius, during use of the high-energy
and low-energy arrays, respectively, for
all species except bowhead whales. The
EZ would be 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).
The EZs are intended to be
precautionary in the sense that they
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, the EZs are 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
these distances are likely regularly
attainable for PSOs using the naked eye
during typical conditions.
An extended EZ of 1,500/500 m must
be implemented for all bowhead whales
during high-energy and low-energy
survey effort, respectively, because of
their importance to subsistence hunters
and protected status. 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 for high-energy airgun arrays.
Ramp-up for the low-energy array,
which includes only two elements, may
be shorter. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 EZ and buffer
zone 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
EZ or buffer zone. If a marine mammal
is observed within the applicable EZ 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 pinnipeds, and
30 minutes for all mysticetes and all
other odontocetes, including large
delphinids, such as beluga whales and
killer whales);
• 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 for high-energy
arrays. The operator must provide
information to the PSO documenting
that appropriate procedures were
followed;
• PSOs must monitor the relevant EZ
and buffer zone during ramp-up, and
ramp-up must cease and the source
must be shut down upon detection of a
marine mammal within the applicable
EZ. 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
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
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 EZ.
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, 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
operations or to call for shutdown of the
acoustic source if a marine mammal is
detected within the applicable EZ. 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 the airgun
array is active (i.e., anytime one or more
airguns is active, including during
ramp-up) and a marine mammal appears
within or enters the applicable EZ, 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.
Following a shutdown, airgun activity
would not resume until the marine
mammal has cleared the EZ. The animal
would be considered to have cleared the
EZ if it is visually observed to have
departed the EZ, or it has not been seen
within the EZ for 15 min in the case of
small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30
min in the case of mysticetes and large
odontocetes, including beluga whales
and killer whales.
Upon implementation of shutdown,
the source may be reactivated after the
marine mammal(s) has been observed
exiting the applicable EZ (i.e., animal is
not required to fully exit the buffer zone
where applicable) or following 15
minutes for small odontocetes and
pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for
46193
mysticetes and all other odontocetes,
including beluga whales and killer
whales, with no further observation of
the marine mammal(s).
UAGI 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.
UAGI must also implement shutdown if
any of the following are observed at any
distance:
• Any large whale (defined as 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); and/or
• An aggregation of six or more large
whales.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)
NMFS will not require the use of
PAM for this activity. PAM would only
be applicable to the small portion of the
survey (12 percent) using the highenergy array and UAGI has indicated
that it would not be practicable to carry
the additional monitoring personnel
required for implementation of towed
PAM. Additionally, species of greatest
interest in prescribing use of towed
PAM (e.g., sperm whales, beaked
whales) are not present in the planned
survey area. Further details of this
decision are described in the notice of
proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28,
2021).
TABLE 8—MITIGATION PROTOCOLS FOR HIGH- AND LOW-ENERGY ARRAYS
Mitigation protocols
Sources .........................
Visual PSOs ..................
Passive acoustic monitoring.
Exclusion zones ............
Pre-start clearance .......
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Ramp-up .......................
Shutdown ......................
High-energy (6-airgun array with 3120 in3 total discharge
volume).
Minimum of 2 NMFS-approved PSOs on duty during daylight hours (30 minutes before sunrise through 30 minutes after sunset); Limit of 2 consecutive hours on
watch followed by a break of at least 1 hour; Maximum
of 12 hours on watch per 24-hour period.
Not Required .......................................................................
Low-energy (2-airgun array with 1040 in3 total discharge
volume).
Minimum of 2 NMFS-approved PSOs on duty during daylight hours (30 minutes before sunrise through 30 minutes after sunset); Limit of 2 consecutive hours on
watch followed by a break of at least 1 hour; Maximum
of 12 hours on watch per 24-hour period.
Not required.
• 500 m (all marine mammals) ..........................................
• 1,500 m (Bowhead whales) ............................................
Required; 30-minute clearance period of the following
zones:
• 1,000 m (all marine mammals) ................................
• 1,500 m (Bowhead whales) .....................................
Following detection within zone, animal must be observed
exiting or additional period of 15 or 30 minutes.
Required; duration ≥20 minutes .........................................
Shutdown required for marine mammal detected within
defined EZs; Re-start allowed following clearance period of 15 or 30 minutes.
• 100 m (all marine mammals).
• 500 m (Bowhead whales).
Required; 30-minute clearance period of the following
zones:
• 200 m (all marine mammals).
• 500 m (Bowhead whales).
Following detection within zone, animal must be observed
exiting or additional period of 15 or 30 minutes.
Required; duration not more than 20 minutes.
Shutdown required for marine mammal detected within
defined EZs; Re-start allowed following clearance period of 15 or 30 minutes.
Vessel Strike Avoidance
1. Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all
protected species and slow down, stop
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
their vessel, or alter course, as
appropriate and regardless of vessel
size, to avoid striking any protected
species. A visual observer aboard the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
vessel must monitor a vessel strike
avoidance zone around the vessel
(distances stated below). Visual
observers monitoring the vessel strike
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46194
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
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 marine
mammals from other phenomena, and
(2) broadly identify a marine mammal as
a bowhead whale, other whale (defined
in this context as baleen whales other
than bowhead 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 bowhead whales. If a whale is
observed but cannot be confirmed as a
species other than a bowhead whale, the
vessel operator must assume that it is a
bowhead whale and take appropriate
action.
4. All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from 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 marine mammals, with an
understanding that at times this may not
be possible (e.g., for animals that
approach the vessel).
6. When marine mammals 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 did not identify any mitigation
specifically appropriate for habitat.
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 area;
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. The specified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
activity is of relatively short duration
(30 days) and the disturbance will be
temporary in nature, similar habitat and
resources are available 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. No Biologically Important
Areas (BIAs), designated critical habitat,
or other habitat of known significance
would be impacted by the planned
activities.
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 measures, as well as
other measures considered by NMFS
described above, NMFS has determined
that the mitigation measures provide the
means of 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, and on
the availability of such species or stock
for subsistence uses (see Unmitigable
Adverse Impact Analysis and
Determination).
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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).
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
As described above, PSO observations
would take place during daytime airgun
operations. During seismic operations,
at least five visual PSOs would be based
aboard the R/V Sikuliaq. 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 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
PSOs and must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider;
• PSOs shall have no tasks other than
to conduct observational effort, 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;
• 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
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
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. Traditional ecological
knowledge is also a relevant
consideration.
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;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
• 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:
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46195
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
(CPA) 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.
Reporting
A report will be submitted to NMFS
within 90 days after the end of the
cruise. The report will describe the
operations that were conducted and
sightings of marine mammals near the
operations. The report will provide full
documentation of methods, results, and
interpretation pertaining to all
monitoring. The 90-day report will
summarize the dates and locations of
seismic operations, and all marine
mammal sightings (dates, times,
locations, activities, associated seismic
survey activities).
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 UAGI shall
report the incident to the Office of
Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS, and
the NMFS Alaska Regional Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
46196
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
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, UAGI 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).
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
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’ 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 Table 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 injury,
serious injury or mortality will occur as
a result of UAGI’s planned survey, even
in the absence of mitigation, and none
will be authorized. Similarly, nonauditory physical effects, stranding, and
vessel strike are not expected to occur.
Although a few incidents of Level A
harassment were predicted through the
quantitative exposure estimation
process (see Estimated Take), NMFS has
determined that this is not a realistic
result due to the small estimated Level
A harassment zones for the species (no
greater than approximately 50 m) and
the mitigation requirements, and no
Level A harassment is authorized. These
estimated zones are larger than what
would realistically occur, as discussed
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in the Estimated Take section. Although
no Level A harassment would be
expected to occur even absent
mitigation, the extended distance
exclusion zones for bowhead whales
further strengthen this conclusion.
We expect that 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). The
number of takes for bowhead whales is
0.02 percent of the population.
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 area;
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 (30 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.
No BIAs, designated critical habitat, or
other habitat of known significance
would be impacted by the planned
activities.
Negligible Impact Conclusions
The survey would be of short duration
(30 days of seismic operations), and the
acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the survey would
be small relative to the ranges of the
marine mammals that would potentially
be affected. Sound levels would
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 expected to only
temporarily affect marine mammal
behavior in the form of avoidance, and
the potential for longer-term avoidance
of important areas is limited. Short term
exposures to survey operations are not
likely to impact marine mammal
behavior, and the potential for longerterm avoidance of important areas is
limited.
The 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 observers, and by
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
minimizing the severity of any potential
exposures via shutdowns of the airgun
array.
NMFS concludes that exposures to
marine mammal species and stocks due
to UAGI’s survey would 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 authorized take estimates 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 Level A harassment, serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
• The activity is temporary and of
relatively short duration (30 days);
• The anticipated impacts of the
activity on marine mammals would
primarily be temporary behavioral
changes in the form of avoidance of the
area around the survey vessel;
• Location of the survey is further
north in the Arctic Ocean and away
from areas where most of the species
listed in Table 1 have been observed
and is north of summer feeding areas
and migratory routes.
• 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 would be temporary and
spatially limited, and impacts to marine
mammal foraging would be minimal;
and
• The mitigation measures, including
visual monitoring, shutdowns, ramp-up,
and prescribed measures based on
energy size 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
monitoring and mitigation measures,
NMFS finds that the total marine
mammal take from the activity will have
a negligible impact on all affected
marine mammal species or stocks.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
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
the take 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 (see 86 FR 5322,
January 19, 2021). 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
there is no currently accepted stock
abundance estimate. These include the
fin whale Northeast Pacific stock, the
minke whale Alaska stock, the narwhal
Unidentified stock, the bearded seal
Beringia stock, and the ringed seal
Arctic stock. In those cases, qualitative
factors are used to inform an assessment
of whether the likely number of
individual marine mammals taken is
appropriately considered small. We
discuss these in further detail below.
For all other stocks (aside from those
without accepted abundance estimates),
the authorized take is less than 7
percent of the best available stock
abundance, well less than the one-third
threshold for exceeding small numbers
(and some of those takes may be repeats
of the same individual, thus rendering
the actual percentage even lower). We
also acknowledge that, given the
location of the planned survey activity
high in the Arctic Ocean, the stock
ranges referenced in the SARs do not
always fully overlap the area of the
planned survey activity. However, given
the very small percentage of the best
available stock abundance estimates for
these species and the likelihood that the
numbers of take authorized would be
very small relative to any reasonable
population abundance estimate, we
conclude these numbers are small.
The stock abundance estimates for fin
whale, minke whale, narwhal, bearded
seal and ringed seal stocks that occur in
the surveys area are unknown,
according to the latest 2020 SARs (Muto
et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021).
Therefore, we reviewed other scientific
information in making our small
numbers determinations for these
animals. The abundance estimate of
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46197
20,000 minke whales was taken from
the Northwest Pacific and Okhotsk Sea
(IWC 2021). In addition, 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 authorized take
number of 2 is of small numbers. The
same surveys produced partial
abundance estimates of 1,652 and 1,061
fin whales, for the same areas,
respectively, which are similarly
sufficient to demonstrate that the
authorized take number of 2 is small
numbers. The bearded seal estimate of
125,000 was estimated for the U.S.
portion of the Bering Sea (Boveng et al.,
2017) and 155,000 bearded seals for the
entire Alaska stock (Cameron et al.,
2010). These partial abundance
estimates near the survey are sufficient
to demonstrate that the authorized take
number of 916 seals is small numbers.
Similarly, the ringed seal abundance
estimate of 171,418 ringed seals was
based on a limited sub-sample from the
Bering Sea (Conn et al., 2014 in Muto
et al., 2020). This minimal abundance
estimate for the Alaska region is enough
to demonstrate that a take of 10,373 will
be small numbers at 6.05 percent of the
Bering Sea population. There is no
abundance information available for
narwhals. However, the take number is
sufficiently small (2) that we assume
that it is small relative to any reasonable
assumption of likely population
abundance for the narwhal.
Additionally, the survey area
encompasses a very small portion of the
hypothesized range of the species.
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
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must
find that the specified activity will not
have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’
on the subsistence uses of the affected
marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined
‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR
216.103 as an impact resulting from the
specified activity: (1) That is likely to
reduce the availability of the species to
a level insufficient for a harvest to meet
subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46198
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
marine mammals to abandon or avoid
hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing
subsistence users; or (iii) Placing
physical barriers between the marine
mammals and the subsistence hunters;
and (2) That cannot be sufficiently
mitigated by other measures to increase
the availability of marine mammals to
allow subsistence needs to be met.
The coast and nearshore waters of
Alaska are of cultural importance to
indigenous peoples for fishing, hunting,
gathering, and ceremonial purposes.
Marine mammals are legally hunted in
Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska
Natives. There are seven communities
in the North Slope Borough region of
Alaska (northwestern and northern
Alaska) that harvest seals, including
from west to east Point Hope, Point Lay,
Wainwright, Utqiag˙vik, Atqusak,
Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik (Ice Seal
Committee 2019). Bearded seals are the
preferred species to harvest as food and
for skin boat coverings, but ringed seals
are also commonly taken for food and
their blubber (Ice Seal Committee 2019).
Ringed seals are typically harvested
during the summer and can extend up
to 64 km from shore (Stephen R. Braund
& Associates 2010). No ribbon seals
have been harvested in any of the North
Slope Borough communities since the
1960s (Ice Seal Committee 2019).
However, the number of seals harvested
each year varies considerably.
A subsistence harvest of bowheads
and belugas is also practiced by Alaskan
Natives, providing nutritional and
cultural needs. In 2019, 36 bowhead
whales were taken during the Alaskan
subsistence hunt (Suydam et al., 2020).
Whaling near Utqiag˙vik occurs during
spring (April and May) and autumn, and
can continue into November, depending
on the quota and conditions.
Communities that harvested bowheads
during 2019 include Utqiag˙vik, Gamgell,
Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point
Lay, and Wainwright. Bowhead whales
and gray whales are also taken in the
aboriginal subsistence hunt in the
Russian Federation (Zharikov et al.,
2020). During 2019, 135 gray whales
and one bowhead whale were harvested
at Chukotka.
Beluga whales from the eastern
Chukchi Sea stock are an important
subsistence resource for residents of the
village of Point Lay, adjacent to
Kasegaluk Lagoon, and other villages in
northwest Alaska. Each year, hunters
from Point Lay drive belugas into the
lagoon to a traditional hunting location.
The beluga whales have been
predictably sighted near the lagoon from
late June through mid to late July
(Suydam et al., 2001). The mean annual
number of Beaufort Sea belugas landed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
by Alaska Native subsistence hunters in
2011–2015 was 47, and an average of 92
were taken in Canadian waters; the
mean annual number of Eastern
Chukchi Sea belugas landed by Alaska
Native subsistence hunters in 2011–
2015 was 67 (Muto et al., 2020).
The survey by UAGI will occur within
∼73.5–81.0° N, ∼139.5–168° W and over
300 km from the Alaska coastline. Due
to the location of the survey being far
north in the Arctic and over 200
kilometers from any hunting area or
buffer (https://www.north-slope.org/
assets/images/uploads/bowhead%20
migration%20map%2021mar
03%20distribution.pdf), no impacts on
the availability of marine mammals for
subsistence uses are expected to occur.
Specifically, based on the survey
methods and location planned, there is
no reason to believe that there will be
any behavioral disturbance of bowhead
whales that would also impact their
behavior in a manner that would
interfere with subsistence use later.
Although fishing/hunting would not be
precluded in the survey area, a safe
distance would need to be kept from R/
V Sikuliaq and the towed seismic
equipment. The principal investigator
for the survey presented the action to
the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission
(AEWC) at the July 2020, October 2020,
and February 2021 Triannual Meetings.
As specifically noted, during the
meetings, daily email communications
with interested community members
would be made from the vessel.
Communication may include notice of
any unusual marine mammal
observations during the survey. Any
potential space use conflicts would be
further avoided through direct
communication with subsistence
fishers/hunters during the surveys.
Considering the limited time that the
planned seismic surveys would take
place and the far offshore location of the
surveys, no direct interaction with
subsistence fishers/hunters would be
anticipated. However, UAGI will still be
required to remain in constant
communication with subsistence
fishers/hunters during the surveys.
Based on the description of the
specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects
on the availability of marine mammals
for subsistence purposes, and the
mitigation and monitoring measures,
NMFS has determined that there will
not be an unmitigable adverse impact on
subsistence uses from UAGI’s activities.
National Environmental Policy Act
In compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the regulations published by the
Council on Environmental Quality (40
CFR parts 1500–1508), NSF prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to
consider the direct, indirect and
cumulative effects to the human
environment resulting from this marine
geophysical survey in the Arctic. 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
UAGI. In compliance with NEPA and
CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA
Administrative Order 216–2, 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-lamontdoherty-earth-observatory-marinegeophysical-survey-2.
Endangered Species Act
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 OPR ESA Interagency
Cooperation Division issued a Biological
Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on
the issuance of an IHA to UAGI under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the
NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation
Division and NSF’s funding of the
survey. The Biological Opinion
concluded that the action is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of
ESA-listed bowhead whales, fin whales,
the Western North Pacific population of
gray whales, the Mexico DPS and
Western North Pacific DPS of humpback
whales, bearded seals and ribbon seals,
and is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify the proposed critical habitat for
bearded seals and ringed seals. There is
no designated critical habitat in the
action area for the other ESA-listed
species.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations,
NMFS has issued an IHA to UAGI for
conducting marine geophysical surveys
in the Arctic in August and September,
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
2021, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: August 11, 2021.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
(Authority: Pub. L. 116–224, 112, Dec. 18,
2020, 134 Stat. 1072)
Scott Lundgren,
Director, Office of Response and Restoration,
National Ocean Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–17738 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P
[FR Doc. 2021–17683 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XB163]
Reopening of Solicitation of
Nominations for the Marine Debris
Foundation Board of Directors
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the Palmer
Station Pier Replacement Project,
Antarctica
National Ocean Service (NOS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Reopening of solicitation of
nominations.
AGENCY:
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration published
a notice in the Federal Register on May
19, 2021 seeking nominations of
qualified candidates to be considered
for appointment as a member of the
Marine Debris Foundation Board of
Directors (Board). This solicitation of
nominations of qualified persons to the
Board is hereby reopened.
DATES: Nominations to the Board of
Directors for the Marine Debris
Foundation must be received in entirety
no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on August
27, 2021. Nomination packages received
after this time will not be considered.
ADDRESSES: All nominations should be
emailed (recommended) to
marinedebris.foundation@noaa.gov
with the subject line ‘‘Marine Debris
Foundation Nomination,’’ or mailed to
Caitlin Wessel, Marine Debris
Foundation Nomination, c/o NOAA
Disaster Response Center, 7344 Ziegler
Blvd., Mobile, AL 36608.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Caitlin Wessel, Ph.D., Phone 251–222–
0276; Email caitlin.wessel@noaa.gov or
visit the NOAA Marine Debris Program
website at https://
marinedebris.noaa.gov/who-we-are/
marine-debris-foundation.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Refer to
the Federal Register Notice of May 19,
2021 (86 FR 27070) and the NOAA
Marine Debris Program website at
https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/who-weare/marine-debris-foundation for the
items that are required parts of the
nomination package and additional
information.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:34 Aug 17, 2021
Jkt 253001
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments on proposed authorization
and possible renewal.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from the National Science Foundation
(NSF) for authorization to take marine
mammals incidental to the Palmer
Station Pier Replacement Project in
Anvers Island, Antarctica. Pursuant to
the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments
on its proposal to issue an incidental
harassment authorization (IHA) to
incidentally take marine mammals
during the specified activities. NMFS is
also requesting comments on a possible
one-time, one-year renewal that could
be issued under certain circumstances
and if all requirements are met, as
described in Request for Public
Comments at the end of this notice.
NMFS will consider public comments
prior to making any final decision on
the issuance of the requested MMPA
authorizations and agency responses
will be summarized in the final notice
of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than September 17,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service. Written
comments should be submitted via
email to ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46199
period. Comments, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
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: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case
of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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.
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46181-46199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17683]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XB140]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical Survey in the Arctic
Ocean
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an 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
[[Page 46182]]
University of Alaska Geophysics Institute (UAGI) to incidentally
harass, by Level B harassment, marine mammals during geophysical
surveys in the Arctic Ocean. This project is funded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF).
DATES: This Authorization is effective for one year, from August 11,
2021 through August 10, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. 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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these
documents please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 monitoring and
reporting of the takings.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On February 12, 2021, NMFS received a request from UAGI for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to a geophysical survey in the Arctic
Ocean. The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 6,
2021. UAGI's request is for take of 13 species of marine mammals, by
Level B harassment only. No Level A harassment is anticipated. Neither
UAGI nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Researchers at UAGI, with funding from NSF, plan to conduct a
seismic survey from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq in the Arctic
Ocean to document the structure and stratigraphy of the Chukchi
Borderland and adjacent Canada basin (see Figure 1). The proposed
activity is planned to take place in late summer 2021 (August/
September) with a total of 30 days of data acquisition. The survey will
include both high-energy and low-energy components. High-energy ocean
bottom seismometer (OBS) refraction surveys will use a 6-airgun, 3,120
cubic inch (in\3\) array and consist of ~12 percent of total survey
effort (henceforth referred to as high-energy survey). Low-energy
multi-channel seismic (MCS) reflection surveys will use a 2-airgun
array with a total discharge volume of 1040 in\3\ and consist of ~88
percent of total survey effort (henceforth referred to as low-energy
survey).
Dates and Duration
The activity will occur between August and September, 2021. The
activity is planned to occur for 45 days total, with ~30 days dedicated
to seismic data acquisition (with 24-hours a day operations), ~8 days
devoted to transit and 7 days used for equipment deployment and
recovery.
Specific Geographic Region
The surveys will occur within ~73.5-81.0[deg] N, ~139.5-168[deg] W
(>=300 kilometer (km) north of Utqia[gdot]vik). Representative survey
track lines can be seen in Figure 1. Some deviation in 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. Thus,
the track lines could occur anywhere within the coordinates noted above
and within the study area. Four percent of the surveys will occur
within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with the remaining part
of the survey occurring beyond the EEZ. The activity will take place in
depths ranging from 200-4,000 meters (m). The R/V Sikuliaq would likely
leave from and return to Nome, AK.
The low-energy survey activity will begin ~300 km from the Alaska
coastline (North of Utqiagvik) and extend ~800 km north from the
initial survey site (i.e., the survey would occur ~300-1,100 km from
the Alaska coastline). The high-energy survey activity will only occur
~530 km from the coastline and occur only in the northeastern part of
the survey area (See Figure 1). Eighty percent of the total survey will
occur in deep waters (>1,000 m) with the remainder of the survey
occurring in intermediate depth waters (100-1,000m); no surveying will
occur in waters <100 m deep. All high-energy surveys (680 km total)
will occur in deep waters, while 67 percent of low-energy surveys will
occur in deep waters (3,981 km). The remainder of low-energy surveys
(1,189 km or 23 percent) will occur in intermediate depth waters.
A detailed description of the planned geophysical survey project is
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR
28787; May 28, 2021). Since that time, no changes have been made to the
planned survey activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the
description of the specified activity.
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 46183]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18AU21.169
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to UAGI was published in
the Federal Register on May 28, 2021 (86 FR 28787). That notice
described, in detail, UAGI's proposed activity, the marine mammal
species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated
effects on marine mammals. NMFS received a letter from the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), which was the only comment received
for this project. The letter noted that AEWC does not oppose UAGI's
project but expressed concern regarding NMFS' decision not to subject
the associated monitoring plan to independent peer review prior to
making a decision regarding the requested IHA. In noting its concern,
AEWC asserted that NMFS does not have discretion regarding whether to
subject monitoring plans to peer review, stating that NMFS' discretion
extends only to how it engages peer review. While NMFS agrees with
AEWC's statement in cases where the proposed activity may affect the
availability of a species or stock of marine mammals for taking for
subsistence purposes, NMFS' determined the proposed activity will not
affect the availability of any species or stock of marine mammals for
taking for subsistence purposes. Therefore,
[[Page 46184]]
peer review of the monitoring plan is not required.
NMFS' conclusion that UAGI's survey activity will not affect the
availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for taking for
subsistence purposes was based on the fact that the activity is a
significant distance from shore and well beyond traditional hunting
areas. The take UAGI requested will occur incidental to activities
conducted well beyond 200 km from any hunting area or buffer. The
survey will occur no closer than 300 km from the Alaska coastline, with
the high-energy portion of the project occurring no closer than 530 km
from the coastline. The maximum estimated harassment zone for the
survey is 2.4 km and 4.65 km for the low-energy and high-energy survey
portions, respectively. Therefore, any take from these activities will
not directly interfere with the hunt. Furthermore, there is no
information supporting a conclusion that any behavioral disturbance of
bowhead whales occurring at such great distance from traditional
hunting areas (300-500 km) would affect their subsequent behavior in a
manner that would interfere with subsistence uses should those whales
later interact with hunters. As stated above, based on the foregoing
information, NMFS determined that the activity would not affect the
availability of any species or stock for taking for subsistence
purposes and, therefore, that peer review of the monitoring plan was
not warranted. No changes have been made from the proposed IHA to the
final IHA in response to comments.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
Following the public comment period, NMFS identified an error in
the calculation of bowhead whale density. The density value for bowhead
whales described in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28,
2021) (0.0124) was itself correct, but represents the number of
individuals per 100 km\2\ rather than individuals per 1 km\2\, as was
assumed for the proposed IHA. NMFS has corrected this error and, as a
result, the authorized Level B harassment take number is reduced from
339 to 3.
Additionally, NMFS identified errors made when calculating the
total take numbers proposed for authorization for all species due to
use of incorrect estimated Level A harassment ensonified areas and
double counting of estimated exposures within Level A harassment zones
(i.e., estimated exposures were double counted as both Level B
harassment takes and as independently estimated exposures within the
Level A harassment zones, which were also tallied as takes by Level B
harassment). These errors have been corrected, and the revised
authorized take numbers are shown in Table 7. All revised take numbers
are lower than those proposed for authorization (86 FR 28787; May 28,
2021). Please refer to the Estimated Take section for further detail
regarding this change.
Lastly, we note a mistake in the proposed IHA that has since been
corrected. One section of the proposed IHA (4(f)(iv)) described the
shutdown mitigation measure for bowhead whales to be at any distance
while the proposed FR notice and the rest of the proposed IHA stated
this distance to be at 1,500 m. This has since been corrected for the
final IHA and the shutdown area and the exclusion zone will be at 1,500
m bowhead whales. Additionally, the requirement for bigeye binoculars
has been removed as they are not available on board the R/V Sikuliaq.
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' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://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'
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). Additional
information may be found in the Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine Mammals
(ASAMM) reports, which are available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-mammal-protection/aerial-surveys-arctic-marine-mammals.
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
authorized for this action, 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 from the
Society for Marine Mammalogy (2021). 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' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprise that stock. For most species, stock abundance estimates are
based on sightings within the U.S. EEZ; however, for some species, this
geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. Survey abundance
estimates may be used for other species. Survey abundance (as compared
to stock or species abundance) is the total number of individuals
estimated within the survey area, which may or may not align completely
with a stock's geographic range as defined in the SARs. These surveys
may also extend beyond U.S. waters. In this case, the survey area
outside of the U.S. EEZ does not necessarily overlap with the ranges
for stocks managed by NMFS. However, we assume that individuals of
these species that may be encountered during the survey would be part
of those stocks. Additionally, six species listed in Table 1 indicate
Unknown abundance estimates. This may be due to outdated data and
population estimates or data is not representative of the entire stock.
All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska
and Pacific SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021). All
values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time
of publication and are available in the 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021,
Carretta et al., 2021) (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
In addition, the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and
the Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) may be found in the Arctic. However,
Pacific walruses and Polar bears are managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.
[[Page 46185]]
Table 1--Marine Mammals Expected To 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/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern N Pacific...... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 131
2016).
Family Balaenidae:
Bowhead whale................... Balaena mysticetus..... Western Arctic......... E, D, Y 16,820................ 161 56
(0.052,16,100, 2011)..
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Fin whale....................... Balaenoptera physalus.. Northeast Pacific \4\ * E, D, Y Unknown............... UND 0.6
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Western N Pacific *.... E, D, Y 1,107 (0.3, 865, 2006) 3 2.8
Minke whale..................... Balaenoptera Alaska \4\ *........... -, -, N Unknown............... UND 0
acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Beaufort Sea \4\....... -, -, N 39,258 (0.229, N/A. UND 104
1992).
Eastern Chukchi........ -, -, N 13,305 (0.51, 8,875, 178 55
2017).
Killer whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Alaska resident........ -, -, N 2,347 c (N/A, 2347, 24 1
2012).
Narwhal......................... Monodon Monoceros...... Unidentified \4\ *..... -, -, N Unknown............... UND 0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor Porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Bering Sea \4\ *....... -, -, Y Unknown............... UND 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Bearded Seal.................... Erignathus barbatus.... Beringia \4\ *......... T, D, Y Unknown............... UND 6,709
Ribbon Seal..................... Histriophoca fasciata.. Unidentified *......... -, -, N 184,687 (see SAR, 9,785 163
163,086, 2013).
Ringed Seal..................... Pusa hispida........... Arctic................. T, D, Y Unknown............... 5,100 6,459
Spotted Seal.................... Phoca largha........... Bering................. -, -, N 461,625 (see SAR, 25,394 5,254
423,237, 2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Stocks marked with an asterisk are addressed in further detail in the text below.
\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 online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For 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' 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021), represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious
injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ 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 present the best available
information for use in this document.
As indicated above, all 13 species (with 14 managed stocks) in
Table 1 could temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to
the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have
authorized it. All species that could potentially occur in the survey
areas are included in Table 4 of the IHA application.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
geophysical survey, including brief introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR
28787; May 28, 2021); since that time, we are not aware of any changes
in the status of these species or stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS'
website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species
accounts.
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. As of August 5, 2021, there have been 357 recorded
seal strandings. 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
August 5, 2021, there have been a total of 487 whales reported in the
event, with approximately 225 dead whales in Mexico, 244 whales in the
United States (including 108 in Alaska), and 18 whales in British
Columbia, Canada. For the United States, the historical 18-year 5-month
average (Jan-May) is 14.8 whales for this same time-period.
[[Page 46186]]
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.
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 Revision to
its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound
on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance) (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-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) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(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.
Thirteen marine mammal species (nine cetacean and four pinniped (all
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
survey activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the cetacean species
that may be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all mysticete species), three are classified as mid-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid species), and one is classified as high-
frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).
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 survey activities using the same methodology and over a
similar amount of time, and affecting similar species (e.g., 83 FR
29212, June 22, 2018; 84 FR 14200, April 9, 2019; 85 FR 19580, April 7,
2020). Section VII of UAGI's application provides a comprehensive
discussion of the potential effects of the survey. We have reviewed
UAGI's application and believe it is accurate and complete. No
significant new information is available. The effects of underwater
noise from UAGI's geophysical survey have the potential to result in
behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action
area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 28787;
May 28, 2021) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic
noise on marine mammals, therefore that information is not repeated
here; please to the aforementioned notice for that information.
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 (86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) 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).
[[Page 46187]]
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
for authorization through this IHA, which informed 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 will be by Level B harassment, as use of seismic
airguns may result, either directly or as a result of TTS, in
disruption of behavioral patterns of marine mammals. The mitigation and
related monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of
such taking to the extent practicable. Moreover, based on the nature of
the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation
measures (i.e., implementation of extended shutdown distances for
certain species)--discussed in detail below in the Mitigation section--
Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.
As described previously, no 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
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 estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of 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), the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context), and
the distance between the sound source and the animal, 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 received levels 160 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for the impulsive sources (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). UAGI's seismic survey includes the use of
impulsive sources (seismic airgun).
These thresholds are provided in Table 3 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
https://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; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
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)................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
(Underwater).......................... LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)................ Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
(Underwater).......................... 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 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]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.
[[Page 46188]]
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and acoustic
propagation modeling.
The acoustic propagation modeling methodologies are described in
greater detail in Appendix A of UAGI's IHA application. The survey will
primarily acquire data using the 2-airgun array with a total discharge
volume of 1,040 in\3\ and an approximately 15-second shot interval.
During approximately 12 percent of the planned survey tracklines, the
6-airgun, 3,120 in\3\ array will be used with a 60-second shot
interval. All tracklines will be surveyed with a maximum tow depth of 9
m. The modeling assumed an airgun firing pressure of 2,540 psi.
Propagation modeling for UAGI's application follows the approach used
by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for other, similar IHA
applications. L-DEO 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 a 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 Marcus G. Langseth (with
the same 36-airgun array referenced above) 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) (see Table 4).
Water depths in the project area may be up to 4,000 m, but marine
mammals in the region are generally not anticipated to dive below 2,000
m (Costa and Williams, 1999). The radii for intermediate water depths
(100-1,000 m) are derived from the deep-water ones by applying a
correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5. No survey effort will occur
in water depths <100 m.
The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the
planned survey lines into a GIS and then ``buffering'' the lines by the
applicable 160-dB distance (see Appendix B in IHA application). The
resulting ensonified areas were then increased by 25 percent to allow
for any necessary additional operations, such as re-surveying segments
where data quality was insufficient. This approach assumes that no
marine mammals would move away or toward the trackline in response to
increasing sound levels before the levels reach the threshold as R/V
Sikuliaq approaches.
Table 4--Predicted Radial Distances to Isopleths Corresponding to Level B Harassment Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Source and volume Tow depth (m) Water depth harassment zone
(m) (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 airgun array; 3,120 in\3\.................................. 9 >1,000 \1\ 4,640
100-1,000 \3\ 6,960
2 airgun array; 1,040 in\3\.................................. 9 >1,000 \1\ 1,604
100-1,000 \2\ 2,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distance based on L-DEO model results.
\2\ Based on L-DEO model results with 1.5x correction factor applied.
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary
based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on L-DEO
modeling performed 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
the 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) 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
[[Page 46189]]
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. 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 (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. For full detail of the modeling
methodology used for estimating distance to Level A harassment peak
pressure and cumulative SEL criteria, please see Appendix A of UAGI's
application.
Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the form of estimated source
levels are shown in Appendix A of UAGI's application. User Spreadsheets
used by UAGI 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
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-airgun array (3,120 in\3\)... SELcum............ 51 0 0 0
Peak.............. 30 7 212 34
2-airgun array (1,040 in\3\)... SELcum............ 17 0 0 0
Peak.............. 10 3 73 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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 and low-
frequency cetaceans given very small modeled zones of injury for those
species (all estimated zones less than 10 m for mid-frequency
cetaceans, up to a maximum of 51 m for low-frequency cetaceans and 34 m
for phocid pinnipeds), in context of distributed source dynamics.
Similarly, for high-frequency cetaceans, the maximum modeled injury
zone for the low-energy array (88 percent of survey effort) is 73 m and
auditory injury would be unlikely to occur during use of that array.
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 estimated Level A harassment isopleth
distances would in all cases (other than for high-frequency cetaceans)
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
relevant harassment criteria would not necessarily exist.
In consideration of the received sound levels in the near-field as
described above, we expect the potential for Level A harassment of low-
and mid-frequency cetaceans 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.
A similar conclusion may be drawn for high-frequency cetaceans relative
to use of the low-energy airgun
[[Page 46190]]
array. We do not believe that Level A harassment is a likely outcome
for any low- or mid-frequency cetacean or phocid pinniped and are not
authorizing any Level A harassment for these species. For high-
frequency cetaceans, the larger estimated Level A harassment zone
associated with the high-energy array will be present for only 12
percent of total survey effort, and given the expected rarity of
occurrence for harbor porpoise, no incidents of Level A harassment are
expected.
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 (86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021). Information that
has remained unchanged is not reprinted here. Density values are shown
in Table 6.
The bowhead whale density value described in the notice of proposed
IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) was correct; however, the incorrect
units were used. The value reported in the notice of proposed IHA
(0.0124 whales/km\2\) would correctly be stated as 0.0124 whales/100
km\2\, and the corrected density is used here.
Table 6--Density Values Used for Take Analysis, Calculated by UAGI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species (individuals/km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale...................................... 0.000124
Gray whale......................................... 0
Fin whale.......................................... 0
Humpback whale..................................... 0
Minke whale........................................ 0
Beluga whale....................................... 0.0255
Killer whale....................................... Unknown
Narwhal............................................ Unknown
Harbor porpoise.................................... Unknown
Bearded seal....................................... 0.0332
Ribbon seal........................................ 0.0677
Ringed seal........................................ 0.376
Spotted seal....................................... 0.0007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 7. As noted previously, UAGI has added 25 percent in the form
of operational days, which is equivalent to adding 25 percent to the
line-kilometers to be surveyed. This accounts for the possibility that
additional operational days are required, and is included in the
estimates of actual exposures.
The number of individual marine mammals potentially exposed to
airgun sounds with received levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Parms
(Level B) was estimated following NSF's take calculation method by
multiplying the estimated densities by the total area expected to be
ensonified above the Level threshold. The total ensonified area was
multiplied by 25 percent to account for any necessary additional
operations, such as re-surveying segments where data quality was
insufficient. This approach assumes that no marine mammals would move
away or toward the trackline in response to increasing sound levels
before the levels reach the threshold as R/V Sikuliaq approaches. This
value was then multiplied by the estimated densities for each species
to produce estimated Level B takes. Given the location of the survey
being far north in the Arctic, we expect that the density values, and
thus estimated take numbers, are conservative estimates of what is
likely to be encountered during the survey.
Table 7--Estimated Taking by Level A and Level B Harassment, and Percentage of Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Authorized Authorized
Species Stock \1\ Level B Level A Level B Level A Total Percent of
harassment harassment harassment harassment take stock \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................................ Western Arctic................. 3 0 3 0 3 0.02
Humpback whale \2\........................... WN Pacific..................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.01
Fin whale 2 4................................ NE Pacific..................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.18
Gray whale \2\............................... EN Pacific..................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.01
Minke whale 2 4.............................. Alaska......................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.01
Beluga whale................................. Beaufort Sea................... 696 1 697 0 697 1.33
Eastern Chukchi................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ....... ...........
Killer whale \2\............................. Alaska Resident................ 0 0 6 0 6 0.20
Narwhal 3 4.................................. Unidentified................... 0 0 2 0 2 n/a
Harbor porpoise 2 4.......................... Bering Sea..................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.04
Bearded seal \5\............................. Beringia....................... 900 6 907 0 907 0.73
Ringed seal \5\.............................. Arctic......................... 10,198 70 10,269 0 10,269 5.99
Spotted seal................................. Bering......................... 19 0 19 0 19 0.00
Ribbon seal.................................. Unidentified................... 1,836 13 1,849 0 1,849 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 authorized takes occurred within each stock. Where necessary, additional discussion is provided in the ``Small Numbers Analysis''
section.
\2\ UAGI requests authorization of gray whale, humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, killer whale, and harbor porpoise take equivalent to exposure of
one group (Clarke et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2019).
\3\ UAGI requests authorization of two takes of narwhals.
\4\ As noted in Table 1, there is no estimate of abundance available for these species. See ``Small Numbers Analysis'' section for further discussion.
\5\ Due to rounding, the total estimated Level B harassment does not equal the sum of Level A harassment and Level B harassment.
[[Page 46191]]
Although gray whales, fin whales, humpback whales, minke whales,
narwhals and harbor porpoises are not expected to occur this far north
in the Arctic, we agree with NSF that there is possibility that this
activity might encounter these species and thus a conservative number
of takes has been authorized based on average group size from yearly
Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) (Clark et al., 2016,
2017, 2018, 2019). As described previously in the Changes from the
Proposed IHA to Final IHA section, errors in take estimate calculations
have been corrected from the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 18787; May
28, 2021) as shown in Table 7. These changes were made after
identifying that the original estimated take numbers used the incorrect
Level A harassment ensonified areas in addition to doubling the
estimated exposures within the Level A harassment zone. These
corrected, authorized take numbers presented here are either equal to
or smaller than those proposed for authorization.
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. 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, as
well as subsistence uses. 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 and impact on
operations.
In order to satisfy the MMPA's least practicable adverse impact
standard, NMFS has evaluated a suite of basic mitigation protocols for
seismic surveys that are required regardless of the status of a stock.
Additional or enhanced protections may be required for species whose
stocks are in particularly poor health and/or are subject to some
significant additional stressor that lessens that stock's ability to
weather the effects of the specified activities without worsening its
status. We reviewed seismic mitigation protocols required or
recommended elsewhere (e.g., HESS, 1999; DOC, 2013; IBAMA, 2018; Kyhn
et al., 2011; JNCC, 2017; DEWHA, 2008; BOEM, 2016; DFO, 2008; GHFS,
2015; MMOA, 2016; Nowacek et al., 2013; Nowacek and Southall, 2016),
recommendations received during public comment periods for previous
actions, and the available scientific literature. We also considered
recommendations given in a number of review articles (e.g., Weir and
Dolman, 2007; Compton et al., 2008; Parsons et al., 2009; Wright and
Cosentino, 2015; Stone, 2015b). This exhaustive review and
consideration of public comments regarding previous, similar activities
has led to development of the protocols included here.
Due to the use of high- and low-energy airgun arrays used within
this survey, two separate mitigation protocols are required for use
throughout the activity depending on which array is in use (Table 8).
Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation Monitoring
Visual monitoring requires the use of trained observers (herein
referred to as visual Protected Species Observers (PSOs)) to scan the
ocean surface for the presence of marine mammals. The area to be
scanned visually includes primarily the exclusion zone (EZ), 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 EZ to be monitored for the presence of marine mammals that
may enter the EZ. During pre-clearance monitoring (i.e., before ramp-up
begins), the buffer zone also acts as an extension of the EZ in that
observations of marine mammals within the buffer zone would also
prevent airgun operations from beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The standard
EZ is 500 m from the edges of the airgun array for high-energy surveys
and 100 m for low-energy surveys. For high-energy surveys, the buffer
zone encompasses the area at and below the sea surface from the edge of
the 0-500 m EZ, out to a radius of 1,000 m from the edges of the airgun
array (500-1,000 m). For low-energy surveys, the buffer zone
encompasses the area at and below the sea surface from the edge of the
0-100 m EZ, out to a radius of 200 m from the edges of the airgun array
(100-200 m).
Visual monitoring of the EZ and buffer zones 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 EZ by alerting the visual observer and
crew of marine mammals that are outside of, but may approach and enter,
the EZ.
UAGI 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 PSOs aboard the vessel must have a
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in the roles, 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
[[Page 46192]]
times during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise
through 30 minutes following sunset). Visual monitoring of the EZ and
buffer zone 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 EZ and buffer zone. 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 EZ) 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 EZ) 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 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.
Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer Zones
An 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 behavioral patterns. The
PSOs would establish a minimum EZ with a 500- or 100-m radius, during
use of the high-energy and low-energy arrays, respectively, for all
species except bowhead whales. The EZ would be 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).
The EZs are intended to be precautionary in the sense that they
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, the EZs are
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 these
distances are likely regularly attainable for PSOs using the naked eye
during typical conditions.
An extended EZ of 1,500/500 m must be implemented for all bowhead
whales during high-energy and low-energy survey effort, respectively,
because of their importance to subsistence hunters and protected
status. 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 for high-energy airgun
arrays. Ramp-up for the low-energy array, which includes only two
elements, may be shorter. 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 EZ and buffer zone 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 EZ or buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed
within the applicable EZ 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
pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for all mysticetes and all other odontocetes,
including large delphinids, such as beluga whales and killer whales);
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 for high-energy arrays. The operator must provide
information to the PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were
followed;
PSOs must monitor the relevant EZ and buffer zone during
ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon
detection of a marine mammal within the applicable EZ. 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
[[Page 46193]]
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 EZ. 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 EZ. 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 the
airgun array is active (i.e., anytime one or more airguns is active,
including during ramp-up) and a marine mammal appears within or enters
the applicable EZ, 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.
Following a shutdown, airgun activity would not resume until the
marine mammal has cleared the EZ. The animal would be considered to
have cleared the EZ if it is visually observed to have departed the EZ,
or it has not been seen within the EZ for 15 min in the case of small
odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in the case of mysticetes and
large odontocetes, including beluga whales and killer whales.
Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be reactivated
after the marine mammal(s) has been observed exiting the applicable EZ
(i.e., animal is not required to fully exit the buffer zone where
applicable) or following 15 minutes for small odontocetes and
pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for mysticetes and all other odontocetes,
including beluga whales and killer whales, with no further observation
of the marine mammal(s).
UAGI 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. UAGI must also implement shutdown if any of the
following are observed at any distance:
Any large whale (defined as 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); and/or
An aggregation of six or more large whales.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)
NMFS will not require the use of PAM for this activity. PAM would
only be applicable to the small portion of the survey (12 percent)
using the high-energy array and UAGI has indicated that it would not be
practicable to carry the additional monitoring personnel required for
implementation of towed PAM. Additionally, species of greatest interest
in prescribing use of towed PAM (e.g., sperm whales, beaked whales) are
not present in the planned survey area. Further details of this
decision are described in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May
28, 2021).
Table 8--Mitigation Protocols for High- and Low-Energy Arrays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation protocols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources..................... High-energy (6- Low-energy (2-airgun
airgun array with array with 1040
3120 in\3\ total in\3\ total
discharge volume). discharge volume).
Visual PSOs................. Minimum of 2 NMFS- Minimum of 2 NMFS-
approved PSOs on approved PSOs on
duty during duty during
daylight hours (30 daylight hours (30
minutes before minutes before
sunrise through 30 sunrise through 30
minutes after minutes after
sunset); Limit of 2 sunset); Limit of 2
consecutive hours consecutive hours
on watch followed on watch followed
by a break of at by a break of at
least 1 hour; least 1 hour;
Maximum of 12 hours Maximum of 12 hours
on watch per 24- on watch per 24-
hour period. hour period.
Passive acoustic monitoring. Not Required........ Not required.
Exclusion zones............. 500 m (all 100 m (all
marine mammals). marine mammals).
1,500 m 500 m
(Bowhead whales). (Bowhead whales).
Pre-start clearance......... Required; 30-minute Required; 30-minute
clearance period of clearance period of
the following the following
zones: zones:
1,000 m 200 m (all
(all marine marine mammals).
mammals). 500 m
1,500 m (Bowhead whales).
(Bowhead whales).
Following detection Following detection
within zone, animal within zone, animal
must be observed must be observed
exiting or exiting or
additional period additional period
of 15 or 30 minutes. of 15 or 30
minutes.
Ramp-up..................... Required; duration Required; duration
>=20 minutes. not more than 20
minutes.
Shutdown.................... Shutdown required Shutdown required
for marine mammal for marine mammal
detected within detected within
defined EZs; Re- defined EZs; Re-
start allowed start allowed
following clearance following clearance
period of 15 or 30 period of 15 or 30
minutes. minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 46194]]
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 marine mammals from other
phenomena, and (2) broadly identify a marine mammal as a bowhead whale,
other whale (defined in this context as baleen whales other than
bowhead 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 bowhead whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as
a species other than a bowhead whale, the vessel operator must assume
that it is a bowhead whale and take appropriate action.
4. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m
from 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 marine
mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible
(e.g., for animals that approach the vessel).
6. When marine mammals 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 did not identify any mitigation specifically appropriate for
habitat. 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 area; 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. The
specified activity is of relatively short duration (30 days) and the
disturbance will be temporary in nature, similar habitat and resources
are available 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. No Biologically Important Areas (BIAs), designated
critical habitat, or other habitat of known significance would be
impacted by the planned activities.
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 measures, as
well as other measures considered by NMFS described above, NMFS has
determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of 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, and on the availability of
such species or stock for subsistence uses (see Unmitigable Adverse
Impact Analysis and Determination).
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
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).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
As described above, PSO observations would take place during
daytime airgun operations. During seismic operations, at least five
visual PSOs would be based aboard the R/V Sikuliaq. 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 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 PSOs and must be employed by a third-party observer provider;
PSOs shall have no tasks other than to conduct
observational effort, 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;
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
[[Page 46195]]
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. Traditional ecological
knowledge is also a relevant consideration.
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 (CPA) 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.
Reporting
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of
the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted
and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will
provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation
pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the
dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal
sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic
survey activities).
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 UAGI shall report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS, and the NMFS
Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
[[Page 46196]]
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,
UAGI 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).
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 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' 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
Table 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 injury, serious injury or mortality
will occur as a result of UAGI's planned survey, even in the absence of
mitigation, and none will be authorized. Similarly, non-auditory
physical effects, stranding, and vessel strike are not expected to
occur. Although a few incidents of Level A harassment were predicted
through the quantitative exposure estimation process (see Estimated
Take), NMFS has determined that this is not a realistic result due to
the small estimated Level A harassment zones for the species (no
greater than approximately 50 m) and the mitigation requirements, and
no Level A harassment is authorized. These estimated zones are larger
than what would realistically occur, as discussed in the Estimated Take
section. Although no Level A harassment would be expected to occur even
absent mitigation, the extended distance exclusion zones for bowhead
whales further strengthen this conclusion.
We expect that 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). The
number of takes for bowhead whales is 0.02 percent of the population.
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 area; 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 (30 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. No
BIAs, designated critical habitat, or other habitat of known
significance would be impacted by the planned activities.
Negligible Impact Conclusions
The survey would be of short duration (30 days of seismic
operations), and the acoustic ``footprint'' of the survey would be
small relative to the ranges of the marine mammals that would
potentially be affected. Sound levels would 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 expected to only temporarily affect
marine mammal behavior in the form of avoidance, and the potential for
longer-term avoidance of important areas is limited. Short term
exposures to survey operations are not likely to impact marine mammal
behavior, and the potential for longer-term avoidance of important
areas is limited.
The 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 observers, and by
[[Page 46197]]
minimizing the severity of any potential exposures via shutdowns of the
airgun array.
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks
due to UAGI's survey would 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 authorized take
estimates 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 Level A harassment, serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized;
The activity is temporary and of relatively short duration
(30 days);
The anticipated impacts of the activity on marine mammals
would primarily be temporary behavioral changes in the form of
avoidance of the area around the survey vessel;
Location of the survey is further north in the Arctic
Ocean and away from areas where most of the species listed in Table 1
have been observed and is north of summer feeding areas and migratory
routes.
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
would be temporary and spatially limited, and impacts to marine mammal
foraging would be minimal; and
The mitigation measures, including visual monitoring,
shutdowns, ramp-up, and prescribed measures based on energy size 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 monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the
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 the take 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 (see 86 FR 5322, January 19,
2021). 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 there is no currently accepted
stock abundance estimate. These include the fin whale Northeast Pacific
stock, the minke whale Alaska stock, the narwhal Unidentified stock,
the bearded seal Beringia stock, and the ringed seal Arctic stock. In
those cases, qualitative factors are used to inform an assessment of
whether the likely number of individual marine mammals taken is
appropriately considered small. We discuss these in further detail
below.
For all other stocks (aside from those without accepted abundance
estimates), the authorized take is less than 7 percent of the best
available stock abundance, well less than the one-third threshold for
exceeding small numbers (and some of those takes may be repeats of the
same individual, thus rendering the actual percentage even lower). We
also acknowledge that, given the location of the planned survey
activity high in the Arctic Ocean, the stock ranges referenced in the
SARs do not always fully overlap the area of the planned survey
activity. However, given the very small percentage of the best
available stock abundance estimates for these species and the
likelihood that the numbers of take authorized would be very small
relative to any reasonable population abundance estimate, we conclude
these numbers are small.
The stock abundance estimates for fin whale, minke whale, narwhal,
bearded seal and ringed seal stocks that occur in the surveys area are
unknown, according to the latest 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, Carretta
et al., 2021). Therefore, we reviewed other scientific information in
making our small numbers determinations for these animals. The
abundance estimate of 20,000 minke whales was taken from the Northwest
Pacific and Okhotsk Sea (IWC 2021). In addition, 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 authorized take number of 2 is of
small numbers. The same surveys produced partial abundance estimates of
1,652 and 1,061 fin whales, for the same areas, respectively, which are
similarly sufficient to demonstrate that the authorized take number of
2 is small numbers. The bearded seal estimate of 125,000 was estimated
for the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea (Boveng et al., 2017) and
155,000 bearded seals for the entire Alaska stock (Cameron et al.,
2010). These partial abundance estimates near the survey are sufficient
to demonstrate that the authorized take number of 916 seals is small
numbers. Similarly, the ringed seal abundance estimate of 171,418
ringed seals was based on a limited sub-sample from the Bering Sea
(Conn et al., 2014 in Muto et al., 2020). This minimal abundance
estimate for the Alaska region is enough to demonstrate that a take of
10,373 will be small numbers at 6.05 percent of the Bering Sea
population. There is no abundance information available for narwhals.
However, the take number is sufficiently small (2) that we assume that
it is small relative to any reasonable assumption of likely population
abundance for the narwhal. Additionally, the survey area encompasses a
very small portion of the hypothesized range of the species.
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
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing
the
[[Page 46198]]
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The coast and nearshore waters of Alaska are of cultural importance
to indigenous peoples for fishing, hunting, gathering, and ceremonial
purposes. Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by
coastal Alaska Natives. There are seven communities in the North Slope
Borough region of Alaska (northwestern and northern Alaska) that
harvest seals, including from west to east Point Hope, Point Lay,
Wainwright, Utqia[gdot]vik, Atqusak, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik (Ice Seal
Committee 2019). Bearded seals are the preferred species to harvest as
food and for skin boat coverings, but ringed seals are also commonly
taken for food and their blubber (Ice Seal Committee 2019). Ringed
seals are typically harvested during the summer and can extend up to 64
km from shore (Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010). No ribbon seals
have been harvested in any of the North Slope Borough communities since
the 1960s (Ice Seal Committee 2019). However, the number of seals
harvested each year varies considerably.
A subsistence harvest of bowheads and belugas is also practiced by
Alaskan Natives, providing nutritional and cultural needs. In 2019, 36
bowhead whales were taken during the Alaskan subsistence hunt (Suydam
et al., 2020). Whaling near Utqia[gdot]vik occurs during spring (April
and May) and autumn, and can continue into November, depending on the
quota and conditions. Communities that harvested bowheads during 2019
include Utqia[gdot]vik, Gamgell, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point
Lay, and Wainwright. Bowhead whales and gray whales are also taken in
the aboriginal subsistence hunt in the Russian Federation (Zharikov et
al., 2020). During 2019, 135 gray whales and one bowhead whale were
harvested at Chukotka.
Beluga whales from the eastern Chukchi Sea stock are an important
subsistence resource for residents of the village of Point Lay,
adjacent to Kasegaluk Lagoon, and other villages in northwest Alaska.
Each year, hunters from Point Lay drive belugas into the lagoon to a
traditional hunting location. The beluga whales have been predictably
sighted near the lagoon from late June through mid to late July (Suydam
et al., 2001). The mean annual number of Beaufort Sea belugas landed by
Alaska Native subsistence hunters in 2011-2015 was 47, and an average
of 92 were taken in Canadian waters; the mean annual number of Eastern
Chukchi Sea belugas landed by Alaska Native subsistence hunters in
2011-2015 was 67 (Muto et al., 2020).
The survey by UAGI will occur within ~73.5-81.0[deg] N, ~139.5-
168[deg] W and over 300 km from the Alaska coastline. Due to the
location of the survey being far north in the Arctic and over 200
kilometers from any hunting area or buffer (https://www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/bowhead%20migration%20map%2021mar03%20distribution.pdf), no impacts on
the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses are expected to
occur. Specifically, based on the survey methods and location planned,
there is no reason to believe that there will be any behavioral
disturbance of bowhead whales that would also impact their behavior in
a manner that would interfere with subsistence use later. Although
fishing/hunting would not be precluded in the survey area, a safe
distance would need to be kept from R/V Sikuliaq and the towed seismic
equipment. The principal investigator for the survey presented the
action to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) at the July 2020,
October 2020, and February 2021 Triannual Meetings. As specifically
noted, during the meetings, daily email communications with interested
community members would be made from the vessel. Communication may
include notice of any unusual marine mammal observations during the
survey. Any potential space use conflicts would be further avoided
through direct communication with subsistence fishers/hunters during
the surveys. Considering the limited time that the planned seismic
surveys would take place and the far offshore location of the surveys,
no direct interaction with subsistence fishers/hunters would be
anticipated. However, UAGI will still be required to remain in constant
communication with subsistence fishers/hunters during the surveys.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses from UAGI's activities.
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), NSF
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct,
indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from
this marine geophysical survey in the Arctic. 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 UAGI. In compliance with
NEPA and CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-2,
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
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 OPR ESA Interagency Cooperation Division issued a
Biological Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an
IHA to UAGI under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS OPR
Permits and Conservation Division and NSF's funding of the survey. The
Biological Opinion concluded that the action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed bowhead whales, fin
whales, the Western North Pacific population of gray whales, the Mexico
DPS and Western North Pacific DPS of humpback whales, bearded seals and
ribbon seals, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the
proposed critical habitat for bearded seals and ringed seals. There is
no designated critical habitat in the action area for the other ESA-
listed species.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to UAGI
for conducting marine geophysical surveys in the Arctic in August and
September,
[[Page 46199]]
2021, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: August 11, 2021.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17683 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P