Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 48443-48447 [2023-15860]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 143 / Thursday, July 27, 2023 / Notices
Disclosure
We will disclose the calculations
performed for these amended final
results to parties to this segment of the
proceeding within five days of the date
of the publication of these amended
final results, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.224(b).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
Commerce has determined, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with these
amended final results of the
administrative review.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1), we calculated importerspecific ad valorem antidumping duty
assessment rates based on the ratio of
the total amount of dumping calculated
for the examined sales for each importer
to the total entered value of the sales for
each importer. Where an importerspecific antidumping duty assessment
rate is zero or de minimis within the
meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1),
Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate
the appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties.
Commerce’s ‘‘automatic assessment’’
will apply to entries of subject
merchandise during the period of
review produced by Ratnamani for
which the reviewed company did not
know that the merchandise it sold to the
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading
company, or exporter) was destined for
the United States. In such instances, we
will instruct CBP to liquidate
unreviewed entries at the all-others rate
if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the
transaction.
For the companies which were not
selected for individual examination, we
will instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties at an ad valorem assessment rate
equal to the weighted-average dumping
margin determined in these amended
final results.
The amended final results of this
review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on
entries of merchandise covered by the
amended final results of this review and
for future deposits of estimated duties,
where applicable.9
Commerce intends to issue
assessment instructions to CBP no
earlier than 35 days after the date of
publication of the amended final results
of this review in the Federal Register.
9 See
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jul 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S.
Court of International Trade, the
assessment instructions will direct CBP
not to liquidate relevant entries until the
time for parties to file a request for a
statutory injunction has expired (i.e.,
within 90 days of publication).
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective
retroactively for all shipments of subject
merchandise that entered, or were
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after June 9, 2023,
the date of publication of the Final
Results of this administrative review, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of
the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the
companies listed above will be equal to
the weighted-average dumping margin
established in these amended final
results of review; (2) for producers or
exporters not covered in this review but
covered in a prior segment of the
proceeding, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recently
completed segment of this proceeding;
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered
in this review or another completed
segment of this proceeding, but the
producer is, then the cash deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recently completed segment of this
proceeding for the producer of the
merchandise; and (4) if neither the
exporter nor the producer is a firm
covered in this or any previously
completed segment of this proceeding,
then the cash deposit rate will be the
all-others rate of 8.35 percent
established in the less-than-fair-value
investigation.10
These cash deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping and/or
countervailing duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during the period of review. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in Commerce’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping and/or
countervailing duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties, and/or an increase
in the amount of antidumping duties by
the amount of the countervailing duties.
10 See Welded Stainless Pressure Pipe from India:
Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders,
81 FR 81062 (November 17, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48443
Administrative Protective Order
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which
continues to govern business
proprietary information in this segment
of the proceeding. Timely written
notification of the return or 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(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.224(e).
Dated: July 21, 2023.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
Appendix
List of Companies Not Selected for
Individual Examination
1. Apex Tubes Private Ltd.
2. Apurvi Industries
3. Arihant Tubes
4. Divine Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
5. Heavy Metal & Tubes
6. J.S.S. Steelitalia Ltd.
7. Linkwell Seamless Tubes Private Limited
8. Maxim Tubes Company Pvt. Ltd.
9. MBM Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
10. Mukat Tanks & Vessel Ltd.
11. Neotiss Ltd.
12. Prakash Steelage Ltd.
13. Quality Stainless Pvt. Ltd.
14. Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd.
15. Ratnadeep Metal & Tubes Ltd.
16. Remi Edelstahl Tubulars
17. Shubhlaxmi Metals & Tubes Private
Limited
18. SLS Tubes Pvt. Ltd.
19. Steamline Industries Ltd.
[FR Doc. 2023–15950 Filed 7–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XD156]
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Geophysical Surveys
Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the
Gulf of Mexico
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
48444
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 143 / Thursday, July 27, 2023 / Notices
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of letter of
authorization.
In accordance with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), as amended, its implementing
regulations, and NMFS’ MMPA
Regulations for Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Geophysical
Surveys Related to Oil and Gas
Activities in the Gulf of Mexico,
notification is hereby given that a Letter
of Authorization (LOA) has been issued
to Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell) for the take
of marine mammals incidental to
geophysical survey activity in the Gulf
of Mexico.
DATES: The LOA is effective from July
21, 2023 through April 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and
supporting documentation are available
online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
action/incidental-take-authorization-oiland-gas-industry-geophysical-surveyactivity-gulf-mexico. In case of problems
accessing these documents, please call
the contact listed below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
An authorization for incidental
takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible
impact on the species or stock(s), will
not have an unmitigable adverse impact
on the availability of the species or
stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible
methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of such takings are set
forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible
impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact
resulting from the specified activity that
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jul 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final
rule with regulations to govern the
unintentional taking of marine
mammals incidental to geophysical
survey activities conducted by oil and
gas industry operators, and those
persons authorized to conduct activities
on their behalf (collectively ‘‘industry
operators’’), in Federal waters of the
U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the
course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January
19, 2021). The rule was based on our
findings that the total taking from the
specified activities over the 5-year
period will have a negligible impact on
the affected species or stock(s) of marine
mammals and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of those species or stocks for
subsistence uses. The rule became
effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et
seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to
industry operators for the incidental
take of marine mammals during
geophysical survey activities and
prescribe the permissible methods of
taking and other means of effecting the
least practicable adverse impact on
marine mammal species or stocks and
their habitat (often referred to as
mitigation), as well as requirements
pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR
217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be
based on a determination that the level
of taking will be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking
allowable under these regulations and a
determination that the amount of take
authorized under the LOA is of no more
than small numbers.
Summary of Request and Analysis
Shell plans to conduct a 3D ocean
bottom node (OBN) survey over
approximately 185 lease blocks in the
Mississippi Canyon and Atwater Valley
Protraction Areas, with approximate
water depths ranging from 1,100 to
1,500 meters (m). See Section F of the
LOA application for a map of the area.
Shell anticipates using two source
vessels, with one towing dual
conventional airgun array sources
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
consisting of 32 elements, with a total
volume of 5,110 cubic inches (in3). The
second source vessel is expected to tow
the low-frequency tuned pulse source
(TPS). This source was not included in
the acoustic exposure modeling
developed in support of the rule.
However, the TPS source was
previously described and evaluated in
the notice of issuance of a previous LOA
to Shell (86 FR 37309, 37310; July 15,
2021; see also 87 FR 55790, 55791
(September 12, 2022 (notice of issuance
of LOA to Shell)). For additional detail
regarding sources, see Section C of the
LOA application. Based on this
information we have determined there
will be no effects of a magnitude or
intensity different from those evaluated
in support of the rule. NMFS therefore
expects that use of modeling results
supporting the final rule relating to use
of the 72 element, 8,000 in 3 airgun
array are expected to be significantly
conservative as a proxy for use in
evaluating potential impacts of use of
the low-frequency source. The
conventional airgun arrays will be used
for the majority of the survey and will
fire in a flip-flop pattern on a 50 x 50 m
shot grid. The low-frequency source will
be used to acquire velocity data on a 50
x 200 m shot grid. A separation distance
of at least 2,500 m will be maintained
between each vessel.
Consistent with the preamble to the
final rule, the survey effort proposed by
Shell in its LOA request was used to
develop LOA-specific take estimates
based on the acoustic exposure
modeling results described in the
preamble (86 FR 5398, January 19,
2021). In order to generate the
appropriate take numbers for
authorization, the following information
was considered: (1) survey type; (2)
location (by modeling zone; 1) (3)
number of days; and (4) season.2 The
acoustic exposure modeling performed
in support of the rule provides 24-hour
exposure estimates for each species,
specific to each modeled survey type in
each zone and season.
No 3D OBN surveys were included in
the modeled survey types, and use of
existing proxies (i.e., 2D, 3D NAZ, 3D
WAZ, Coil) is generally conservative for
use in evaluation of 3D OBN survey
effort, largely due to the greater area
covered by the modeled proxies.
Summary descriptions of these modeled
survey geometries are available in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
1 For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, the
GOM was divided into seven zones. Zone 1 is not
included in the geographic scope of the rule.
2 For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling,
seasons include winter (December–March) and
summer (April–November).
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 143 / Thursday, July 27, 2023 / Notices
29212, 29220; June 22, 2018). Coil was
selected as the best available proxy
survey type in this case because the
spatial coverage of the planned survey
is most similar to the coil survey
pattern. The planned 3D OBN survey
will involve two source vessels sailing
along survey lines up to 56 kilometers
(km) in length. The coil survey pattern
was assumed to cover approximately
144 kilometers squared (km2) per day
(compared with approximately 795 km2,
199 km2, and 845 km2 per day for the
2D, 3D NAZ, and 3D WAZ survey
patterns, respectively). Among the
different parameters of the modeled
survey patterns (e.g., area covered, line
spacing, number of sources, shot
interval, total simulated pulses), NMFS
considers area covered per day to be
most influential on daily modeled
exposures exceeding Level B
harassment criteria. Although Shell is
not proposing to perform a survey using
the coil geometry, its planned 3D OBN
survey is expected to cover an average
area of 55 km2 per day, meaning that the
coil proxy is most representative of the
effort planned by Shell in terms of
predicted Level B harassment
exposures.
All available acoustic exposure
modeling results assume use of a 72element, 8,000 in3 array. Thus, take
numbers authorized through the LOA
are considered conservative due to
differences in the sound sources
planned for use (32 element, 5,100 in3
airgun array and low-frequency
sources), as compared to the source
modeled for the rule.
The survey will take place over
approximately 80 days, including 58
days of sound source operation, all
within Zone 5. Although Shell’s
application states that all survey days
would occur in the ‘‘Winter’’ season,
NMFS assumes that the seasonal
distribution of survey days is not known
in advance. Therefore, the take
estimates for each species are based on
the season that produces the greater
value.
For some species, take estimates
based solely on the modeling yielded
results that are not realistically likely to
occur when considered in light of other
relevant information available during
the rulemaking process regarding
marine mammal occurrence in the
GOM. The approach used in the
acoustic exposure modeling, in which
seven modeling zones were defined over
the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages finescale information about marine mammal
distribution over the large area of each
modeling zone. Thus, although the
modeling conducted for the rule is a
natural starting point for estimating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jul 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
take, the rule acknowledged that other
information could be considered (see,
e.g., 86 FR 5442, January 19, 2021),
discussing the need to provide
flexibility and make efficient use of
previous public and agency review of
other information and identifying that
additional public review is not
necessary unless the model or inputs
used differ substantively from those that
were previously reviewed by NMFS and
the public. For this survey, NMFS has
other relevant information reviewed
during the rulemaking that indicates use
of the acoustic exposure modeling to
generate a take estimate for certain
marine mammal species produces
results inconsistent with what is known
regarding their occurrence in the GOM.
Accordingly, we have adjusted the
calculated take estimates for those
species as described below.
NMFS’ final rule described a ‘‘core
habitat area’’ for Rice’s whales (formerly
known as GOM Bryde’s whales) 3
located in the northeastern GOM in
waters between 100–400 m depth along
the continental shelf break (Rosel et al.,
2016). However, whaling records
suggest that Rice’s whales historically
had a broader distribution within
similar habitat parameters throughout
the GOM (Reeves et al., 2011; Rosel and
Wilcox, 2014). In addition, habitatbased density modeling identified
similar habitat (i.e., approximately 100–
400 m water depths along the
continental shelf break) as being
potential Rice’s whale habitat (Roberts
et al., 2016), although the core habitat
area contained approximately 92
percent of the predicted abundance of
Rice’s whales. See discussion provided
at, e.g., 83 FR 29228, 83 FR 29280 (June
22, 2018); 86 FR 5418 (January 19,
2021).
Although Rice’s whales may occur
outside of the core habitat area, we
expect that any such occurrence would
be limited to the narrow band of
suitable habitat described above (i.e.,
100–400 m) and that, based on the few
available records, these occurrences
would be rare. Shell’s planned activities
will occur in water depths of
approximately 1,100–1,500 m in the
central GOM. Thus, NMFS does not
expect there to be the reasonable
potential for take of Rice’s whale in
association with this survey and,
accordingly, does not authorize take of
Rice’s whale through this LOA.
Killer whales are the most rarely
encountered species in the GOM,
3 The final rule refers to the GOM Bryde’s whale
(Balaenoptera edeni). These whales were
subsequently described as a new species, Rice’s
whale (Balaenoptera ricei) (Rosel et al., 2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48445
typically in deep waters of the central
GOM (Roberts et al., 2015; Maze-Foley
and Mullin, 2006). The approach used
in the acoustic exposure modeling, in
which seven modeling zones were
defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily
averages fine-scale information about
marine mammal distribution over the
large area of each modeling zone. NMFS
has determined that the approach
results in unrealistic projections
regarding the likelihood of encountering
killer whales.
As discussed in the final rule, the
density models produced by Roberts et
al. (2016) provide the best available
scientific information regarding
predicted density patterns of cetaceans
in the U.S. GOM. The predictions
represent the output of models derived
from multi-year observations and
associated environmental parameters
that incorporate corrections for
detection bias. However, in the case of
killer whales, the model is informed by
few data, as indicated by the coefficient
of variation associated with the
abundance predicted by the model
(0.41, the second-highest of any GOM
species model; Roberts et al., 2016). The
model’s authors noted the expected
non-uniform distribution of this rarelyencountered species (as discussed
above) and expressed that, due to the
limited data available to inform the
model, it ‘‘should be viewed cautiously’’
(Roberts et al., 2015).
NOAA surveys in the GOM from
1992–2009 reported only 16 sightings of
killer whales, with an additional three
encounters during more recent survey
effort from 2017–18 (Waring et al., 2013;
www.boem.gov/gommapps). Two other
species were also observed on fewer
than 20 occasions during the 1992–2009
NOAA surveys (Fraser’s dolphin and
false killer whale 4). However,
observational data collected by PSOs on
industry geophysical survey vessels
from 2002–2015 distinguish the killer
whale in terms of rarity. During this
period, killer whales were encountered
on only 10 occasions, whereas the next
most rarely encountered species
(Fraser’s dolphin) was recorded on 69
occasions (Barkaszi and Kelly, 2019).
The false killer whale and pygmy killer
whale were the next most rarely
encountered species, with 110 records
each. The killer whale was the species
with the lowest detection frequency
during each period over which PSO data
were synthesized (2002–2008 and 2009–
2015). This information qualitatively
informed our rulemaking process, as
4 However, note that these species have been
observed over a greater range of water depths in the
GOM than have killer whales.
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
48446
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 143 / Thursday, July 27, 2023 / Notices
discussed at 86 FR 5334 (January 19,
2021), and similarly informs our
analysis here.
The rarity of encounters during
seismic surveys is not likely to be the
product of high bias on the probability
of detection. Unlike certain cryptic
species with high detection bias, such as
Kogia spp. or beaked whales, or deepdiving species with high availability
bias, such as beaked whales or sperm
whales, killer whales are typically
available for detection when present
and are easily observed. Roberts et al.
(2015) stated that availability is not a
major factor affecting detectability of
killer whales from shipboard surveys, as
they are not a particularly long-diving
species. Baird et al. (2005) reported that
mean dive durations for 41 fish-eating
killer whales for dives greater than or
equal to 1 minute in duration was 2.3–
2.4 minutes, and Hooker et al. (2012)
reported that killer whales spent 78
percent of their time at depths between
0–10 m. Similarly, Kvadsheim et al.
(2012) reported data from a study of four
killer whales, noting that the whales
performed 20 times as many dives 1–
30 m in depth than to deeper waters,
with an average depth during those
most common dives of approximately
3 m.
In summary, killer whales are the
most rarely encountered species in the
GOM and typically occur only in
particularly deep water. This survey
would take place in deep waters that
would overlap with depths in which
killer whales typically occur. While this
information is reflected through the
density model informing the acoustic
exposure modeling results, there is
relatively high uncertainty associated
with the model for this species, and the
acoustic exposure modeling applies
mean distribution data over areas where
the species is in fact less likely to occur.
NMFS’ determination in reflection of
the data discussed above, which
informed the final rule, is that use of the
generic acoustic exposure modeling
results for killer whales will generally
result in estimated take numbers that
are inconsistent with the assumptions
made in the rule regarding expected
killer whale take (86 FR 5403; January
19, 2021).
In past authorizations, NMFS has
often addressed situations involving the
low likelihood of encountering a rare
species, such as killer whales in the
GOM, through authorization of take of a
single group of average size (i.e.,
representing a single potential
encounter). See 83 FR 63268; December
7, 2018. See also 86 FR 29090; May 28,
2021 and 85 FR 55645; September 9,
2020. For the reasons expressed above,
NMFS determined that a single
encounter of killer whales is more likely
than the model-generated estimates and
has authorized take associated with a
single group encounter (i.e., up to 7
animals).
Based on the results of our analysis,
NMFS has determined that the level of
taking expected for this survey and
authorized through the LOA is
consistent with the findings made for
the total taking allowable under the
regulations. See Table 1 in this notice
and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322;
January 19, 2021).
Small Numbers Determination
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not
authorize incidental take of marine
mammals in an LOA if it will exceed
‘‘small numbers.’’ In short, when an
acceptable estimate of the individual
marine mammals taken is available, if
the estimated number of individual
animals taken is up to, but not greater
than, one-third of the best available
abundance estimate, NMFS will
determine that the numbers of marine
mammals taken of a species or stock are
small. For more information please see
NMFS’ discussion of the MMPA’s small
numbers requirement provided in the
final rule (86 FR 5438; January 19,
2021).
The take numbers for authorization
are determined as described above in
the Summary of Request and Analysis
section. Subsequently, the total
incidents of harassment for each species
are multiplied by scalar ratios to
produce a derived product that better
reflects the number of individuals likely
to be taken within a survey (as
compared to the total number of
instances of take), accounting for the
likelihood that some individual marine
mammals may be taken on more than
one day (see 86 FR 5404; January 19,
2021). The output of this scaling, where
appropriate, is incorporated into
adjusted total take estimates that are the
basis for NMFS’ small numbers
determinations, as depicted in Table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in
making the necessary small numbers
determinations through comparison
with the best available abundance
estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391;
January 19, 2021). For this comparison,
NMFS’ approach is to use the maximum
theoretical population, determined
through review of current stock
assessment reports (SAR;
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and modelpredicted abundance information
(https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/
Duke/GOM/). For the latter, for taxa
where a density surface model could be
produced, we use the maximum mean
seasonal (i.e., 3-month) abundance
prediction for purposes of comparison
as a precautionary smoothing of monthto-month fluctuations and in
consideration of a corresponding lack of
data in the literature regarding seasonal
distribution of marine mammals in the
GOM. Information supporting the small
numbers determinations is provided in
Table 1.
TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS
Authorized
take
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Species
Rice’s whale .....................................................................................................
Sperm whale ....................................................................................................
Kogia spp .........................................................................................................
Beaked whales ................................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin ....................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ...........................................................................................
Clymene dolphin ..............................................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ...................................................................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin .............................................................................
Spinner dolphin ................................................................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ...............................................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................................
Melon-headed whale .......................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jul 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Scaled take 1
0
1,526
3 577
6,733
1,158
5,486
3,258
2,191
14,784
3,961
1,272
366
957
2,140
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
n/a
645
206
680
332
1,574
935
629
4,243
1,137
365
105
282
631
27JYN1
Abundance 2
51
2,207
4,373
3,768
4,853
176,108
11,895
74,785
102,361
25,114
5,229
1,665
3,764
7,003
Percent
abundance
0
29.2
4.7
18.0
6.8
0.9
7.9
0.8
4.1
4.5
7.0
6.3
7.5
9.0
48447
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 143 / Thursday, July 27, 2023 / Notices
TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS—Continued
Authorized
take
Species
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................................
False killer whale .............................................................................................
Killer whale ......................................................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ...................................................................................
Scaled take 1
504
801
7
619
149
236
n/a
183
Abundance 2
2,126
3,204
267
1,981
Percent
abundance
7.0
7.4
2.6
9.2
1 Scalar ratios were applied to ‘‘Authorized Take’’ values as described at 86 FR 5322, 5404 (January 19, 2021) to derive scaled take numbers
shown here.
2 Best abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take estimates is considered here to
be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where a density surface model predicting abundance by month was
produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual
abundance is available. For Rice’s whale and killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used.
3 Includes 31 takes by Level A harassment and 546 takes by Level B harassment. Scalar ratio is applied to takes by Level B harassment only;
small numbers determination made on basis of scaled Level B harassment take plus authorized Level A harassment take.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of Shell’s proposed survey
activity described in its LOA
application and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that
small numbers of marine mammals will
be taken relative to the affected species
or stock sizes (i.e., less than one-third of
the best available abundance estimate)
and therefore the taking is of no more
than small numbers.
Authorization
NMFS has determined that the level
of taking for this LOA request is
consistent with the findings made for
the total taking allowable under the
incidental take regulations and that the
amount of take authorized under the
LOA is of no more than small numbers.
Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to
Shell authorizing the take of marine
mammals incidental to its geophysical
survey activity, as described above.
Dated: July 21, 2023.
Angela Somma,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–15860 Filed 7–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for
the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal
Flood Study, San Francisco County,
California
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a
Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for the
San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jul 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
Study, San Francisco County,
California.
Pursuant to the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by
the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), Tulsa District,
announces its intent to prepare a Draft
Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (IFR–
EIS) for the San Francisco Waterfront
Coastal Flood Study. The study will
investigate the feasibility of managing
tidal and fluvial flooding and sea level
rise along 7.5 miles of the San Francisco
Waterfront, from Aquatic Park to Herons
Head Park, in the City of San Francisco,
San Francisco County, California. This
notice announces USACE’s intent to
determine the scope of the issues to be
addressed and identify the significant
issues related to a proposed action.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by August 28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Written comments related
to the development of the Draft IFR–EIS
may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Email: SFWFRS@usace.army.mil.
• Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Tulsa District, ATTN: RPEC—SFWS,
2488 E 81st Street, Tulsa, OK 74137.
• For more information visit the
project website at: https://sfport.com/
wrp/usace.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions or comments regarding the
proposed Draft IFR–EIS may be directed
to Ms. Melinda Fisher at 918–669–7423
or by email at SFWFRS@usace.army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Authority. The San Francisco
Waterfront Coastal Flood Study (the
Study) was originally authorized under
section 110 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1950, Public Law (Pub. L.) 515,
64 stat. 163. The project was
subsequently authorized under Section
142 of the Water Resources
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Development Act (WRDA) of 1976, Pub.
L. 94–587, 90 stat. 2917, 2930, as
amended by Section 705 of WRDA of
1986, Pub. L. 99–662, 100 stat. 4082,
4158 and section 203 of WRDA 2020.
2. Background. The USACE and the
Port of San Francisco (Port) have
partnered to study flood risk along 7.5
miles of San Francisco’s bayside
shoreline including areas between
Aquatic Park and Heron’s Head Park.
The Study is one of several coordinated
waterfront resiliency efforts being
undertaken by the Port in partnership
with other federal, state, and local
agencies to plan and reduce the risk of
anticipated seismic activity, flooding,
coastal storm damages, and sea level
rise along the waterfront.
The Study began in 2018 under the
USACE San Francisco District, South
Pacific Division and was transferred to
the Tulsa District out of the
Southwestern Division in 2021. The
Study follows the USACE Specific,
Measurable, Attainable, Risk Informed,
and Timely (SMART) planning process
which targets a feasibility study to be
completed within three years, but due to
several complexities, including
consideration of seismic conditions and
the diversity of the geographic regions
and stakeholders, the Study has been
approved to complete the process in
seven years.
3. Purpose and Need. The purpose of
the Study is to investigate the feasibility
of managing tidal and fluvial flooding
and sea level rise along 7.5 miles of the
San Francisco Bay shoreline. The
project area is at risk of flooding from
bay water during coastal storms,
extreme tides, and future sea level rise.
Flooding along the waterfront could
cause extensive damage to public
infrastructure and private property, loss
of life and deterioration of public health
and safety, degradation of the natural
environment, and adverse changes to
the social and economic character of the
waterfront community. The risk is
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48443-48447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15860]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XD156]
Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in
the Gulf of Mexico
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
[[Page 48444]]
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of letter of authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as
amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil
and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, notification is hereby given
that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to Shell Offshore
Inc. (Shell) for the take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical
survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
DATES: The LOA is effective from July 21, 2023 through April 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are
available online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-oil-and-gas-industry-geophysical-survey-activity-gulf-mexico. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the
contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103
as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to
govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to
geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry
operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their
behalf (collectively ``industry operators''), in Federal waters of the
U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322;
January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total
taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a
negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals
and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective
on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et seq. allow for the issuance of
LOAs to industry operators for the incidental take of marine mammals
during geophysical survey activities and prescribe the permissible
methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat
(often referred to as mitigation), as well as requirements pertaining
to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR
217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be based on a determination that
the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the
total taking allowable under these regulations and a determination that
the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small
numbers.
Summary of Request and Analysis
Shell plans to conduct a 3D ocean bottom node (OBN) survey over
approximately 185 lease blocks in the Mississippi Canyon and Atwater
Valley Protraction Areas, with approximate water depths ranging from
1,100 to 1,500 meters (m). See Section F of the LOA application for a
map of the area.
Shell anticipates using two source vessels, with one towing dual
conventional airgun array sources consisting of 32 elements, with a
total volume of 5,110 cubic inches (in\3\). The second source vessel is
expected to tow the low-frequency tuned pulse source (TPS). This source
was not included in the acoustic exposure modeling developed in support
of the rule. However, the TPS source was previously described and
evaluated in the notice of issuance of a previous LOA to Shell (86 FR
37309, 37310; July 15, 2021; see also 87 FR 55790, 55791 (September 12,
2022 (notice of issuance of LOA to Shell)). For additional detail
regarding sources, see Section C of the LOA application. Based on this
information we have determined there will be no effects of a magnitude
or intensity different from those evaluated in support of the rule.
NMFS therefore expects that use of modeling results supporting the
final rule relating to use of the 72 element, 8,000 in 3 airgun array
are expected to be significantly conservative as a proxy for use in
evaluating potential impacts of use of the low-frequency source. The
conventional airgun arrays will be used for the majority of the survey
and will fire in a flip-flop pattern on a 50 x 50 m shot grid. The low-
frequency source will be used to acquire velocity data on a 50 x 200 m
shot grid. A separation distance of at least 2,500 m will be maintained
between each vessel.
Consistent with the preamble to the final rule, the survey effort
proposed by Shell in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific
take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results
described in the preamble (86 FR 5398, January 19, 2021). In order to
generate the appropriate take numbers for authorization, the following
information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling
zone; \1\) (3) number of days; and (4) season.\2\ The acoustic exposure
modeling performed in support of the rule provides 24-hour exposure
estimates for each species, specific to each modeled survey type in
each zone and season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, the GOM was
divided into seven zones. Zone 1 is not included in the geographic
scope of the rule.
\2\ For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, seasons include
winter (December-March) and summer (April-November).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No 3D OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and
use of existing proxies (i.e., 2D, 3D NAZ, 3D WAZ, Coil) is generally
conservative for use in evaluation of 3D OBN survey effort, largely due
to the greater area covered by the modeled proxies. Summary
descriptions of these modeled survey geometries are available in the
preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR
[[Page 48445]]
29212, 29220; June 22, 2018). Coil was selected as the best available
proxy survey type in this case because the spatial coverage of the
planned survey is most similar to the coil survey pattern. The planned
3D OBN survey will involve two source vessels sailing along survey
lines up to 56 kilometers (km) in length. The coil survey pattern was
assumed to cover approximately 144 kilometers squared (km\2\) per day
(compared with approximately 795 km\2\, 199 km\2\, and 845 km\2\ per
day for the 2D, 3D NAZ, and 3D WAZ survey patterns, respectively).
Among the different parameters of the modeled survey patterns (e.g.,
area covered, line spacing, number of sources, shot interval, total
simulated pulses), NMFS considers area covered per day to be most
influential on daily modeled exposures exceeding Level B harassment
criteria. Although Shell is not proposing to perform a survey using the
coil geometry, its planned 3D OBN survey is expected to cover an
average area of 55 km\2\ per day, meaning that the coil proxy is most
representative of the effort planned by Shell in terms of predicted
Level B harassment exposures.
All available acoustic exposure modeling results assume use of a
72-element, 8,000 in\3\ array. Thus, take numbers authorized through
the LOA are considered conservative due to differences in the sound
sources planned for use (32 element, 5,100 in\3\ airgun array and low-
frequency sources), as compared to the source modeled for the rule.
The survey will take place over approximately 80 days, including 58
days of sound source operation, all within Zone 5. Although Shell's
application states that all survey days would occur in the ``Winter''
season, NMFS assumes that the seasonal distribution of survey days is
not known in advance. Therefore, the take estimates for each species
are based on the season that produces the greater value.
For some species, take estimates based solely on the modeling
yielded results that are not realistically likely to occur when
considered in light of other relevant information available during the
rulemaking process regarding marine mammal occurrence in the GOM. The
approach used in the acoustic exposure modeling, in which seven
modeling zones were defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily averages
fine-scale information about marine mammal distribution over the large
area of each modeling zone. Thus, although the modeling conducted for
the rule is a natural starting point for estimating take, the rule
acknowledged that other information could be considered (see, e.g., 86
FR 5442, January 19, 2021), discussing the need to provide flexibility
and make efficient use of previous public and agency review of other
information and identifying that additional public review is not
necessary unless the model or inputs used differ substantively from
those that were previously reviewed by NMFS and the public. For this
survey, NMFS has other relevant information reviewed during the
rulemaking that indicates use of the acoustic exposure modeling to
generate a take estimate for certain marine mammal species produces
results inconsistent with what is known regarding their occurrence in
the GOM. Accordingly, we have adjusted the calculated take estimates
for those species as described below.
NMFS' final rule described a ``core habitat area'' for Rice's
whales (formerly known as GOM Bryde's whales) \3\ located in the
northeastern GOM in waters between 100-400 m depth along the
continental shelf break (Rosel et al., 2016). However, whaling records
suggest that Rice's whales historically had a broader distribution
within similar habitat parameters throughout the GOM (Reeves et al.,
2011; Rosel and Wilcox, 2014). In addition, habitat-based density
modeling identified similar habitat (i.e., approximately 100-400 m
water depths along the continental shelf break) as being potential
Rice's whale habitat (Roberts et al., 2016), although the core habitat
area contained approximately 92 percent of the predicted abundance of
Rice's whales. See discussion provided at, e.g., 83 FR 29228, 83 FR
29280 (June 22, 2018); 86 FR 5418 (January 19, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The final rule refers to the GOM Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera
edeni). These whales were subsequently described as a new species,
Rice's whale (Balaenoptera ricei) (Rosel et al., 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Rice's whales may occur outside of the core habitat area,
we expect that any such occurrence would be limited to the narrow band
of suitable habitat described above (i.e., 100-400 m) and that, based
on the few available records, these occurrences would be rare. Shell's
planned activities will occur in water depths of approximately 1,100-
1,500 m in the central GOM. Thus, NMFS does not expect there to be the
reasonable potential for take of Rice's whale in association with this
survey and, accordingly, does not authorize take of Rice's whale
through this LOA.
Killer whales are the most rarely encountered species in the GOM,
typically in deep waters of the central GOM (Roberts et al., 2015;
Maze-Foley and Mullin, 2006). The approach used in the acoustic
exposure modeling, in which seven modeling zones were defined over the
U.S. GOM, necessarily averages fine-scale information about marine
mammal distribution over the large area of each modeling zone. NMFS has
determined that the approach results in unrealistic projections
regarding the likelihood of encountering killer whales.
As discussed in the final rule, the density models produced by
Roberts et al. (2016) provide the best available scientific information
regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. GOM. The
predictions represent the output of models derived from multi-year
observations and associated environmental parameters that incorporate
corrections for detection bias. However, in the case of killer whales,
the model is informed by few data, as indicated by the coefficient of
variation associated with the abundance predicted by the model (0.41,
the second-highest of any GOM species model; Roberts et al., 2016). The
model's authors noted the expected non-uniform distribution of this
rarely-encountered species (as discussed above) and expressed that, due
to the limited data available to inform the model, it ``should be
viewed cautiously'' (Roberts et al., 2015).
NOAA surveys in the GOM from 1992-2009 reported only 16 sightings
of killer whales, with an additional three encounters during more
recent survey effort from 2017-18 (Waring et al., 2013; www.boem.gov/gommapps). Two other species were also observed on fewer than 20
occasions during the 1992-2009 NOAA surveys (Fraser's dolphin and false
killer whale \4\). However, observational data collected by PSOs on
industry geophysical survey vessels from 2002-2015 distinguish the
killer whale in terms of rarity. During this period, killer whales were
encountered on only 10 occasions, whereas the next most rarely
encountered species (Fraser's dolphin) was recorded on 69 occasions
(Barkaszi and Kelly, 2019). The false killer whale and pygmy killer
whale were the next most rarely encountered species, with 110 records
each. The killer whale was the species with the lowest detection
frequency during each period over which PSO data were synthesized
(2002-2008 and 2009-2015). This information qualitatively informed our
rulemaking process, as
[[Page 48446]]
discussed at 86 FR 5334 (January 19, 2021), and similarly informs our
analysis here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ However, note that these species have been observed over a
greater range of water depths in the GOM than have killer whales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rarity of encounters during seismic surveys is not likely to be
the product of high bias on the probability of detection. Unlike
certain cryptic species with high detection bias, such as Kogia spp. or
beaked whales, or deep-diving species with high availability bias, such
as beaked whales or sperm whales, killer whales are typically available
for detection when present and are easily observed. Roberts et al.
(2015) stated that availability is not a major factor affecting
detectability of killer whales from shipboard surveys, as they are not
a particularly long-diving species. Baird et al. (2005) reported that
mean dive durations for 41 fish-eating killer whales for dives greater
than or equal to 1 minute in duration was 2.3-2.4 minutes, and Hooker
et al. (2012) reported that killer whales spent 78 percent of their
time at depths between 0-10 m. Similarly, Kvadsheim et al. (2012)
reported data from a study of four killer whales, noting that the
whales performed 20 times as many dives 1-30 m in depth than to deeper
waters, with an average depth during those most common dives of
approximately 3 m.
In summary, killer whales are the most rarely encountered species
in the GOM and typically occur only in particularly deep water. This
survey would take place in deep waters that would overlap with depths
in which killer whales typically occur. While this information is
reflected through the density model informing the acoustic exposure
modeling results, there is relatively high uncertainty associated with
the model for this species, and the acoustic exposure modeling applies
mean distribution data over areas where the species is in fact less
likely to occur. NMFS' determination in reflection of the data
discussed above, which informed the final rule, is that use of the
generic acoustic exposure modeling results for killer whales will
generally result in estimated take numbers that are inconsistent with
the assumptions made in the rule regarding expected killer whale take
(86 FR 5403; January 19, 2021).
In past authorizations, NMFS has often addressed situations
involving the low likelihood of encountering a rare species, such as
killer whales in the GOM, through authorization of take of a single
group of average size (i.e., representing a single potential
encounter). See 83 FR 63268; December 7, 2018. See also 86 FR 29090;
May 28, 2021 and 85 FR 55645; September 9, 2020. For the reasons
expressed above, NMFS determined that a single encounter of killer
whales is more likely than the model-generated estimates and has
authorized take associated with a single group encounter (i.e., up to 7
animals).
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the
level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA
is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable
under the regulations. See Table 1 in this notice and Table 9 of the
rule (86 FR 5322; January 19, 2021).
Small Numbers Determination
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of
marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed ``small numbers.'' In short,
when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is
available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up
to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance
estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken
of a species or stock are small. For more information please see NMFS'
discussion of the MMPA's small numbers requirement provided in the
final rule (86 FR 5438; January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described
above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the
total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar
ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of
individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the
total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that
some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than one day (see
86 FR 5404; January 19, 2021). The output of this scaling, where
appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that
are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in
Table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers
determinations through comparison with the best available abundance
estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391; January 19, 2021). For this
comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical
population, determined through review of current stock assessment
reports (SAR; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and model-predicted abundance
information (https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/GOM/). For the
latter, for taxa where a density surface model could be produced, we
use the maximum mean seasonal (i.e., 3-month) abundance prediction for
purposes of comparison as a precautionary smoothing of month-to-month
fluctuations and in consideration of a corresponding lack of data in
the literature regarding seasonal distribution of marine mammals in the
GOM. Information supporting the small numbers determinations is
provided in Table 1.
Table 1--Take Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Scaled take Percent
Species take \1\ Abundance \2\ abundance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice's whale.................................... 0 n/a 51 0
Sperm whale..................................... 1,526 645 2,207 29.2
Kogia spp....................................... \3\ 577 206 4,373 4.7
Beaked whales................................... 6,733 680 3,768 18.0
Rough-toothed dolphin........................... 1,158 332 4,853 6.8
Bottlenose dolphin.............................. 5,486 1,574 176,108 0.9
Clymene dolphin................................. 3,258 935 11,895 7.9
Atlantic spotted dolphin........................ 2,191 629 74,785 0.8
Pantropical spotted dolphin..................... 14,784 4,243 102,361 4.1
Spinner dolphin................................. 3,961 1,137 25,114 4.5
Striped dolphin................................. 1,272 365 5,229 7.0
Fraser's dolphin................................ 366 105 1,665 6.3
Risso's dolphin................................. 957 282 3,764 7.5
Melon-headed whale.............................. 2,140 631 7,003 9.0
[[Page 48447]]
Pygmy killer whale.............................. 504 149 2,126 7.0
False killer whale.............................. 801 236 3,204 7.4
Killer whale.................................... 7 n/a 267 2.6
Short-finned pilot whale........................ 619 183 1,981 9.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Scalar ratios were applied to ``Authorized Take'' values as described at 86 FR 5322, 5404 (January 19, 2021)
to derive scaled take numbers shown here.
\2\ Best abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take
estimates is considered here to be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where
a density surface model predicting abundance by month was produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was
used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual abundance is available. For
Rice's whale and killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used.
\3\ Includes 31 takes by Level A harassment and 546 takes by Level B harassment. Scalar ratio is applied to
takes by Level B harassment only; small numbers determination made on basis of scaled Level B harassment take
plus authorized Level A harassment take.
Based on the analysis contained herein of Shell's proposed survey
activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be
taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (i.e., less than
one-third of the best available abundance estimate) and therefore the
taking is of no more than small numbers.
Authorization
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request
is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable
under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take
authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly,
we have issued an LOA to Shell authorizing the take of marine mammals
incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
Dated: July 21, 2023.
Angela Somma,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-15860 Filed 7-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P