Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in Coastal Waters Off of Texas, 53453-53473 [2023-16945]
Download as PDF
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
integrated surveys. The 2022 AIES dress
rehearsal and subsequent full-scale
AIES collections are authorized by title
13 U.S.C. 131, 182, and 193. Response
to the dress rehearsal and the AIES is
mandatory per sections 224 and 225 of
title 13 U.S.C. All information collected
will be kept confidential, consistent
with the provisions of title 13 U.S.C. 9.
The AIES covers all domestic, private,
non-farm employer businesses
headquartered in the U.S. as defined by
the 2017 North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).
Exclusions are most foreign operations
of U.S. businesses and most government
operations (including the U.S. Postal
Service), agricultural production
companies, and private households. The
AIES sample is selected from a frame of
approximately 5.4 million companies
constructed from the Business Register
(BR), which is the Census Bureau’s
master business list. The 2022 AIES
dress rehearsal will sample
approximately 8,500 employer
businesses and the full-scale AIES will
sample approximately 385,000
employer businesses. Of the 385,000
employer businesses, the Census Bureau
will select approximately 36,500
companies with 100% probability,
based on the complexity of their
operations. The remaining companies in
the frame will be stratified within sector
by geographic category within 3-digit
industry NAICS classification. This is
an unequal probability sample, with
company inclusion probabilities
accounting for contribution(s) to both
national and subnational estimates of
annual payroll.
The AIES estimates will include data
on employment; revenue including
sales; shipments; receipts; revenue by
class of customer; sources of revenue;
taxes, contributions; gifts and grants;
products; e-commerce activity;
operating expenses including purchased
services; payroll; benefits; rental
payments; utilities; interest; resales;
equipment; materials and supplies;
research and development; other
detailed operating expenses; and assets
which includes capital expenditures;
inventories; depreciable assets; and
robotics.
The AIES will provide continuous
and timely national and subnational
statistical data on the economy.
Government program officials, industry
organization leaders, economic and
social analysts, business entrepreneurs,
and domestic and foreign researchers in
academia, business, and government
will use statistics from AIES. More
details on expected uses of the statistics
from the AIES are found in the 30-Day
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Notice for the AIES (88 FR 19906; April
4, 2023).
Public Comments: The Census Bureau
published a Notice of Consideration in
the Federal Register on November 4,
2022 (87 FR 66643) giving notice that it
was considering a proposal to conduct
the AIES. No comments were received
in response to that notice. The Census
Bureau subsequently published a Notice
in the Federal Register on April 4, 2023
(88 FR 19906), which invited comment
on the information collection request
associated with the AIES. Census
received one comment on that latter
notice. The commenter agreed that the
AIES should reduce respondent burden,
increase data quality, and allow greater
operational efficiencies. In addition, the
commenter supported situations where
the AIES may include new questions
each year on policy-relevant topics such
as technological advances, management
and business practices, exporting
practices, and globalization. The
commenter also requested that Census
be required to carry out additional
research to ensure a reduction in NAICS
code misclassification among survey
respondents.
Census Bureau Response to the Public
Comment: The Census Bureau supports
conducting additional research and
identifying opportunities to reduce
NAICS misclassification. However, this
effort is outside the scope of this action,
research should be conducted on a
larger-scale and not confined to the
AIES. NAICS classification for
companies selected in the AIES is
driven by the Economic Census and the
Census Bureau’s BR. The Census Bureau
is participating in discussions that are
underway regarding a Federal statistical
agency ‘‘data synchronization’’ effort
across multiple agencies. The Census
Bureau agrees to provide a research plan
to address NAICS misclassification
issues within one year of ICR approval.
OMB Terms of Clearance: OMB
approved the 2022 AIES dress rehearsal
portion of the Annual Integrated
Economic Survey (AIES), including all
relevant testing aspects. Prior to
conducting the full-scale AIES, the
Census Bureau will consult with OMB
to determine next steps for clearing the
full-scale AIES. In addition, in light of
the Census Bureau’s finding in
Supporting Statement Part B ‘‘that
NAICS classifications can be unnatural
or challenging for some businesses,’’ the
Census Bureau within 1 year of this
clearance shall provide OMB a research
plan (and relevant research updates) to
address such NAICS classification
issues. This research plan will include
ways the Census Bureau plans to
estimate the percentage of respondents
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53453
across collections that select an
incorrect NAICS code; how the Census
Bureau plans to estimate the extent and
source of differences in NAICS code
assignments by the Census Bureau and
the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the
same establishments; and possible
approaches the Census Bureau could
take to reduce NAICS misclassification.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) unless that
collection of information displays a
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number. In
accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C.,
Chapter 45, OMB approved the AIES
under the OMB control number 0607–
1024.
Based upon the foregoing, I have
directed that the Annual Integrated
Economic Survey be conducted for the
purpose of collecting these data.
Robert L. Santos, Director, Census
Bureau, approved the publication of this
Notice in the Federal Register.
Dated: August 3, 2023.
Shannon Wink,
Program Analyst, Policy Coordination Office,
U.S. Census Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2023–16926 Filed 8–7–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–07–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XC993]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to a Marine
Geophysical Survey in Coastal Waters
Off of Texas
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 University of Texas at Austin
(UT) for authorization to take marine
mammals incidental to a marine
geophysical survey in coastal waters off
of Texas. Pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is requesting comments on its proposal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
53454
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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, 1year 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 authorization and
agency responses will be summarized in
the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than September 7,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
and should be submitted via email to
ITP.Wachtendonk@noaa.gov. Electronic
copies of the application and supporting
documents, as well as a list of the
references cited in this document, may
be obtained online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. 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/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities 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:
Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–
8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D)
of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
directs the Secretary of Commerce (as
delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
proposed or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA
is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other ‘‘means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact’’ on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms cited above are included
in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
IHA) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment. This action
is consistent with categories of activities
identified in Categorical Exclusion B4
(IHAs with no anticipated serious injury
or mortality) of the Companion Manual
for NOAA Administrative Order 216–
6A, which do not individually or
cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the
human environment and for which we
have not identified any extraordinary
circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded
from further NEPA review. We will
review all comments submitted in
response to this notice prior to
concluding our NEPA process or making
a final decision on the IHA request.
Summary of Request
On March 7, 2023, NMFS received a
request from UT for an IHA to take
marine mammals incidental to
conducting a marine geophysical survey
in coastal waters off of Texas. Following
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NMFS’ review of the application, UT
submitted a revised version on April 25,
2023. The application was deemed
adequate and complete on April 27,
2023. UT’s request is for take of
bottlenose dolphins, Atlantic spotted
dolphins, and rough-toothed dolphin by
Level B harassment only. Neither UT
nor NMFS expect serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
UT proposes to conduct a marine
geophysical survey, specifically a low
energy seismic survey, in coastal waters
off of Texas during a 10 day period in
the fall of 2023. The survey would take
place in coastal waters off of Texas, in
water depths of less than 20 meters (m).
To complete this survey the vessel
would tow one to two Generator-Injector
(GI) airguns, each with a volume of 105
cubic inch (in3; 1,721 cubic cm (cm3)),
for a total volume of 210 in3 (3,441 cm3).
The airguns would be deployed at a
depth of about 4 m below the surface,
spaced about 2 m apart, while the
receiving system consists of four 25 m
hydrophone streamers towed at a depth
of about 2 m.
The purpose of the proposed survey is
to validate novel dynamic positioning
technology for improving the accuracy
in time and space of high resolution 3dimensional (HR3D) seismic datasets, in
particular as it pertains to field
technology of offshore carbon capture
systems.
Dates and Duration
The proposed survey is planned to
occur over a 10 day period during the
fall of 2023 (the exact dates are
uncertain). During that time, the airguns
would operate continuously (i.e., 24hours per day).
Specific Geographic Region
The proposed survey area is 222 km2
and would occur within the
approximate area of 28.9–29.1° N
latitude, 94.9–95.2° W longitude in the
coastal waters off of Texas. This location
is offshore San Luis Pass, which defines
the southern tip of Galveston Island,
Texas. The closest point of approach of
the proposed survey area to the coast is
approximately 3 kilometers (km). The
proposed survey area is depicted in
Figure 1, and the survey lines could
occur anywhere within the survey area.
The water depth of the proposed survey
area ranges from 10 to 20 m. The survey
vessel (the R/V Brooks McCall (McCall)
or similar vessel operated by TDI-Brooks
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
53455
International) would likely depart and
return to Freeport or Galveston, Texas.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Detailed Description of the Specified
Activity
The proposed survey would entail use
of conventional seismic methodology.
The survey would involve one source
vessel, the McCall or similar, and would
tow one or two 105 in3 GI airguns with
a total volume of up to 210 in3. The
airgun array would be deployed at a
depth of about 4 m below the surface,
spaced about 2 m apart, and have a shot
interval of 12.5 m about 5–10 seconds
(s)). The receiving system would consist
of four 25 m solid state hydrophone
streamers, spaced 10 m apart and towed
at a depth of 2 m. As the airguns are
towed along the survey lines, the
hydrophone streamer would transfer
data to the on-board processing system.
Approximately 1,704 km of transect
lines would be surveyed within the
survey area. When not towing seismic
survey gear, the McCall has a maximum
speed of 11 knots (kn; 20.4 kilometers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
per hour (kmh)), but cruises at an
average speed of 4–5 kn (7.4–9.3 kmh)
while towing airgun arrays. All survey
effort would occur in water 10–20 m.
The vessel would be self-contained, and
the crew would live aboard the vessel.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures are described in
detail later in this Notice (please see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting).
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. NMFS fully considered
all of this information, and we refer the
reader to these descriptions, instead of
reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends
and threats may be found in NMFS’
Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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).
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for
which take is expected and proposed to
be authorized for this activity 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. 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’ SARs). While no
serious injury or mortality is anticipated
or proposed to be authorized here, PBR
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
EN08AU23.009
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
53456
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
and annual serious injury and mortality
from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the
status of the species or stocks 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 comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
SARs. All values presented in Table 1
are the most recent available at the time
of publication (including from the draft
2022 SARs) and are available online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments.
TABLE 1—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 1
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 2
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most
recent abundance
survey) 3
PBR
Annual
M/SI 4
Gulf of Mexico
population
abundance;
(Roberts et al.
2016) 5
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Delphinidae:
Atlantic spotted dolphin.
Rough-toothed dolphin.
Bottlenose dolphin ...
Stenella frontalis .............
Gulf of Mexico ................
-/-; N
Steno bredanensis .........
Gulf of Mexico ................
-/-; N
Tursiops truncatus ..........
Gulf of Mexico Western
Coastal.
Northern Gulf of Mexico
Continental Shelf.
-/-; N
-/-; N
21,506 (0.26;
17,339; 2018).
unk (n/a; unk; 2018)
166 ....................
36
47,488
undetermined ....
39
4,853
20,759 (0.13;
18,585; 2018).
63,280 (0.11;
57,917; 2018).
167 ....................
36
138,602
556 ....................
65
138,602
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
1 Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy’s Committee on Taxonomy
(https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2022)).
2 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.
3 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.
4 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI (mortality/serious injury) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range.
As indicated above, all 3 species (with
4 managed stocks) in Table 1 temporally
and spatially co-occur with the activity
to the degree that take is reasonably
likely to occur. All species that could
potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas are included in Table 2 of the IHA
application. While the additional 11
species listed in Table 2 of UT’s
application have been infrequently
sighted in the survey area, the temporal
and/or spatial occurrence of these
species is such that take is not expected
to occur, and they are not discussed
further beyond the explanation
provided here. Species or stocks that
only occur in deep waters (>200 m)
within the Gulf of Mexico are unlikely
to be observed during this survey where
the maximum water depth is 20 m, and
thus, the following species or stocks
will not be considered further: offshore
stock of bottlenose dolphins,
pantropical spotted dolphin, spinner
dolphin, striped dolphin, Clymene
dolphin, Fraser’s dolphin, Risso’s
dolphin, melon-headed whale, pygmy
killer whale, false killer whale, killer
whale, and short-finned pilot whale.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bottlenose dolphins are cosmopolitan,
occurring in tropical, subtropical, and
temperate waters around the world
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
(Wells and Scott 2018). The bottlenose
dolphin is the most widespread and
common delphinid in coastal waters of
the Gulf of Mexico (Wu¨rsig et al. 2000;
Wu¨rsig 2017). While there are multiple
stocks of bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf
of Mexico, only the Northern Gulf of
Mexico Continental Shelf and Gulf of
Mexico Western Coastal stocks overlap
with the study area, with the shelf stock
assumed to occur in waters >20 m and
the coastal stock assumed to occur in
waters <20 m. Fall sightings have been
made throughout the northern Gulf but
primarily on the shelf, including within
survey waters.
There are 31 bay, sound, and estuary
(BSE) stocks in the northern Gulf of
Mexico, which are small, resident
populations of bottlenose dolphins that
live inshore or, occasionally, close to
shore or in passes, and are genetically
discrete. There are two of the BSE stocks
that occur near the survey area, the West
Bay stock and the Galveston Bay/East
Bay/Trinity Bay stock. The West Bay
stock occurs within roughly 20 km of
the survey area, but individuals from
this stock are only likely to occur in
inshore waters or, occasionally, up to 1
km from shore off San Luis Pass (Hayes
et al. 2022). The Galveston Bay/East
Bay/Trinity Bay stock occurs >20 km
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
away, with most individuals staying
within 2 km from shore and up to 5 km
out from the Galveston jetties and ship
channel (Hayes et al. 2022). These areas
in and near West Bay and Galveston
Bay, along with numerous other ones
along the coast of Texas, have been
identified as year-round Biologically
Important Areas (BIAs) for resident
bottlenose dolphins (LeBresque et al.
2015). Due to the distance that the
survey will occur off the coast
(minimum 3 km) and general
expectation that BSE dolphins are most
likely to occur in inshore waters, we do
not expect the survey to encounter any
BSE stocks of bottlenose dolphins.
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. 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, 2019) recommended that marine
mammals be divided into hearing
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
groups based on directly measured
(behavioral or auditory evoked potential
techniques) or estimated hearing ranges
(behavioral response data, anatomical
modeling, etc.). Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65-decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for low-
53457
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 (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 hertz (Hz) to 35 kilohertz (kHz).
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section provides a discussion of
the ways in which components of the
specified activity may impact marine
mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section later in this document 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 content of this section, the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, and the Proposed Mitigation
section, to draw conclusions regarding
the likely impacts of these activities on
the reproductive success or survivorship
of individuals and whether those
impacts are reasonably expected to, or
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Description of Active Acoustic Sound
Sources
This section contains a brief technical
background on sound, the
characteristics of certain sound types,
and on metrics used in this proposal
inasmuch as the information is relevant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
to the specified activity and to a
discussion of the potential effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic
components of which are frequency,
wavelength, velocity, and amplitude.
Frequency is the number of pressure
waves that pass by a reference point per
unit of time and is measured in hertz
(Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is
the distance between two peaks or
corresponding points of a sound wave
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency
sounds have shorter wavelengths than
lower frequency sounds, and typically
attenuate (decrease) more rapidly,
except in certain cases in shallower
water. Amplitude is the height of the
sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’
of a sound and is typically described
using the relative unit of the dB. A
sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is
described as the ratio between a
measured pressure and a reference
pressure (for underwater sound, this is
1 microPascal (mPa)) and is a
logarithmic unit that accounts for large
variations in amplitude; therefore, a
relatively small change in dB
corresponds to large changes in sound
pressure. The source level (SL)
represents the SPL referenced at a
distance of 1 m from the source
(referenced to 1 mPa) while the received
level is the SPL at the listener’s position
(referenced to 1 mPa).
Root mean square (rms) is the
quadratic mean sound pressure over the
duration of an impulse. Root mean
square is calculated by squaring all of
the sound amplitudes, averaging the
squares, and then taking the square root
of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
square accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures
makes all values positive so that they
may be accounted for in the summation
of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper,
2005). This measurement is often used
in the context of discussing behavioral
effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory
cues, may be better expressed through
averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL;
represented as dB re 1 mPa2 -s)
represents the total energy contained
within a pulse and considers both
intensity and duration of exposure. Peak
sound pressure (also referred to as zeroto-peak sound pressure or 0-p) is the
maximum instantaneous sound pressure
measurable in the water at a specified
distance from the source and is
represented in the same units as the rms
sound pressure. Another common
metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure
(pk-pk), which is the algebraic
difference between the peak positive
and peak negative sound pressures.
Peak-to-peak pressure is typically
approximately 6 dB higher than peak
pressure (Southall et al., 2007).
When underwater objects vibrate or
activity occurs, sound-pressure waves
are created. These waves alternately
compress and decompress the water as
the sound wave travels. Underwater
sound waves radiate in a manner similar
to ripples on the surface of a pond and
may be either directed in a beam or
beams or may radiate in all directions
(omnidirectional sources), as is the case
for pulses produced by the airgun arrays
considered here. The compressions and
decompressions associated with sound
waves are detected as changes in
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
53458
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
pressure by aquatic life and man-made
sound receptors such as hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the
specified activity, the underwater
environment is typically loud due to
ambient sound. Ambient sound is
defined as environmental background
sound levels lacking a single source or
point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the
sound level of a region is defined by the
total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These
sources may include physical (e.g.,
wind and waves, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging,
construction) sound. A number of
sources contribute to ambient sound,
including the following (Richardson et
al., 1995):
• Wind and waves: The complex
interactions between wind and water
surface, including processes such as
breaking waves and wave-induced
bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a
main source of naturally occurring
ambient sound for frequencies between
200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In
general, ambient sound levels tend to
increase with increasing wind speed
and wave height. Surf sound becomes
important near shore, with
measurements collected at a distance of
8.5 km from shore showing an increase
of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions;
• Precipitation: Sound from rain and
hail impacting the water surface can
become an important component of total
sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and
possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times;
• Biological: Marine mammals can
contribute significantly to ambient
sound levels, as can some fish and
snapping shrimp. The frequency band
for biological contributions is from
approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz;
and
• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient
sound related to human activity include
transportation (surface vessels),
dredging and construction, oil and gas
drilling and production, seismic
surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean
acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically
dominates the total ambient sound for
frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In
general, the frequencies of
anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz
and, if higher frequency sound levels
are created, they attenuate rapidly.
Sound from identifiable anthropogenic
sources other than the activity of
interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is
sometimes termed background sound, as
opposed to ambient sound.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources at any
given location and time—which
comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’
sound—depends not only on the source
levels (as determined by current
weather conditions and levels of
biological and human activity) but also
on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of this dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from a given activity
may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive
signal that may affect marine mammals.
Details of source types are described in
the following text.
Sounds are often considered to fall
into one of two general types: Pulsed
and non-pulsed (defined in the
following). The distinction between
these two sound types is important
because they have differing potential to
cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in
Southall et al., 2007). Please see
Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth
discussion of these concepts.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns,
explosions, gunshots, sonic booms,
impact pile driving) produce signals
that are brief (typically considered to be
less than one second), broadband, atonal
transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris,
1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and
occur either as isolated events or
repeated in some succession. Pulsed
sounds are all characterized by a
relatively rapid rise from ambient
pressure to a maximal pressure value
followed by a rapid decay period that
may include a period of diminishing,
oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an
increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that
lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal,
narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either
continuous or non-continuous (ANSI,
1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the
essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid
rise time). Examples of non-pulsed
sounds include those produced by
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
vessels, aircraft, machinery operations
such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems
(such as those used by the U.S. Navy).
The duration of such sounds, as
received at a distance, can be greatly
extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals
with energy in a frequency range from
about 10–2,000 Hz, with most energy
radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz.
The amplitude of the acoustic wave
emitted from the source is equal in all
directions (i.e., omnidirectional), but
airgun arrays do possess some
directionality due to different phase
delays between guns in different
directions. Airgun arrays are typically
tuned to maximize functionality for data
acquisition purposes, meaning that
sound transmitted in horizontal
directions and at higher frequencies is
minimized to the extent possible.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we discuss the effects of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
Potential Effects of Underwater
Sound—Anthropogenic sounds cover a
broad range of frequencies and sound
levels and can have a range of highly
variable impacts on marine life, from
none or minor to potentially severe
responses, depending on received
levels, duration of exposure, behavioral
context, and various other factors. The
potential effects of underwater sound
from active acoustic sources can
potentially result in one or more of the
following: Temporary or permanent
hearing impairment; non-auditory
physical or physiological effects;
behavioral disturbance; stress; and
masking (Richardson et al., 1995;
Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al.,
2007; Southall et al., 2007; Go¨tz et al.,
2009). The degree of effect is
intrinsically related to the signal
characteristics, received level, distance
from the source, and duration of the
sound exposure. In general, sudden,
high level sounds can cause hearing
loss, as can longer exposures to lower
level sounds. Temporary or permanent
loss of hearing, if it occurs at all, will
occur almost exclusively in cases where
a noise is within an animal’s hearing
frequency range. We first describe
specific manifestations of acoustic
effects before providing discussion
specific to the use of airgun arrays.
Richardson et al. (1995) described
zones of increasing intensity of effect
that might be expected to occur, in
relation to distance from a source and
assuming that the signal is within an
animal’s hearing range. First is the area
within which the acoustic signal would
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
be audible (potentially perceived) to the
animal but not strong enough to elicit
any overt behavioral or physiological
response. The next zone corresponds
with the area where the signal is audible
to the animal and of sufficient intensity
to elicit behavioral or physiological
response. Third is a zone within which,
for signals of high intensity, the
received level is sufficient to potentially
cause discomfort or tissue damage to
auditory or other systems. Overlaying
these zones to a certain extent is the
area within which masking (i.e., when a
sound interferes with or masks the
ability of an animal to detect a signal of
interest that is above the absolute
hearing threshold) may occur; the
masking zone may be highly variable in
size.
We describe the more severe effects of
certain non-auditory physical or
physiological effects only briefly as we
do not expect that use of airgun arrays
are reasonably likely to result in such
effects (see below for further
discussion). Potential effects from
impulsive sound sources can range in
severity from effects such as behavioral
disturbance or tactile perception to
physical discomfort, slight injury of the
internal organs and the auditory system,
or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973).
Non-auditory physiological effects or
injuries that theoretically might occur in
marine mammals exposed to high level
underwater sound or as a secondary
effect of extreme behavioral reactions
(e.g., change in dive profile as a result
of an avoidance reaction) caused by
exposure to sound include neurological
effects, bubble formation, resonance
effects, and other types of organ or
tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall
et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007;
Tal et al., 2015). The survey activities
considered here do not involve the use
of devices such as explosives or midfrequency tactical sonar that are
associated with these types of effects.
Threshold Shift—Marine mammals
exposed to high-intensity sound or to
lower-intensity sound for prolonged
periods can experience hearing
threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of
hearing sensitivity at certain frequency
ranges (Finneran, 2015). Threshold shift
can be permanent (PTS), in which case
the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in
which case the animal’s hearing
threshold would recover over time
(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound
exposure that leads to TTS could cause
PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can
be total or partial deafness while in
most cases, the animal has an impaired
ability to hear sounds in specific
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear
(i.e., tissue damage) whereas TTS
represents primarily tissue fatigue and
is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In
addition, other investigators have
suggested that TTS is within the normal
bounds of physiological variability and
tolerance and does not represent
physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997).
Therefore, NMFS does not typically
consider TTS to constitute auditory
injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS
thresholds have not been studied in
marine mammals. There is no PTS data
for cetaceans, but such relationships are
assumed to be similar to those in
humans and other terrestrial mammals.
PTS typically occurs at exposure levels
at least several dBs above (a 40-dB
threshold shift approximates PTS onset;
e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974)
that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB
threshold shift approximates TTS onset;
e.g., Southall et al. 2007). Based on data
from terrestrial mammals, a
precautionary assumption is that the
PTS thresholds for impulse sounds
(such as airgun pulses as received close
to the source) are at least 6 dB higher
than the TTS threshold on a peakpressure basis and PTS cumulative
sound exposure level thresholds are 15
to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative
sound exposure level thresholds
(Southall et al., 2007). Given the higher
level of sound or longer exposure
duration necessary to cause PTS as
compared with TTS, it is considerably
less likely that PTS could occur.
For mid-frequency cetaceans in
particular, potential protective
mechanisms may help limit onset of
TTS or prevent onset of PTS. Such
mechanisms include dampening of
hearing, auditory adaptation, or
behavioral amelioration (e.g., Nachtigall
and Supin, 2013; Miller et al., 2012;
Finneran et al., 2015; Popov et al.,
2016).
TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during
exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While
experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold
rises, and a sound must be at a higher
level in order to be heard. In terrestrial
and marine mammals, TTS can last from
minutes or hours to days (in cases of
strong TTS). In many cases, hearing
sensitivity recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends. Few data
on sound levels and durations necessary
to elicit mild TTS have been obtained
for marine mammals.
Marine mammal hearing plays a
critical role in communication with
other members of the species and
interpretation of environmental cues for
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53459
purposes such as predator avoidance
and prey capture. Depending on the
degree (elevation of threshold in dB),
duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context
in which it is experienced, TTS can
have effects on marine mammals
ranging from discountable to serious.
For example, a marine mammal may be
able to readily compensate for a brief,
relatively small amount of TTS in a noncritical frequency range that occurs
during a time where ambient noise is
lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical for
successful mother and calf interactions
could have more serious impacts.
Finneran et al. (2015) measured
hearing thresholds in three captive
bottlenose dolphins before and after
exposure to 10 pulses produced by a
seismic airgun in order to study TTS
induced after exposure to multiple
pulses. Exposures began at relatively
low levels and gradually increased over
a period of several months, with the
highest exposures at peak SPLs from
196 to 210 dB and cumulative
(unweighted) SELs from 193–195 dB.
No substantial TTS was observed. In
addition, behavioral reactions were
observed that indicated that animals can
learn behaviors that effectively mitigate
noise exposures (although exposure
patterns must be learned, which is less
likely in wild animals than for the
captive animals considered in this
study). The authors noted that the
failure to induce more significant
auditory effects was likely due to the
intermittent nature of exposure, the
relatively low peak pressure produced
by the acoustic source, and the lowfrequency energy in airgun pulses as
compared with the frequency range of
best sensitivity for dolphins and other
mid-frequency cetaceans.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four
species of cetaceans (bottlenose
dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise,
and Yangtze finless porpoise) exposed
to a limited number of sound sources
(i.e., mostly tones and octave-band
noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran,
2015). The existing marine mammal
TTS data come from a limited number
of individuals within these species.
Critical questions remain regarding
the rate of TTS growth and recovery
after exposure to intermittent noise and
the effects of single and multiple pulses.
Data at present are also insufficient to
construct generalized models for
recovery and determine the time
necessary to treat subsequent exposures
as independent events. More
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
53460
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
information is needed on the
relationship between auditory evoked
potential and behavioral measures of
TTS for various stimuli. For summaries
of data on TTS in marine mammals or
for further discussion of TTS onset
thresholds, please see Southall et al.
(2007, 2019), Finneran and Jenkins
(2012), Finneran (2015), and NMFS
(2018).
Behavioral Effects—Behavioral
disturbance may include a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in
behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance
of an area or changes in vocalizations),
more conspicuous changes in similar
behavioral activities, and more
sustained and/or potentially severe
reactions, such as displacement from or
abandonment of high-quality habitat.
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific,
and any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g.,
species, state of maturity, experience,
current activity, reproductive state,
auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et
al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007, 2019;
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010).
Behavioral reactions can vary not only
among individuals but also within an
individual, depending on previous
experience with a sound source,
context, and numerous other factors
(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary
depending on characteristics associated
with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of
sources, distance from the source).
Please see Appendices B–C of Southall
et al. (2007) for a review of studies
involving marine mammal behavioral
responses to sound.
Habituation can occur when an
animal’s response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the
absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most
likely to habituate to sounds that are
predictable and unvarying. It is
important to note that habituation is
appropriately considered as a
‘‘progressive reduction in response to
stimuli that are perceived as neither
aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as,
more generally, moderation in response
to human disturbance (Bejder et al.,
2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant
experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of
avoidance, at a lower level of exposure.
As noted, behavioral state may affect the
type of response. For example, animals
that are resting may show greater
behavioral change in response to
disturbing sound levels than animals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
that are highly motivated to remain in
an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals have showed
pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997). Observed
responses of wild marine mammals to
loud pulsed sound sources (typically
seismic airguns or acoustic harassment
devices) have been varied but often
consist of avoidance behavior or other
behavioral changes suggesting
discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002;
see also Richardson et al., 1995;
Nowacek et al., 2007). However, many
delphinids approach acoustic source
vessels with no apparent discomfort or
obvious behavioral change (e.g.,
Barkaszi et al., 2012).
Available studies show wide variation
in response to underwater sound;
therefore, it is difficult to predict
specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a
marine mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the
impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, let alone
the stock or population. However, if a
sound source displaces marine
mammals from an important feeding or
breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and
Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2005). However, there are broad
categories of potential response, which
we describe in greater detail here, that
include alteration of dive behavior,
alteration of foraging behavior, effects to
breathing, interference with or alteration
of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary
widely, and may consist of increased or
decreased dive times and surface
intervals as well as changes in the rates
of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g.,
Frankel and Clark, 2000; Ng and Leung,
2003; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen
et al., 2013a, b). Variations in dive
behavior may reflect disruptions in
biologically significant activities (e.g.,
foraging) or they may be of little
biological significance. The impact of an
alteration to dive behavior resulting
from an acoustic exposure depends on
what the animal is doing at the time of
the exposure and the type and
magnitude of the response.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.,
2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et
al., 2007). A determination of whether
foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require
information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the affected
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal.
Variations in respiration naturally
vary with different behaviors and
alterations to breathing rate as a
function of acoustic exposure can be
expected to co-occur with other
behavioral reactions, such as a flight
response or an alteration in diving.
However, respiration rates in and of
themselves may be representative of
annoyance or an acute stress response.
Various studies have shown that
respiration rates may either be
unaffected or could increase, depending
on the species and signal characteristics,
again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the
tolerance of underwater noise when
determining the potential for impacts
resulting from anthropogenic sound
exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001,
2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007, 2016).
Marine mammals vocalize for
different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation
click production, calling, and singing.
Changes in vocalization behavior in
response to anthropogenic noise can
occur for any of these modes and may
result from a need to compete with an
increase in background noise or may
reflect increased vigilance or a startle
response. In some cases, animals may
cease sound production during
production of aversive signals (Bowles
et al., 1994).
Avoidance is the displacement of an
individual from an area or migration
path as a result of the presence of sound
or other stressors and is one of the most
obvious manifestations of disturbance in
marine mammals (Richardson et al.,
1995). Avoidance may be short-term,
with animals returning to the area once
the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al.,
1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000;
Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et
al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is
possible, however, which may lead to
changes in abundance or distribution
patterns of the affected species in the
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
affected region if habituation to the
presence of the sound does not occur
(e.g., Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al.,
2006).
A flight response is a dramatic change
in normal movement to a directed and
rapid movement away from the
perceived location of a sound source.
The flight response differs from other
avoidance responses in the intensity of
the response (e.g., directed movement,
rate of travel). Relatively little
information on flight responses of
marine mammals to anthropogenic
signals exist, although observations of
flight responses to the presence of
predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight
response could range from brief,
temporary exertion and displacement
from the area where the signal provokes
flight to, in extreme cases, marine
mammal strandings (Evans and
England, 2001). However, it should be
noted that response to a perceived
predator does not necessarily invoke
flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and
whether individuals are solitary or in
groups may influence the response.
Behavioral disturbance can also
impact marine mammals in more subtle
ways. Increased vigilance may result in
costs related to diversion of focus and
attention (i.e., when a response consists
of increased vigilance, it may come at
the cost of decreased attention to other
critical behaviors such as foraging or
resting). These effects have generally not
been demonstrated for marine
mammals, but studies involving fish
and terrestrial animals have shown that
increased vigilance may substantially
reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp
and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002;
Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition,
chronic disturbance can cause
population declines through reduction
of fitness (e.g., decline in body
condition) and subsequent reduction in
reproductive success, survival, or both
(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan
et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998).
However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported
that increased vigilance in bottlenose
dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep
deprivation or stress effects.
Many animals perform vital functions,
such as feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour
cycle). Disruption of such functions
resulting from reactions to stressors,
such as sound exposure, are more likely
to be significant if they last more than
one diel cycle or recur on subsequent
days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response
lasting less than 1 day and not recurring
on subsequent days is not considered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
particularly severe unless it could
directly affect reproduction or survival
(Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is
a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and
multi-day anthropogenic activities. For
example, just because an activity lasts
for multiple days does not necessarily
mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for
multiple days or, further, exposed in a
manner resulting in sustained multi-day
substantive behavioral responses.
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea
observations during 1,196 seismic
surveys from 1994 to 2010. When arrays
of large airguns (considered to be 500
in3 or more) were firing, lateral
displacement, more localized
avoidance, or other changes in behavior
were evident for most odontocetes.
Stress Responses—An animal’s
perception of a threat may be sufficient
to trigger stress responses consisting of
some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system
responses, neuroendocrine responses, or
immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an
animal’s first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs)
response is behavioral avoidance of the
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous
system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and gastrointestinal activity.
These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a
significant long-term effect on an
animal’s fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often
involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all
neuroendocrine functions that are
affected by stress—including immune
competence, reproduction, metabolism,
and behavior—are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in
the secretion of pituitary hormones have
been implicated in failed reproduction,
altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance
(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000).
Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticoids are also equated with
stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between
‘‘stress’’ (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response.
During a stress response, an animal uses
glycogen stores that can be quickly
replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the
stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when
an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic
costs of a stress response, energy
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53461
resources must be diverted from other
functions. This state of distress will last
until the animal replenishes its
energetic reserves sufficiently to restore
normal function.
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both
laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al.,
1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et
al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress
responses due to exposure to
anthropogenic sounds or other stressors
and their effects on marine mammals
have also been reviewed (Fair and
Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b)
and, more rarely, studied in wild
populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a).
In addition, any animal experiencing
TTS would likely also experience stress
responses (NRC, 2003).
Auditory Masking—Sound can
disrupt behavior through masking or
interfering with an animal’s ability to
detect, recognize, or discriminate
between acoustic signals of interest (e.g.,
those used for intraspecific
communication and social interactions,
prey detection, predator avoidance,
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995;
Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with
by another coincident sound at similar
frequencies and at similar or higher
intensity, and may occur whether the
sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp,
wind, waves, precipitation) or
anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar,
seismic exploration) in origin. The
ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends
on the characteristics of both the noise
source and the signal of interest (e.g.,
signal-to-noise ratio, temporal
variability, direction), in relation to each
other and to an animal’s hearing
abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency
range, critical ratios, frequency
discrimination, directional
discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss),
and existing ambient noise and
propagation conditions.
Under certain circumstances,
significant masking could disrupt
behavioral patterns, which in turn could
affect fitness for survival and
reproduction. It is important to
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist
after the sound exposure, from masking,
which occurs during the sound
exposure. Because masking (without
resulting in TS) is not associated with
abnormal physiological function, it is
not considered a physiological effect but
rather a potential behavioral effect.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
53462
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
The frequency range of the potentially
masking sound is important in
predicting any potential behavioral
impacts. For example, low-frequency
signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds
produced by odontocetes but are more
likely to affect other potentially
important natural sounds such as those
produced by surf and some prey
species. The masking of communication
signals by anthropogenic noise may be
considered as a reduction in the
communication space of animals (e.g.,
Clark et al., 2009) and may result in
energetic or other costs as animals
change their vocalization behavior (e.g.,
Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004;
Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark,
2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking may be
less in situations where the signal and
noise come from different directions
(Richardson et al., 1995), through
amplitude modulation of the signal, or
through other compensatory behaviors
(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can
be tested directly in captive species
(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild
populations it must be either modeled
or inferred from evidence of masking
compensation. There are few studies
addressing real-world masking sounds
likely to be experienced by marine
mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et
al., 2013).
Masking affects both senders and
receivers of acoustic signals and can
potentially have long-term chronic
effects on marine mammals at the
population level as well as at the
individual level. Low-frequency
ambient sound levels have increased by
as much as 20 dB (more than three times
in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean
from pre-industrial periods, with most
of the increase from distant commercial
shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All
anthropogenic sound sources, but
especially chronic and lower-frequency
signals (e.g., from vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound
levels, thus intensifying masking.
Masking effects of pulsed sounds
(even from large arrays of airguns) on
marine mammal calls and other natural
sounds are expected to be limited,
although there are few specific data on
this. Because of the intermittent nature
and low duty cycle of seismic pulses,
animals can emit and receive sounds in
the relatively quiet intervals between
pulses. However, in exceptional
situations, reverberation occurs for
much or all of the interval between
pulses (e.g., Simard et al. 2005; Clark
and Gagnon 2006), which could mask
calls. Situations with prolonged strong
reverberation are infrequent. However,
it is common for reverberation to cause
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
some lesser degree of elevation of the
background level between airgun pulses
(e.g., Gedamke 2011; Guerra et al., 2011,
2016; Klinck et al., 2012; Guan et al.,
2015), and this weaker reverberation
presumably reduces the detection range
of calls and other natural sounds to
some degree. Guerra et al. (2016)
reported that ambient noise levels
between seismic pulses were elevated as
a result of reverberation at ranges of 50
km from the seismic source.
The sounds important to small
odontocetes are predominantly at much
higher frequencies than are the
dominant components of airgun sounds,
thus limiting the potential for masking.
In general, masking effects of seismic
pulses are expected to be minor, given
the normally intermittent nature of
seismic pulses.
Vessel Noise
Vessel noise from the McCall could
affect marine animals in the proposed
survey areas. Houghton et al. (2015)
proposed that vessel speed is the most
important predictor of received noise
levels, and Putland et al. (2017) also
reported reduced sound levels with
decreased vessel speed. Sounds
produced by large vessels generally
dominate ambient noise at frequencies
from 20 to 300 Hz (Richardson et al.,
1995). However, some energy is also
produced at higher frequencies
(Hermannsen et al., 2014); low levels of
high-frequency sound from vessels has
been shown to elicit responses in harbor
porpoise (Dyndo et al., 2015). Increased
levels of vessel noise have been shown
to affect foraging by porpoise (Teilmann
et al., 2015; Wisniewska et al., 2018);
Wisniewska et al. (2018) suggested that
a decrease in foraging success could
have long-term fitness consequences.
Vessel noise, through masking, can
reduce the effective communication
distance of a marine mammal if the
frequency of the sound source is close
to that used by the animal, and if the
sound is present for a significant
fraction of time (e.g., Richardson et al.
1995; Clark et al., 2009; Jensen et al.,
2009; Gervaise et al., 2012; Hatch et al.,
2012; Rice et al., 2014; Dunlop 2015;
Erbe et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2017;
Putland et al., 2017). In addition to the
frequency and duration of the masking
sound, the strength, temporal pattern,
and location of the introduced sound
also play a role in the extent of the
masking (Branstetter et al., 2013, 2016;
Finneran and Branstetter 2013; Sills et
al., 2017). Branstetter et al. (2013)
reported that time-domain metrics are
also important in describing and
predicting masking. In order to
compensate for increased ambient noise,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
some cetaceans are known to increase
the source levels of their calls in the
presence of elevated noise levels from
shipping, shift their peak frequencies, or
otherwise change their vocal behavior
(e.g., Martins et al., 2016; O’Brien et al.,
2016; Tenessen and Parks 2016). Harp
seals did not increase their call
frequencies in environments with
increased low-frequency sounds
(Terhune and Bosker 2016). Holt et al.
(2015) reported that changes in vocal
modifications can have increased
energetic costs for individual marine
mammals. A negative correlation
between the presence of some cetacean
species and the number of vessels in an
area has been demonstrated by several
studies (e.g., Campana et al., 2015;
Culloch et al., 2016).
Many odontocetes show considerable
tolerance of vessel traffic, although they
sometimes react at long distances if
confined by ice or shallow water, if
previously harassed by vessels, or have
had little or no recent exposure to
vessels (Richardson et al., 1995).
Dolphins of many species tolerate and
sometimes approach vessels (e.g.,
Anderwald et al., 2013). Some dolphin
species approach moving vessels to ride
the bow or stern waves (Williams et al.,
1992). Pirotta et al. (2015) noted that the
physical presence of vessels, not just
vessel noise, disturbed the foraging
activity of bottlenose dolphins.
Sightings of striped dolphin, Risso’s
dolphin, sperm whale, and Cuvier’s
beaked whale in the western
Mediterranean were negatively
correlated with the number of vessels in
the area (Campana et al., 2015).
Sounds emitted by the McCall are low
frequency and continuous but would be
widely dispersed in both space and
time. Vessel traffic associated with the
proposed survey is of low density
compared to traffic associated with
commercial shipping, industry support
vessels, or commercial fishing vessels,
and would therefore be expected to
represent an insignificant incremental
increase in the total amount of
anthropogenic sound input to the
marine environment, and the effects of
vessel noise described above are not
expected to occur as a result of this
survey. In summary, project vessel
sounds would not be at levels expected
to cause anything more than possible
localized and temporary behavioral
changes in marine mammals, and would
not be expected to result in significant
negative effects on individuals or at the
population level. In addition, in all
oceans of the world, large vessel traffic
is currently so prevalent that it is
commonly considered a usual source of
ambient sound (NSF–USGS 2011).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Vessel Strike
Vessel collisions with marine
mammals, or vessel strikes, can result in
death or serious injury of the animal.
Wounds resulting from vessel strike
may include massive trauma,
hemorrhaging, broken bones, or
propeller lacerations (Knowlton and
Kraus, 2001). An animal at the surface
may be struck directly by a vessel, a
surfacing animal may hit the bottom of
a vessel, or an animal just below the
surface may be cut by a vessel’s
propeller. Superficial strikes may not
kill or result in the death of the animal.
These interactions are typically
associated with large whales (e.g., fin
whales), which are occasionally found
draped across the bulbous bow of large
commercial vessels upon arrival in port.
Although smaller cetaceans are more
maneuverable in relation to large vessels
than are large whales, they may also be
susceptible to strike. The severity of
injuries typically depends on the size
and speed of the vessel, with the
probability of death or serious injury
increasing as vessel speed increases
(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al.,
2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007;
Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact forces
increase with speed, as does the
probability of a strike at a given distance
(Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011).
Pace and Silber (2005) also found that
the probability of death or serious injury
increased rapidly with increasing vessel
speed. Specifically, the predicted
probability of serious injury or death
increased from 45 to 75 percent as
vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn
(25.9 kmh), and exceeded 90 percent at
17 kn (31.5 kmh). Higher speeds during
collisions result in greater force of
impact, but higher speeds also appear to
increase the chance of severe injuries or
death through increased likelihood of
collision by pulling whales toward the
vessel (Clyne 1999; Knowlton et al.,
1995). In a separate study, Vanderlaan
and Taggart (2007) analyzed the
probability of lethal mortality of large
whales at a given speed, showing that
the greatest rate of change in the
probability of a lethal injury to a large
whale as a function of vessel speed
occurs between 8.6 and 15 kn (15.9 and
27.8 kmh). The chances of a lethal
injury decline from approximately 80
percent at 15 kn (27.8 kmh) to
approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn (15.9
kmh). At speeds below 11.8 kn (21.9
kmh), the chances of lethal injury drop
below 50 percent, while the probability
asymptotically increases toward one
hundred percent above 15 kn (27.8
kmh).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
The McCall will travel at a speed of
4–5 kn (7.4–9.3 kmh) while towing
seismic survey gear. At this speed, both
the possibility of striking a marine
mammal and the possibility of a strike
resulting in serious injury or mortality
are discountable. At average transit
speed, the probability of serious injury
or mortality resulting from a strike is
less than 50 percent. However, the
likelihood of a strike actually happening
is again discountable. Vessel strikes, as
analyzed in the studies cited above,
generally involve commercial shipping,
which is much more common in both
space and time than is geophysical
survey activity. Jensen and Silber (2004)
summarized vessel strikes of large
whales worldwide from 1975–2003 and
found that most collisions occurred in
the open ocean and involved large
vessels (e.g., commercial shipping). No
such incidents were reported for
geophysical survey vessels during that
time period.
It is possible for vessel strikes to occur
while traveling at slow speeds. For
example, a hydrographic survey vessel
traveling at low speed (5.5 kn; 10.2
kmh) while conducting mapping
surveys off the central California coast
struck and killed a blue whale in 2009.
The State of California determined that
the whale had suddenly and
unexpectedly surfaced beneath the hull,
with the result that the propeller
severed the whale’s vertebrae, and that
this was an unavoidable event. This
strike represents the only such incident
in approximately 540,000 hours of
similar coastal mapping activity (p = 1.9
× 10¥6; 95% CI = 0–5.5 × 10¥6; NMFS,
2013b). In addition, a research vessel
reported a fatal strike in 2011 of a
dolphin in the Atlantic, demonstrating
that it is possible for strikes involving
smaller cetaceans to occur. In that case,
the incident report indicated that an
animal apparently was struck by the
vessel’s propeller as it was intentionally
swimming near the vessel. While
indicative of the type of unusual events
that cannot be ruled out, neither of these
instances represents a circumstance that
would be considered reasonably
foreseeable or that would be considered
preventable.
Although the likelihood of the vessel
striking a marine mammal is low, we
propose a robust vessel strike avoidance
protocol (see Proposed Mitigation),
which we believe eliminates any
foreseeable risk of vessel strike during
transit. We anticipate that vessel
collisions involving a seismic data
acquisition vessel towing gear, while
not impossible, represent unlikely,
unpredictable events for which there are
no preventive measures. Given the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53463
proposed mitigation measures, the
relatively slow speed of the vessel
towing gear, the presence of bridge crew
watching for obstacles at all times
(including marine mammals), and the
presence of marine mammal observers,
the possibility of vessel strike is
discountable and, further, were a strike
of a large whale to occur, it would be
unlikely to result in serious injury or
mortality. No incidental take resulting
from vessel strike is anticipated, and
this potential effect of the specified
activity will not be discussed further in
the following analysis.
Entanglement—Entanglements occur
when marine mammals become
wrapped around cables, lines, nets, or
other objects suspended in the water
column. During seismic operations,
numerous cables, lines, and other
objects primarily associated with the
airgun array and hydrophone streamers
will be towed behind the McCall near
the water’s surface. However, we are not
aware of any cases of entanglement of
marine mammals in seismic survey
equipment. Although entanglement
with the streamer is theoretically
possible, it has not been documented
during hundreds of thousands of miles
of industrial seismic cruises. There are
no meaningful entanglement risks posed
by the proposed survey, and
entanglement risks are not discussed
further in this document.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal
Habitat
Effects to Prey—Marine mammal prey
varies by species, season, and location
and, for some, is not well documented.
Fish react to sounds which are
especially strong and/or intermittent
low-frequency sounds, and behavioral
responses such as flight or avoidance
are the most likely effects. However, the
reaction of fish to airguns depends on
the physiological state of the fish, past
exposures, motivation (e.g., feeding,
spawning, migration), and other
environmental factors. Several studies
have demonstrated that airgun sounds
might affect the distribution and
behavior of some fishes, potentially
impacting foraging opportunities or
increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell
and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al.,
1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al.,
1999; Paxton et al., 2017), though the
bulk of studies indicate no or slight
reaction to noise (e.g., Miller and
Cripps, 2013; Dalen and Knutsen, 1987;
Pena et al., 2013; Chapman and
Hawkins, 1969; Wardle et al., 2001; Sara
et al., 2007; Jorgenson and Gyselman,
2009; Blaxter et al., 1981; Cott et al.,
2012; Boeger et al., 2006), and that, most
commonly, while there are likely to be
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
53464
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
impacts to fish as a result of noise from
nearby airguns, such effects will be
temporary. For example, investigators
reported significant, short-term declines
in commercial fishing catch rate of
gadid fishes during and for up to five
days after seismic survey operations, but
the catch rate subsequently returned to
normal (Engas et al., 1996; Engas and
Lokkeborg, 2002). Other studies have
reported similar findings (Hassel et al.,
2004). Skalski et al., (1992) also found
a reduction in catch rates—for rockfish
(Sebastes spp.) in response to controlled
airgun exposure—but suggested that the
mechanism underlying the decline was
not dispersal but rather decreased
responsiveness to baited hooks
associated with an alarm behavioral
response. A companion study showed
that alarm and startle responses were
not sustained following the removal of
the sound source (Pearson et al., 1992).
Therefore, Skalski et al. (1992)
suggested that the effects on fish
abundance may be transitory, primarily
occurring during the sound exposure
itself. In some cases, effects on catch
rates are variable within a study, which
may be more broadly representative of
temporary displacement of fish in
response to airgun noise (i.e., catch rates
may increase in some locations and
decrease in others) than any long-term
damage to the fish themselves (Streever
et al., 2016).
Sound pressure levels of sufficient
strength have been known to cause
injury to fish and fish mortality and, in
some studies, fish auditory systems
have been damaged by airgun noise
(McCauley et al., 2003; Popper et al.,
2005; Song et al., 2008). However, in
most fish species, hair cells in the ear
continuously regenerate and loss of
auditory function likely is restored
when damaged cells are replaced with
new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012b)
showed that a TTS of 4–6 dB was
recoverable within 24 hours for one
species. Impacts would be most severe
when the individual fish is close to the
source and when the duration of
exposure is long; both of which are
conditions unlikely to occur for this
survey that is necessarily transient in
any given location and likely result in
brief, infrequent noise exposure to prey
species in any given area. For this
survey, the sound source is constantly
moving, and most fish would likely
avoid the sound source prior to
receiving sound of sufficient intensity to
cause physiological or anatomical
damage. In addition, ramp-up may
allow certain fish species the
opportunity to move further away from
the sound source.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
A recent comprehensive review
(Carroll et al., 2017) found that results
are mixed as to the effects of airgun
noise on the prey of marine mammals.
While some studies suggest a change in
prey distribution and/or a reduction in
prey abundance following the use of
seismic airguns, others suggest no
effects or even positive effects in prey
abundance. As one specific example,
Paxton et al. (2017), which describes
findings related to the effects of a 2014
seismic survey on a reef off of North
Carolina, showed a 78 percent decrease
in observed nighttime abundance for
certain species. It is important to note
that the evening hours during which the
decline in fish habitat use was recorded
(via video recording) occurred on the
same day that the seismic survey
passed, and no subsequent data is
presented to support an inference that
the response was long-lasting.
Additionally, given that the finding is
based on video images, the lack of
recorded fish presence does not support
a conclusion that the fish actually
moved away from the site or suffered
any serious impairment. In summary,
this particular study corroborates prior
studies indicating that a startle response
or short-term displacement should be
expected.
A recent review article concluded
that, while laboratory results provide
scientific evidence for high-intensity
and low-frequency sound-induced
physical trauma and other negative
effects on some fish and invertebrates,
the sound exposure scenarios in some
cases are not realistic to those
encountered by marine organisms
during routine seismic operations
(Carroll et al., 2017). The review finds
that there has been no evidence of
reduced catch or abundance following
seismic activities for invertebrates, and
that there is conflicting evidence for fish
with catch observed to increase,
decrease, or remain the same. Further,
where there is evidence for decreased
catch rates in response to airgun noise,
these findings provide no information
about the underlying biological cause of
catch rate reduction (Carroll et al.,
2017).
In summary, impacts of the specified
activity on marine mammal prey species
will likely be limited to behavioral
responses, the majority of prey species
will be capable of moving out of the area
during the survey, a rapid return to
normal recruitment, distribution, and
behavior for prey species is anticipated,
and, overall, impacts to prey species
will be minor and temporary. Prey
species exposed to sound might move
away from the sound source, experience
TTS, experience masking of biologically
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
relevant sounds, or show no obvious
direct effects. Mortality from
decompression injuries is possible in
close proximity to a sound, but only
limited data on mortality in response to
airgun noise exposure are available
(Hawkins et al., 2014). The most likely
impacts for most prey species in the
survey area would be temporary
avoidance of the area. The proposed
survey would move through an area
relatively quickly, limiting exposure to
multiple impulsive sounds. In all cases,
sound levels would return to ambient
once the survey moves out of the area
or ends and the noise source is shut
down and, when exposure to sound
ends, behavioral and/or physiological
responses are expected to end relatively
quickly (McCauley et al., 2000b). The
duration of fish avoidance of a given
area after survey effort stops is
unknown, but a rapid return to normal
recruitment, distribution, and behavior
is anticipated. While the potential for
disruption of spawning aggregations or
schools of important prey species can be
meaningful on a local scale, the mobile
and temporary nature of this survey and
the likelihood of temporary avoidance
behavior suggest that impacts would be
minor.
Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is
the soundscape—which encompasses
all of the sound present in a particular
location and time, as a whole—when
considered from the perspective of the
animals experiencing it. Animals
produce sound for, or listen for sounds
produced by, conspecifics
(communication during feeding, mating,
and other social activities), other
animals (finding prey or avoiding
predators), and the physical
environment (finding suitable habitats,
navigating). Together, sounds made by
animals and the geophysical
environment (e.g., produced by
earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain,
waves) make up the natural
contributions to the total acoustics of a
place. These acoustic conditions,
termed acoustic habitat, are one
attribute of an animal’s total habitat.
Soundscapes are also defined by, and
acoustic habitat influenced by, the total
contribution of anthropogenic sound.
This may include incidental emissions
from sources such as vessel traffic, or
may be intentionally introduced to the
marine environment for data acquisition
purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays).
Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its
frequency content, duration, and
loudness and these characteristics
greatly influence the potential habitatmediated effects to marine mammals
(please see also the previous discussion
on masking under ‘‘Acoustic Effects’’),
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
which may range from local effects for
brief periods of time to chronic effects
over large areas and for long durations.
Depending on the extent of effects to
habitat, animals may alter their
communications signals (thereby
potentially expending additional
energy) or miss acoustic cues (either
conspecific or adventitious). For more
detail on these concepts see, e.g., Barber
et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 2011;
Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et al.,
2014.
Problems arising from a failure to
detect cues are more likely to occur
when noise stimuli are chronic and
overlap with biologically relevant cues
used for communication, orientation,
and predator/prey detection (Francis
and Barber, 2013). Although the signals
emitted by seismic airgun arrays are
generally low frequency, they would
also likely be of short duration and
transient in any given area due to the
nature of these surveys. As described
previously, exploratory surveys such as
these cover a large area but would be
transient rather than focused in a given
location over time and therefore would
not be considered chronic in any given
location.
Based on the information discussed
herein, we conclude that impacts of the
specified activity are not likely to have
more than short-term adverse effects on
any prey habitat or populations of prey
species. Further, any impacts to marine
mammal habitat are not expected to
result in significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine
mammals, or to contribute to adverse
impacts on their populations.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through the IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of ‘‘small numbers,’’ and
the negligible impact determinations.
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 would be by Level B
harassment only, in the form of
disruption of behavioral patterns for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
individual marine mammals resulting
from exposure to sound from low energy
seismic airguns. Based on the nature of
the activity, Level A harassment is
neither anticipated nor proposed to be
authorized. As described previously, no
serious injury or mortality is anticipated
or proposed to be authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the
proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, 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) the number of days of activities.
We note that while these factors can
contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential
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 proposed take estimates.
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 PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment—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 or exposure
context (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle, duration of the exposure,
signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage,
depth) and can be difficult to predict
(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison
et al., 2012). Based on what the
available science indicates and the
practical need to use a threshold based
on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS
typically uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS generally predicts
that marine mammals are likely to be
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53465
behaviorally harassed in a manner
considered to be Level B harassment
when exposed to underwater
anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS
SPL) of 120 dB (re 1 mPa) for continuous
(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and
above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. Generally speaking,
Level B harassment take estimates based
on these behavioral harassment
thresholds are expected to include any
likely takes by TTS as, in most cases,
the likelihood of TTS occurs at
distances from the source less than
those at which behavioral harassment is
likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can
manifest as behavioral harassment, as
reduced hearing sensitivity and the
potential reduced opportunities to
detect important signals (conspecific
communication, predators, prey) may
result in changes in behavior patterns
that would not otherwise occur.
UT’s proposed survey includes the
use of impulsive seismic sources (e.g.,
GI-airgun) and therefore, the 160 dB re
1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable for
analysis of Level B harassment.
Level A harassment—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). UT’s proposed survey
includes the use of impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in the
Table 3 and 4 below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the
development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical
Guidance, which may be accessed at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that are used in estimating the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, including source levels and
transmission loss coefficient.
The proposed survey would entail the
use of up to two 105 in3 airguns with
a maximum total discharge of 210 in3 at
a tow depth of 3–4 m. Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory (L–DEO) model
results were used to determine the 160
dBrms radius for the two-airgun array in
water depths >100 m. Received sound
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
53466
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
levels were predicted by L–DEO’s model
(Diebold et al., 2010) as a function of
distance from the airguns for the two
105 in3 airguns with a maximum total
discharge of 210 in3. This modeling
approach uses ray tracing for the direct
wave traveling from the array to the
receiver and its associated source ghost
(reflection at the air-water interface in
the vicinity of the array), in a constantvelocity half-space (infinite
homogenous ocean layer, unbounded by
a seafloor).
The proposed surveys would acquire
data with up to two 105-in3 GI guns
(separated by up to 2.4 m) at a tow
depth of ∼3–4 m. The shallow-water
radii are obtained by scaling the
empirically derived measurements from
the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey to
account for the differences in volume
and tow depth between the calibration
survey (6,600 in3 at 6 m tow depth) and
the proposed survey (210 in3 at 4 m tow
depth). A simple scaling factor is
calculated from the ratios of the
isopleths calculated by the deep-water
L–DEO model, which are essentially a
measure of the energy radiated by the
source array.
L–DEO’s methodology is described in
greater detail in UT’s IHA application.
The estimated distances to the Level B
harassment isopleth for the proposed
airgun configuration are shown in Table
3.
TABLE 3—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM THE R/V BROOKS MCCALL SEISMIC SOURCE TO ISOPLETHS
CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD
Airgun configuration
Water depth
(m)
Predicted
distances (m)
to 160 dB
received
sound level
Two 105-in GI guns .................................................................................................................................................
<100
1 1,750
1 Distance
is based on empirically derived measurements in the Gulf of Mexico with scaling applied to account for differences in tow depth.
were calculated based on modeling
performed by L–DEO using the Nucleus
software program and the NMFS User
Spreadsheet, described below. The
acoustic thresholds for impulsive
sounds (e.g., airguns) contained in the
Technical Guidance (2018) were
presented as dual metric acoustic
thresholds using both SELcum and peak
sound pressure metrics (NMFS 2016a).
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
TABLE 4—MODELED RADIAL DISto facilitate the estimation of take
TANCES
TO
ISOPLETHS
COR- numbers.
RESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSThe SELcum for the two-GI airgun
MENT THRESHOLDS
array is derived from calculating the
modified farfield signature. The farfield
Hearing group
MF
signature is often used as a theoretical
PTS Peak .............................
1.5 representation of the source level. To
PTS SELcum .........................
0 compute the farfield signature, the
source level is estimated at a large
Predicted distances to Level A
distance (right) below the array (e.g., 9
harassment isopleths, which vary based km), and this level is back projected
on marine mammal hearing groups,
mathematically to a notional distance of
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
The ensonified area associated with
Level A harassment is more technically
challenging to predict due to the need
to account for a duration component.
Therefore, NMFS developed an optional
user spreadsheet tool to accompany the
Technical Guidance (2018) that can be
used to relatively simply predict an
isopleth distance for use in conjunction
with marine mammal density or
occurrence to help predict potential
takes. We note that because of some of
the assumptions included in the
methods underlying this optional tool,
we anticipate that the resulting isopleth
estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which
may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment.
However, this optional tool offers the
best way to estimate isopleth distances
when more sophisticated modeling
methods are not available or practical.
Table 4 presents the modeled PTS
isopleths for mid-frequency cetaceans,
the only hearing group for which takes
are expected, based on L–DEO modeling
incorporated in the companion User
Spreadsheet (NMFS 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1 m from the array’s geometrical center.
However, it has been recognized that the
source level from the theoretical farfield
signature is never physically achieved at
the source when the source is an array
of multiple airguns separated in space
(Tolstoy et al., 2009). Near the source (at
short ranges, distances <1 km), the
pulses of sound pressure from each
individual airgun in the source array do
not stack constructively as they do for
the theoretical farfield signature. The
pulses from the different airguns spread
out in time such that the source levels
observed or modeled are the result of
the summation of pulses from a few
airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al.,
2009). At larger distances, away from
the source array center, sound pressure
of all the airguns in the array stack
coherently, but not within one time
sample, resulting in smaller source
levels (a few dB) than the source level
derived from the farfield signature.
Because the farfield signature does not
take into account the interactions of the
two airguns that occur near the source
center and is calculated as a point
source (single airgun), the modified
farfield signature is a more appropriate
measure of the sound source level for
large arrays. For this smaller array, the
modified farfield changes will be
correspondingly smaller as well, but
this method is used for consistency
across all array sizes.
Auditory injury for all species is
unlikely to occur given the small
modeled zones of injury (estimated zone
less than 2 m for mid-frequency
cetaceans). Additionally, animals are
expected to have aversive/compensatory
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
53467
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
behavior in response to the activity
(Nachtigall et al., 2018) further limiting
the likelihood of auditory injury for all
species. UT did not request
authorization of take by Level A
harassment, and no take by Level A
harassment is proposed for
authorization by NMFS.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide information
about the occurrence of marine
mammals, including density or other
relevant information which will inform
the take calculations.
For the proposed survey area in the
northwest Gulf of Mexico, UT
determined that the best source of
density data for marine mammal species
that might be encountered in the project
area was habitat-based density modeling
conducted by Garrison et al. (2022). The
Garrison et al. (2022) data provides
abundance estimates for marine
mammal species in the Gulf of Mexico
within 40 km2 hexagons (∼3.9 km sides
and ∼7 km across from each side) on a
monthly basis. To calculate expected
densities specific to the survey area, UT
created a 7-km perimeter around the
survey area and used that perimeter to
select the density hexagons for each
species in each month. The 7-km
distance was chosen for the perimeter to
ensure that at least one full density
hexagon outside the survey area in all
directions was selected, providing a
more robust sample for the calculations.
They then calculated the mean of the
predicted densities from the selected
cells for each species and month. The
highest mean monthly density was
chosen for each species from the months
of September to December (i.e., the
months within which the survey is
expected to occur). NMFS concurred
with this approach to calculate species
density.
Rough-toothed dolphins were not
modeled by Garrison et al. (2022) due to
a lack of sightings, so habitat-based
marine mammal density estimates from
Roberts et al. (2016) were used. The
Roberts et al. (2016) models consisted of
10 km x 10 km grid cells containing
average annual densities for U.S. waters
in the Gulf of Mexico. The same 7 km
perimeter described above was used to
select grid cells from the Roberts et al.
(2016) dataset, and the mean of the
selected grid cells for rough-toothed
dolphins was calculated to estimate the
annual average density of the species in
the survey area. Estimated densities
used and Level B harassment ensonified
areas to inform take estimates are
presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES AND TOTAL ENSONIFIED AREA OF ACTIVITIES IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREA
Estimated
density
(#/km2)
Species
Atlantic spotted dolphin ...........................................................................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin a .................................................................................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin ............................................................................................................................................
b 0.00082
b 0.34024
c 0.00362
Level B
ensonified
area
(km2)
7,866
7,866
7,866
a Bottlenose
b Density
c Density
dolphin density estimate does not differentiate between coastal and shelf stocks.
calculated from Garrison et al. (2022).
calculated from Roberts et al. (2016).
Take Estimation
Here, we describe how the
information provided above is
synthesized to produce a quantitative
estimate of the take that is reasonably
likely to occur and proposed for
authorization. In order to estimate the
number of marine mammals predicted
to be exposed to sound levels that
would result in Level B harassment,
radial distances from the airgun array to
the predicted isopleth corresponding to
the Level B harassment threshold was
calculated, as described above. Those
radial distances were then used to
calculate the area(s) around the airgun
array predicted to be ensonified to
sound levels that exceed the harassment
thresholds. The area expected to be
ensonified on 1 day was determined by
multiplying the number of line km
possible in 1 day by two times the 160dB radius plus adding endcaps to the
start and beginning of the line. The
daily ensonified area was then
multiplied by the number of survey
days (10 days). The highest mean
monthly density for each species was
then multiplied by the total ensonified
area to calculate the estimated takes of
each species.
No takes by Level A harassment are
expected or proposed for authorization.
Estimated takes for the proposed survey
are shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6—ESTIMATED TAKE PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION
Estimated take
Species
Stock
Proposed
authorized
take
Level B
Stock
abundance 1
Percent of
stock
Level B
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Atlantic spotted dolphin .....................
Bottlenose dolphin 3 ..........................
Rough-toothed dolphin ......................
Gulf of Mexico ..................................
Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal ......
Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental
Shelf.
Gulf of Mexico ..................................
6
2,676
2 26
2,676
21,506
20,759
63,280
0.12
12.89
4.23
28
28
2 4,853
0.58
1 Stock
abundance for Atlantic spotted dolphins and bottlenose dolphins was taken from Garrison et al. (2022). Stock abundance for roughtoothed dolphins was taken from Roberts et al. (2016), as Garrison et al. (2022) did not create a model for this species.
2 Proposed take increased to mean group size from Maze-Foley and Mullin (2006).
3 Estimated take for bottlenose dolphins is not apportioned to stock, as density information does not differentiate between coastal and shelf
dolphins. However, based on the proposed survey depths, we expect that most of the takes would be from the coastal stock, but some takes
could be from the shelf stock. Percent of stock was calculated as if all takes proposed for authorization accrued to the single stock with the lowest population abundance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
53468
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
Proposed Mitigation
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to the activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses
(latter not applicable for this action).
NMFS regulations require applicants for
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting the activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, NMFS considers two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned), the
likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned),
and;
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost, and
impact on operations.
Mitigation measures that would be
adopted during the planned survey
include, but are not limited to: (1) vessel
speed or course alteration, provided that
doing so would not compromise
operation safety requirements; (2)
monitoring a pre-start clearance zone;
and (3) ramp-up procedures.
Vessel-Visual Based Mitigation
Monitoring
Visual monitoring requires the use of
trained observers (herein referred to as
visual protected species observers
(PSOs)) to scan the ocean surface
visually for the presence of marine
mammals. PSOs shall establish and
monitor a pre-start clearance zone and,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
to the extent practicable, a Level B
harassment zone (Table 3). 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 pre-start clearance (i.e., before
ramp-up begins), the pre-start clearance
zone is the area in which observations
of marine mammals within the zone
would prevent airgun operations from
beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The pre-start
clearance zone encompasses the area at
and below the sea surface out to a radius
of 200 meters from the edges of the
airgun array.
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
PSOs must be on duty and conducting
visual observations at all times during
daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes
prior to sunrise through 30 minutes
following sunset). Visual monitoring
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 must coordinate to
ensure 360 degree visual coverage
around the vessel from the most
appropriate observation posts, and must
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 a
pre-start clearance zone and to the
extent practicable, a Level B harassment
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).
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
sightings 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 4 consecutive hours
followed by a break of at least 1 hour
between watches and may conduct a
maximum of 12 hours of observation per
24-hour period.
Pre-Start Clearance and Ramp-Up
Ramp-up is the gradual and
systematic increase of emitted sound
levels from an acoustic source. Ramp-up
would begin with one GI airgun 105 in3
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
first being activated, followed by the
second after 5 minutes. The intent of
pre-clearance observation (30 minutes)
is to ensure no marine mammals are
observed within the pre-start clearance
zone prior to the beginning of ramp-up.
The intent of ramp-up is to warn marine
mammals in the vicinity of survey
activities and to allow sufficient time for
those animals to leave the immediate
vicinity. A ramp-up procedure,
involving a stepwise increase in the
number of 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:
(1) 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 PSOs
time to monitor the pre-start clearance
zone for 30 minutes prior to the
initiation of ramp-up (pre-start
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 prestart 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 pre-start
clearance zone. If a marine mammal is
observed within the pre-start clearance
zone during the 30 minutes preclearance period, ramp-up may not
begin until the animal(s) has been
observed exiting the zone or until an
additional time period has elapsed with
no further sightings (15 minutes for
small delphinids and 30 minutes for all
other species);
• Ramp-up must begin by activating
the first airgun for 5 minutes and then
adding the second airgun; and
• PSOs must monitor the pre-start
clearance zone during ramp-up, and
ramp-up must cease and the source
must be shut down upon detection of a
marine mammal within the pre-start
clearance zone. Once ramp-up has
begun, observations of marine mammals
for which take authorization is granted
within the pre-start clearance zone does
not require shutdown.
(2) If the acoustic source is shut down
for brief periods (i.e., less than 30
minutes) for reasons other than
implementation of prescribed mitigation
(e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be
activated again without ramp-up if PSOs
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
have maintained constant observation
and no detections of marine mammals
have occurred within the pre-start
clearance zone. For any longer
shutdown, pre-start clearance
observation and ramp-up are required.
Ramp-up may occur at times of poor
visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater),
including nighttime, if appropriate
visual monitoring has occurred with no
detections of marine mammals in the 30
minutes prior to beginning ramp-up.
Acoustic source activation may only
occur at night where operational
planning cannot reasonably avoid such
circumstances.
• 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 a 30 minute
pre-start clearance period.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Shutdown Procedures
The shutdown requirement will be
waived for small dolphins. As defined
here, the small dolphin group is
intended to encompass those members
of the Family Delphinidae most likely to
voluntarily approach the source vessel
for purposes of interacting with the
vessel and/or airgun array (e.g., bow
riding). This exception to the shutdown
requirement applies solely to specific
genera of small dolphins—Steno,
Stenella, and Tursiops. As Tursiops and
Steno are the only species expected to
potentially be encountered, there is no
shutdown requirement included in the
proposed IHA for species for which take
is proposed to be authorized.
Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures
These measures apply to all vessels
associated with the planned survey
activity; however, we note that 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. These measures include the
following:
(1) Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all marine
mammals and slow down, stop their
vessel, or alter course, as appropriate
and regardless of vessel size, to avoid
striking any marine mammal. A single
marine mammal at the surface may
indicate the presence of submerged
animals in the vicinity of the vessel;
therefore, precautionary measures
should be exercised when an animal is
observed. A visual observer aboard the
vessel must monitor a vessel strike
avoidance zone around the vessel
(specific distances detailed below), to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
ensure the potential for strike is
minimized. Visual observers monitoring
the vessel strike avoidance zone can be
either third-party observers 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 to identify
a marine mammal as a baleen whale,
sperm whale, or other marine mammals;
(2) Vessel speeds must be reduced to
10 kn (18.5 kph) or less when mother
and calf pairs, pods, or large
assemblages of cetaceans are observed
near a vessel;
(3) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from sperm whales;
(4) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
baleen whales. If a baleen whale is
sighted within the relevant separation
distance, the vessel must steer a course
away at 10 knots or less until the 500m separation distance has been
established. If a whale is observed but
cannot be confirmed as a species other
than a baleen whale, the vessel operator
must assume that it is a baleen whale
and take appropriate action.
(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); and
(6) When marine mammals are
sighted while a vessel is underway, the
vessel should 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). This
does not apply to any vessel towing gear
or any vessel that is navigationally
constrained.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed 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.
Proposed 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53469
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 while conducting the activities.
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
activity; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and,
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
As described above, PSO observations
would take place during daytime airgun
operations. Two visual PSOs would be
on duty at all time during daytime
hours. Monitoring shall be conducted in
accordance with the following
requirements:
(1) UT must 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, and to ensure that PSOs are
capable of calibrating equipment as
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
53470
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
necessary for accurate distance
estimates and species identification. See
Condition 5(d) in the IHA for list of
equipment.
PSOs must have the following
requirements and qualifications:
(1) PSOs shall be independent,
dedicated and trained and must be
employed by a third-party observer
provider;
(2) PSOs shall have no tasks other
than to conduct visual 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);
(3) PSOs shall have successfully
completed an approved PSO training
course appropriate for their designated
task (visual);
(4) NMFS must review and approve
PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant
training course information packet that
includes the name and qualifications
(i.e., experience, training completed, or
educational background) of the
instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material
as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course;
(5) 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;
(6) 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
(7) 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:
• Secondary education and/or
experience comparable to PSO duties;
• Previous work experience
conducting academic, commercial, or
government-sponsored protected
species surveys; or
• Previous work experience as a PSO;
the PSO should demonstrate good
standing and consistently good
performance of PSO duties.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
At least one visual PSO must be
unconditionally approved (i.e., have a
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience
working in that role at the particular
Tier level (1–3) with no more than 18
months elapsed since the conclusion of
the at-sea experience). One PSO with
such experience shall be designated as
the lead for the entire PSO team. The
lead PSO shall serve as primary point of
contact for the vessel operator. To the
maximum extent practicable, the duty
schedule shall be planned such that
unconditionally-approved PSOs are on
duty with conditionally-approved PSOs.
PSOs must use standardized
electronic data collection forms. At a
minimum, the following information
must be recorded:
• Vessel name, vessel size and type,
maximum speed capability of vessel;
• Dates (MM/DD/YYYY format) of
departures and returns to port with port
name;
• PSO names and affiliations, PSO
identification (ID; initials or other
identifier);
• Date (MM/DD/YYYY) and
participants of PSO briefings;
• Visual monitoring equipment used
(description);
• PSO location on vessel and height
(in meters) of observation location above
water surface;
• Watch status (description);
• Dates (MM/DD/YYYY) and times
(Greenwich mean time (GMT) or
coordinated universal time (UTC)) of
survey on/off effort and times (GMC/
UTC) corresponding with PSO on/off
effort;
• Vessel location (decimal degrees)
when survey effort began and ended and
vessel location at beginning and end of
visual PSO duty shifts;
• Vessel location (decimal degrees) at
30-second intervals if obtainable from
data collection software, otherwise at
practical regular interval;
• Vessel heading (compass heading)
and speed (in knots) at beginning and
end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon
any change;
• Water depth (in meters) (if
obtainable from data collection
software);
• Environmental conditions while on
visual survey (at beginning and end of
PSO shift and whenever conditions
change 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(description) (e.g., vessel traffic,
equipment malfunctions); and
• Vessel/Survey activity information
(and changes thereof) (description),
such as acoustic source power output
while in operation, number and volume
of acoustic source operating in the array,
tow depth of the acoustic source, and
any other notes of significance (i.e., prestart 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
marine mammal:
• Sighting ID (numeric);
• Watch status (sighting made by PSO
on/off effort, opportunistic, crew,
alternate vessel/platform);
• Location of PSO/observer
(description);
• Vessel activity at the time of the
sighting (e.g., deploying, recovering,
testing, shooting, data acquisition,
other);
• PSO who sighted the animal/PSO
ID;
• Time and date of sighting (GMT/
UTC, MM/DD/YYYY);
• Initial detection method
(description);
• Sighting cue (description);
• Vessel location at time of sighting
(decimal degrees);
• Water depth (in meters);
• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass
direction);
• Speed (knots) of the vessel from
which the observation was made;
• Direction of animal’s travel relative
to the vessel (description, compass
heading);
• Bearing to sighting (degrees);
• 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;
• Species reliability (an indicator of
confidence in identification) (1 =
unsure/possible, 2 = probable, 3 =
definite/sure, 9 = unknown/not
recorded);
• Estimated distance to the animal
(meters) and method of estimating
distance;
• Estimated number of animals (high,
low, and best) (numeric);
• 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
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving,
feeding, traveling; as explicit and
detailed as possible; note any observed
changes in behavior);
• Animal’s closest point of approach
(in meters) and/or closest distance from
any element of the acoustic source;
• Description of any actions
implemented in response to the sighting
(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and
time and location of the action.
• Photos (Yes or No);
• Photo Frame Numbers (List of
numbers); and
• Conditions at time of sighting
(Visibility; BSS).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Reporting
UT must submit a draft
comprehensive report to NMFS on all
activities and monitoring results within
90 days of the completion of the survey
or expiration of the IHA, whichever
comes sooner. The report would
describe the activities that were
conducted and sightings of marine
mammals. The report would provide
full documentation of methods, results,
and interpretation pertaining to all
monitoring. The 90-day report would
summarize the dates and locations of
survey 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). Geographic
information system (GIS) files shall be
provided in Environmental Systems
Research Institute (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. A final report must
be submitted within 30 days following
resolution of any comments on the draft
report.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine
Mammals
Sighting 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, UT shall report
the incident to the OPR, NMFS, and the
NMFS Southeast Regional Stranding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
report must include the following
information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the first discovery (and
updated location information if known
and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s)
(including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the
animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which
the animal was discovered.
Vessel strike—In the event of a vessel
strike of a marine mammal by any vessel
involved in the activities covered by the
authorization, UT shall report the
incident to OPR, NMFS and to the
NMFS Southeast 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, BSS, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53471
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any impacts or responses (e.g.,
intensity, duration), the context of any
impacts or responses (e.g., critical
reproductive time or location, foraging
impacts affecting energetics), 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 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, the discussion of
our analysis applies to all the species
listed in Table 1, given that the
anticipated effects of this activity on
these different marine mammal stocks
are expected to be similar. There is little
information about the nature or severity
of the impacts, or the size, status, or
structure of any of these species or
stocks that would lead to a different
analysis for this activity.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious
injury or mortality would occur as a
result from low-energy survey, and no
serious injury or mortality is proposed
to be authorized. As discussed in the
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
section, non-auditory physical effects
and vessel strike are not expected to
occur. NMFS expects that all potential
take would be in the form of Level B
behavioral harassment in the form of
temporary avoidance of the area or
decreased foraging (if such activity was
occurring), responses that are
considered to be of low severity and
with no lasting biological consequences
(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021).
In addition to being temporary, the
maximum expected Level B harassment
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
53472
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
zone around the survey vessel is 1,750
m. Therefore, the ensonified area
surrounding the vessel is relatively
small compared to the overall
distribution of animals in the area and
their use of the habitat. Feeding
behavior is not likely to be significantly
impacted as prey species are mobile and
are broadly distributed throughout the
survey 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 short duration (10 days)
of the disturbance and 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.
There are no rookeries, mating, or
calving grounds known to be
biologically important to marine
mammals within the planned survey
area and there are no feeding areas
known to be biologically important to
marine mammals within the survey
area. There is no designated critical
habitat for any ESA-listed marine
mammals within the project area.
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary 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:
(1) No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be
authorized;
(2) No Level A harassment is
anticipated, even in the absence of
mitigation measures or proposed to be
authorized;
(3) Take is anticipated to be by Level
B harassment only consisting of
temporary behavioral changes of small
percentages of the affected species due
to avoidance of the area around the
survey vessel. The relatively short
duration of the proposed survey (10
days) would further limit the potential
impacts of any temporary behavioral
changes that would occur;
(4) The availability of alternate areas
of similar habitat value for marine
mammals to temporarily vacate the
survey area during the proposed survey
to avoid exposure to sounds from the
activity;
(5) Foraging success is not likely to be
significantly impacted as effects on prey
species for marine mammals would be
temporary and spatially limited; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
(6) The proposed mitigation measures,
including visual monitoring, ramp-ups,
and shutdowns are expected to
minimize potential impacts to marine
mammals.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of
small numbers of marine mammals may
be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A)
and (D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness
activities. The MMPA does not define
small numbers and so, in practice,
where estimated numbers are available,
NMFS compares the number of
individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of
the relevant species or stock in our
determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. When the
predicted number of individuals to be
taken is fewer than one-third of the
species or stock abundance, the take is
considered to be of small numbers.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
NMFS proposes to authorize
incidental take by Level B harassment of
3 marine mammal species with four
managed stocks. The total amount of
takes proposed for authorization relative
to the best available population
abundance is less than 5 percent for 3
managed stocks and less than 13 percent
for 1 managed stock (Gulf of Mexico
Western Coastal stock of bottlenose
dolphin assuming all takes by Level b
harassment are of this stock; see Take
Estimation subsection) (Table 6). The
take numbers proposed for
authorization are considered
conservative estimates for purposes of
the small numbers determination as
they assume all takes represent different
individual animals, which is unlikely to
be the case.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals would be
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
the total taking of affected species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the 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.
No incidental take of ESA-listed
species is proposed for authorization or
expected to result from this activity.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
formal consultation under section 7 of
the ESA is not required for this action.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to UT for conducting marine
geophysical surveys in the northwest
Gulf of Mexico within Texas State
waters during fall 2023, provided the
previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
are incorporated. A draft of the
proposed IHA can be found at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this notice of proposed
IHA for the proposed marine
geophysical survey. We also request
comment on the potential renewal of
this proposed IHA as described in the
paragraph below. Please include with
your comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform
decisions on the request for this IHA or
a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA
following notice to the public providing
an additional 15 days for public
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 8, 2023 / Notices
comments when (1) up to another year
of identical or nearly identical activities
as described in the Description of
Proposed Activity section of this notice
is planned, or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of
Proposed Activity section of this notice
would not be completed by the time the
IHA expires and a renewal would allow
for completion of the activities beyond
that described in the Dates and Duration
section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to the needed
renewal IHA effective date (recognizing
that the renewal IHA expiration date
cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted under the requested
renewal IHA are identical to the
activities analyzed under the initial
IHA, are a subset of the activities, or
include changes so minor (e.g.,
reduction in pile size) that the changes
do not affect the previous analyses,
mitigation and monitoring
requirements, or take estimates (with
the exception of reducing the type or
amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for
renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
will remain the same and appropriate,
and the findings in the initial IHA
remain valid.
Dated: August 3, 2023.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–16945 Filed 8–7–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Notice of correction of a public
meeting.
ACTION:
The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) is
scheduling a public meeting of its Risk
Policy Working Group (RPWG) to
consider actions affecting New England
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ). This meeting will be held as a
webinar. Recommendations from this
group will be brought to the full Council
for formal consideration and action, if
appropriate.
SUMMARY:
This meeting will be held on
Tuesday, August 22, 2023, at 9 a.m.
DATES:
This meeting will be held as
a webinar only. Webinar registration
URL information: https://
attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/
7355629868155270240.
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management
Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
The
original notice published in the Federal
Register on July 31, 2023 (88 FR 49451).
The original notice announced that the
meeting would be a hybrid in-person
meeting as well as a webinar. This
notice corrects the meeting to be a
webinar meeting only. All other
information previously published
remains unchanged.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at
(978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to
the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: August 3, 2023.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[FR Doc. 2023–16963 Filed 8–7–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
[RTID 0648–XD200]
New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting; Correction
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:00 Aug 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53473
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Notice of Availability of Final
Management Plan and Final
Environmental Assessment for
Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary
Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice; notice of availability of
a final management plan and final
environmental assessment.
AGENCY:
On February 13, 2020, NOAA
initiated a review of the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary
(SBNMS or the sanctuary) management
plan to evaluate substantive progress
toward implementing the goals of the
sanctuary and to make revisions to the
management plan as necessary to fulfill
the purposes and policies of the NMSA.
NOAA anticipated that management
plan changes would require preparation
of environmental analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), and initiated public scoping
meetings to gather information and
other comments from individuals,
organizations, tribes, and government
agencies on the scope, types, and
significance of issues related to the
SBNMS management plan and the
proper scope of environmental analysis
for the management plan review. NOAA
is providing notice of availability of a
final management plan and a final
environmental assessment (EA) for
SBNMS.
SUMMARY:
The final management plan and
final environmental assessment are now
available.
ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the final
management plan, final environmental
assessment, and finding of no
significant impact (FONSI), contact the
Management Plan Review Coordinator
at Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, Alice Stratton, 175 Edward
Foster Road, Scituate, MA 02066, 203–
882–6515, sbnmsmanagementplan@
noaa.gov. Copies can also be
downloaded from the Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sanctuary website at
https://stellwagen.noaa.gov/
management/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alice Stratton, 203–882–6515,
sbnmsmanagementplan@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53453-53473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XC993]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in
Coastal Waters Off of Texas
AGENCY: 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the University of Texas at
Austin (UT) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to a
marine geophysical survey in coastal waters off of Texas. Pursuant to
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on
its proposal
[[Page 53454]]
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, 1-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 authorization and agency
responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
September 7, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
and should be submitted via email to [email protected].
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well
as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained
online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities. In case
of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed
above.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities 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: Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) directs 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 proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action
is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical
Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of
the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not
individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts
on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not
identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review. We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA
process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
Summary of Request
On March 7, 2023, NMFS received a request from UT for an IHA to
take marine mammals incidental to conducting a marine geophysical
survey in coastal waters off of Texas. Following NMFS' review of the
application, UT submitted a revised version on April 25, 2023. The
application was deemed adequate and complete on April 27, 2023. UT's
request is for take of bottlenose dolphins, Atlantic spotted dolphins,
and rough-toothed dolphin by Level B harassment only. Neither UT nor
NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity
and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
UT proposes to conduct a marine geophysical survey, specifically a
low energy seismic survey, in coastal waters off of Texas during a 10
day period in the fall of 2023. The survey would take place in coastal
waters off of Texas, in water depths of less than 20 meters (m). To
complete this survey the vessel would tow one to two Generator-Injector
(GI) airguns, each with a volume of 105 cubic inch (in\3\; 1,721 cubic
cm (cm\3\)), for a total volume of 210 in\3\ (3,441 cm\3\). The airguns
would be deployed at a depth of about 4 m below the surface, spaced
about 2 m apart, while the receiving system consists of four 25 m
hydrophone streamers towed at a depth of about 2 m.
The purpose of the proposed survey is to validate novel dynamic
positioning technology for improving the accuracy in time and space of
high resolution 3-dimensional (HR3D) seismic datasets, in particular as
it pertains to field technology of offshore carbon capture systems.
Dates and Duration
The proposed survey is planned to occur over a 10 day period during
the fall of 2023 (the exact dates are uncertain). During that time, the
airguns would operate continuously (i.e., 24-hours per day).
Specific Geographic Region
The proposed survey area is 222 km2 and would occur within the
approximate area of 28.9-29.1[deg] N latitude, 94.9-95.2[deg] W
longitude in the coastal waters off of Texas. This location is offshore
San Luis Pass, which defines the southern tip of Galveston Island,
Texas. The closest point of approach of the proposed survey area to the
coast is approximately 3 kilometers (km). The proposed survey area is
depicted in Figure 1, and the survey lines could occur anywhere within
the survey area. The water depth of the proposed survey area ranges
from 10 to 20 m. The survey vessel (the R/V Brooks McCall (McCall) or
similar vessel operated by TDI-Brooks
[[Page 53455]]
International) would likely depart and return to Freeport or Galveston,
Texas.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN08AU23.009
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Detailed Description of the Specified Activity
The proposed survey would entail use of conventional seismic
methodology. The survey would involve one source vessel, the McCall or
similar, and would tow one or two 105 in\3\ GI airguns with a total
volume of up to 210 in\3\. The airgun array would be deployed at a
depth of about 4 m below the surface, spaced about 2 m apart, and have
a shot interval of 12.5 m about 5-10 seconds (s)). The receiving system
would consist of four 25 m solid state hydrophone streamers, spaced 10
m apart and towed at a depth of 2 m. As the airguns are towed along the
survey lines, the hydrophone streamer would transfer data to the on-
board processing system. Approximately 1,704 km of transect lines would
be surveyed within the survey area. When not towing seismic survey
gear, the McCall has a maximum speed of 11 knots (kn; 20.4 kilometers
per hour (kmh)), but cruises at an average speed of 4-5 kn (7.4-9.3
kmh) while towing airgun arrays. All survey effort would occur in water
10-20 m. The vessel would be self-contained, and the crew would live
aboard the vessel.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this Notice (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
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. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more
general information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this activity 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. 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'
SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed
to be authorized here, PBR
[[Page 53456]]
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or
stocks 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
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values presented in
Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication
(including from the draft 2022 SARs) and are available online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.
Table 1--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance Gulf of Mexico
ESA/MMPA (CV, Nmin, most population
Common name Scientific name Stock status; recent abundance PBR Annual M/ abundance;
strategic (Y/ survey) \3\ SI \4\ (Roberts et
N) \2\ al. 2016) \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin... Stenella frontalis Gulf of Mexico... -/-; N 21,506 (0.26; 166................. 36 47,488
17,339; 2018).
Rough-toothed dolphin...... Steno bredanensis. Gulf of Mexico... -/-; N unk (n/a; unk; undetermined........ 39 4,853
2018).
Bottlenose dolphin......... Tursiops truncatus Gulf of Mexico -/-; N 20,759 (0.13; 167................. 36 138,602
Western Coastal. 18,585; 2018).
Northern Gulf of -/-; N 63,280 (0.11; 556................. 65 138,602
Mexico 57,917; 2018).
Continental
Shelf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on the classification of marine mammal species can be found on the web page for The Society for Marine Mammalogy's Committee on Taxonomy
(https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2022)).
\2\ 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.
\3\ 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.
\4\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, vessel strike). Annual M/SI (mortality/serious injury) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a
minimum value or range.
As indicated above, all 3 species (with 4 managed stocks) in Table
1 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree
that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could
potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 2
of the IHA application. While the additional 11 species listed in Table
2 of UT's application have been infrequently sighted in the survey
area, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such
that take is not expected to occur, and they are not discussed further
beyond the explanation provided here. Species or stocks that only occur
in deep waters (>200 m) within the Gulf of Mexico are unlikely to be
observed during this survey where the maximum water depth is 20 m, and
thus, the following species or stocks will not be considered further:
offshore stock of bottlenose dolphins, pantropical spotted dolphin,
spinner dolphin, striped dolphin, Clymene dolphin, Fraser's dolphin,
Risso's dolphin, melon-headed whale, pygmy killer whale, false killer
whale, killer whale, and short-finned pilot whale.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bottlenose dolphins are cosmopolitan, occurring in tropical,
subtropical, and temperate waters around the world (Wells and Scott
2018). The bottlenose dolphin is the most widespread and common
delphinid in coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (W[uuml]rsig et al.
2000; W[uuml]rsig 2017). While there are multiple stocks of bottlenose
dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico, only the Northern Gulf of Mexico
Continental Shelf and Gulf of Mexico Western Coastal stocks overlap
with the study area, with the shelf stock assumed to occur in waters
>20 m and the coastal stock assumed to occur in waters <20 m. Fall
sightings have been made throughout the northern Gulf but primarily on
the shelf, including within survey waters.
There are 31 bay, sound, and estuary (BSE) stocks in the northern
Gulf of Mexico, which are small, resident populations of bottlenose
dolphins that live inshore or, occasionally, close to shore or in
passes, and are genetically discrete. There are two of the BSE stocks
that occur near the survey area, the West Bay stock and the Galveston
Bay/East Bay/Trinity Bay stock. The West Bay stock occurs within
roughly 20 km of the survey area, but individuals from this stock are
only likely to occur in inshore waters or, occasionally, up to 1 km
from shore off San Luis Pass (Hayes et al. 2022). The Galveston Bay/
East Bay/Trinity Bay stock occurs >20 km away, with most individuals
staying within 2 km from shore and up to 5 km out from the Galveston
jetties and ship channel (Hayes et al. 2022). These areas in and near
West Bay and Galveston Bay, along with numerous other ones along the
coast of Texas, have been identified as year-round Biologically
Important Areas (BIAs) for resident bottlenose dolphins (LeBresque et
al. 2015). Due to the distance that the survey will occur off the coast
(minimum 3 km) and general expectation that BSE dolphins are most
likely to occur in inshore waters, we do not expect the survey to
encounter any BSE stocks of bottlenose dolphins.
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. 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, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
[[Page 53457]]
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65-
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-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 (baleen 7 hertz (Hz) to 35
whales). kilohertz (kHz).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose
whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger &
L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
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.
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section provides a discussion of the ways in which components
of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat.
The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document
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 content of this section, the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation
section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals
and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, the
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in hertz (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is the
distance between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave
(length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths
than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more
rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the
height of the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is
typically described using the relative unit of the dB. A sound pressure
level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure
and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal
([mu]Pa)) and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations
in amplitude; therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to
large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the
SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1
[mu]Pa) while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position
(referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the
square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for
both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all
values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of
pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often
used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because
behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be
better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\ -s)
represents the total energy contained within a pulse and considers both
intensity and duration of exposure. Peak sound pressure (also referred
to as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-p) is the maximum instantaneous
sound pressure measurable in the water at a specified distance from the
source and is represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure.
Another common metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure (pk-pk), which is
the algebraic difference between the peak positive and peak negative
sound pressures. Peak-to-peak pressure is typically approximately 6 dB
higher than peak pressure (Southall et al., 2007).
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either
directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions
(omnidirectional sources), as is the case for pulses produced by the
airgun arrays considered here. The compressions and decompressions
associated with sound waves are detected as changes in
[[Page 53458]]
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as
hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound. Ambient
sound is defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a
single source or point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the sound level
of a region is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated
by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g.,
wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number
of sources contribute to ambient sound, including the following
(Richardson et al., 1995):
Wind and waves: The complex interactions between wind and
water surface, including processes such as breaking waves and wave-
induced bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a main source of
naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200 Hz and 50
kHz (Mitson, 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase
with increasing wind speed and wave height. Surf sound becomes
important near shore, with measurements collected at a distance of 8.5
km from shore showing an increase of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band
during heavy surf conditions;
Precipitation: Sound from rain and hail impacting the
water surface can become an important component of total sound at
frequencies above 500 Hz, and possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet
times;
Biological: Marine mammals can contribute significantly to
ambient sound levels, as can some fish and snapping shrimp. The
frequency band for biological contributions is from approximately 12 Hz
to over 100 kHz; and
Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient sound related to human
activity include transportation (surface vessels), dredging and
construction, oil and gas drilling and production, seismic surveys,
sonar, explosions, and ocean acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically
dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300
Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz
and, if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate
rapidly. Sound from identifiable anthropogenic sources other than the
activity of interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is sometimes termed
background sound, as opposed to ambient sound.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at
any given location and time--which comprise ``ambient'' or
``background'' sound--depends not only on the source levels (as
determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and
human activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through
the environment. In turn, sound propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of this dependence on a
large number of varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected
to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales.
Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB
from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is that,
depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from a given
activity may be a negligible addition to the local environment or could
form a distinctive signal that may affect marine mammals. Details of
source types are described in the following text.
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types:
Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction
between these two sound types is important because they have differing
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see
Southall et al., (2007) for an in-depth discussion of these concepts.
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds
are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure
to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g.,
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems (such as
those used by the U.S. Navy). The duration of such sounds, as received
at a distance, can be greatly extended in a highly reverberant
environment.
Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals with energy in a frequency
range from about 10-2,000 Hz, with most energy radiated at frequencies
below 200 Hz. The amplitude of the acoustic wave emitted from the
source is equal in all directions (i.e., omnidirectional), but airgun
arrays do possess some directionality due to different phase delays
between guns in different directions. Airgun arrays are typically tuned
to maximize functionality for data acquisition purposes, meaning that
sound transmitted in horizontal directions and at higher frequencies is
minimized to the extent possible.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we discuss the effects of active acoustic sources on marine
mammals.
Potential Effects of Underwater Sound--Anthropogenic sounds cover a
broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have a range of
highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to
potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of
exposure, behavioral context, and various other factors. The potential
effects of underwater sound from active acoustic sources can
potentially result in one or more of the following: Temporary or
permanent hearing impairment; non-auditory physical or physiological
effects; behavioral disturbance; stress; and masking (Richardson et
al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al.,
2007; G[ouml]tz et al., 2009). The degree of effect is intrinsically
related to the signal characteristics, received level, distance from
the source, and duration of the sound exposure. In general, sudden,
high level sounds can cause hearing loss, as can longer exposures to
lower level sounds. Temporary or permanent loss of hearing, if it
occurs at all, will occur almost exclusively in cases where a noise is
within an animal's hearing frequency range. We first describe specific
manifestations of acoustic effects before providing discussion specific
to the use of airgun arrays.
Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of
effect that might be expected to occur, in relation to distance from a
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing
range. First is the area within which the acoustic signal would
[[Page 53459]]
be audible (potentially perceived) to the animal but not strong enough
to elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone
corresponds with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and
of sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological response.
Third is a zone within which, for signals of high intensity, the
received level is sufficient to potentially cause discomfort or tissue
damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying these zones to a
certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e., when a sound
interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to detect a signal of
interest that is above the absolute hearing threshold) may occur; the
masking zone may be highly variable in size.
We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory
physical or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that
use of airgun arrays are reasonably likely to result in such effects
(see below for further discussion). Potential effects from impulsive
sound sources can range in severity from effects such as behavioral
disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury
of the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton
et al., 1973). Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that
theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level
underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral
reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as a result of an avoidance
reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological effects,
bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue
damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack,
2007; Tal et al., 2015). The survey activities considered here do not
involve the use of devices such as explosives or mid-frequency tactical
sonar that are associated with these types of effects.
Threshold Shift--Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound or
to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods can experience hearing
threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at
certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). Threshold shift can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's
hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe
cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness while in most
cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in
the ear (i.e., tissue damage) whereas TTS represents primarily tissue
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not typically consider
TTS to constitute auditory injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals. There is no PTS data for cetaceans, but such
relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other
terrestrial mammals. PTS typically occurs at exposure levels at least
several dBs above (a 40-dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset;
e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB
threshold shift approximates TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al. 2007).
Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is
that the PTS thresholds for impulse sounds (such as airgun pulses as
received close to the source) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS
threshold on a peak-pressure basis and PTS cumulative sound exposure
level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative sound
exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). Given the higher
level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as
compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS could occur.
For mid-frequency cetaceans in particular, potential protective
mechanisms may help limit onset of TTS or prevent onset of PTS. Such
mechanisms include dampening of hearing, auditory adaptation, or
behavioral amelioration (e.g., Nachtigall and Supin, 2013; Miller et
al., 2012; Finneran et al., 2015; Popov et al., 2016).
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during
exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing
threshold rises, and a sound must be at a higher level in order to be
heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes or
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS). In many cases, hearing
sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Few data
on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been
obtained for marine mammals.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
other members of the species and interpretation of environmental cues
for purposes such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on
the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is
experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from
discountable to serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to
readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a
non-critical frequency range that occurs during a time where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained
during time when communication is critical for successful mother and
calf interactions could have more serious impacts.
Finneran et al. (2015) measured hearing thresholds in three captive
bottlenose dolphins before and after exposure to 10 pulses produced by
a seismic airgun in order to study TTS induced after exposure to
multiple pulses. Exposures began at relatively low levels and gradually
increased over a period of several months, with the highest exposures
at peak SPLs from 196 to 210 dB and cumulative (unweighted) SELs from
193-195 dB. No substantial TTS was observed. In addition, behavioral
reactions were observed that indicated that animals can learn behaviors
that effectively mitigate noise exposures (although exposure patterns
must be learned, which is less likely in wild animals than for the
captive animals considered in this study). The authors noted that the
failure to induce more significant auditory effects was likely due to
the intermittent nature of exposure, the relatively low peak pressure
produced by the acoustic source, and the low-frequency energy in airgun
pulses as compared with the frequency range of best sensitivity for
dolphins and other mid-frequency cetaceans.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless
porpoise) exposed to a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly
tones and octave-band noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015).
The existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of
individuals within these species.
Critical questions remain regarding the rate of TTS growth and
recovery after exposure to intermittent noise and the effects of single
and multiple pulses. Data at present are also insufficient to construct
generalized models for recovery and determine the time necessary to
treat subsequent exposures as independent events. More
[[Page 53460]]
information is needed on the relationship between auditory evoked
potential and behavioral measures of TTS for various stimuli. For
summaries of data on TTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of
TTS onset thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2007, 2019), Finneran
and Jenkins (2012), Finneran (2015), and NMFS (2018).
Behavioral Effects--Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly
variable and context-specific, and any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007,
2019; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can
vary not only among individuals but also within an individual,
depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and
numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending
on characteristics associated with the sound source (e.g., whether it
is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source).
Please see Appendices B-C of Southall et al. (2007) for a review of
studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response.
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with
captive marine mammals have showed pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997).
Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources
(typically seismic airguns or acoustic harassment devices) have been
varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral
changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; see also
Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). However, many
delphinids approach acoustic source vessels with no apparent discomfort
or obvious behavioral change (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012).
Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given
sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving
the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to an underwater
sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the impacts
of the change are unlikely to be significant to the individual, let
alone the stock or population. However, if a sound source displaces
marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a
prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which
we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing,
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel
and Clark, 2000; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen et
al., 2013a, b). Variations in dive behavior may reflect disruptions in
biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be of
little biological significance. The impact of an alteration to dive
behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what the animal
is doing at the time of the exposure and the type and magnitude of the
response.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al.,
2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal.
Variations in respiration naturally vary with different behaviors
and alterations to breathing rate as a function of acoustic exposure
can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute
stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may
either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and
signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic
sound exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 2005, 2006; Gailey et
al., 2007, 2016).
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased
vigilance or a startle response. In some cases, animals may cease sound
production during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994).
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or
migration path as a result of the presence of sound or other stressors
and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine
mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Avoidance may be short-term, with
animals returning to the area once the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles
et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds,
2002; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is possible,
however, which may lead to changes in abundance or distribution
patterns of the affected species in the
[[Page 53461]]
affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does not
occur (e.g., Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings
(Evans and England, 2001). However, it should be noted that response to
a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and
Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may
influence the response.
Behavioral disturbance can also impact marine mammals in more
subtle ways. Increased vigilance may result in costs related to
diversion of focus and attention (i.e., when a response consists of
increased vigilance, it may come at the cost of decreased attention to
other critical behaviors such as foraging or resting). These effects
have generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp and
Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In
addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through
reduction of fitness (e.g., decline in body condition) and subsequent
reduction in reproductive success, survival, or both (e.g., Harrington
and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However,
Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose
dolphins exposed to sound over a five-day period did not cause any
sleep deprivation or stress effects.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors, such as sound
exposure, are more likely to be significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than 1 day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further,
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses.
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea observations during 1,196
seismic surveys from 1994 to 2010. When arrays of large airguns
(considered to be 500 in\3\ or more) were firing, lateral displacement,
more localized avoidance, or other changes in behavior were evident for
most odontocetes.
Stress Responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha,
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between ``stress'' (which is adaptive and
does not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost
of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen
stores that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose
serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have
sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress
response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This
state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic
reserves sufficiently to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000;
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations
(e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). In addition, any animal experiencing TTS
would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2003).
Auditory Masking--Sound can disrupt behavior through masking or
interfering with an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe et al.,
2016). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is interfered with by
another coincident sound at similar frequencies and at similar or
higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is natural (e.g.,
snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise
source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the
characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest
(e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in
relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g.,
sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency
discrimination, directional discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss),
and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions.
Under certain circumstances, significant masking could disrupt
behavioral patterns, which in turn could affect fitness for survival
and reproduction. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which
persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the
sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not
associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a
physiological effect but rather a potential behavioral effect.
[[Page 53462]]
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important
in predicting any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect other
potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and
some prey species. The masking of communication signals by
anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the
communication space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and may
result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization
behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al.,
2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking may be less
in situations where the signal and noise come from different directions
(Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal,
or through other compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014).
Masking can be tested directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008),
but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from
evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing
real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in
the wild (e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and
can potentially have long-term chronic effects on marine mammals at the
population level as well as at the individual level. Low-frequency
ambient sound levels have increased by as much as 20 dB (more than
three times in terms of SPL) in the world's ocean from pre-industrial
periods, with most of the increase from distant commercial shipping
(Hildebrand, 2009). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially
chronic and lower-frequency signals (e.g., from vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
Masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from large arrays of
airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds are expected
to be limited, although there are few specific data on this. Because of
the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, animals
can emit and receive sounds in the relatively quiet intervals between
pulses. However, in exceptional situations, reverberation occurs for
much or all of the interval between pulses (e.g., Simard et al. 2005;
Clark and Gagnon 2006), which could mask calls. Situations with
prolonged strong reverberation are infrequent. However, it is common
for reverberation to cause some lesser degree of elevation of the
background level between airgun pulses (e.g., Gedamke 2011; Guerra et
al., 2011, 2016; Klinck et al., 2012; Guan et al., 2015), and this
weaker reverberation presumably reduces the detection range of calls
and other natural sounds to some degree. Guerra et al. (2016) reported
that ambient noise levels between seismic pulses were elevated as a
result of reverberation at ranges of 50 km from the seismic source.
The sounds important to small odontocetes are predominantly at much
higher frequencies than are the dominant components of airgun sounds,
thus limiting the potential for masking. In general, masking effects of
seismic pulses are expected to be minor, given the normally
intermittent nature of seismic pulses.
Vessel Noise
Vessel noise from the McCall could affect marine animals in the
proposed survey areas. Houghton et al. (2015) proposed that vessel
speed is the most important predictor of received noise levels, and
Putland et al. (2017) also reported reduced sound levels with decreased
vessel speed. Sounds produced by large vessels generally dominate
ambient noise at frequencies from 20 to 300 Hz (Richardson et al.,
1995). However, some energy is also produced at higher frequencies
(Hermannsen et al., 2014); low levels of high-frequency sound from
vessels has been shown to elicit responses in harbor porpoise (Dyndo et
al., 2015). Increased levels of vessel noise have been shown to affect
foraging by porpoise (Teilmann et al., 2015; Wisniewska et al., 2018);
Wisniewska et al. (2018) suggested that a decrease in foraging success
could have long-term fitness consequences.
Vessel noise, through masking, can reduce the effective
communication distance of a marine mammal if the frequency of the sound
source is close to that used by the animal, and if the sound is present
for a significant fraction of time (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Clark
et al., 2009; Jensen et al., 2009; Gervaise et al., 2012; Hatch et al.,
2012; Rice et al., 2014; Dunlop 2015; Erbe et al., 2015; Jones et al.,
2017; Putland et al., 2017). In addition to the frequency and duration
of the masking sound, the strength, temporal pattern, and location of
the introduced sound also play a role in the extent of the masking
(Branstetter et al., 2013, 2016; Finneran and Branstetter 2013; Sills
et al., 2017). Branstetter et al. (2013) reported that time-domain
metrics are also important in describing and predicting masking. In
order to compensate for increased ambient noise, some cetaceans are
known to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of
elevated noise levels from shipping, shift their peak frequencies, or
otherwise change their vocal behavior (e.g., Martins et al., 2016;
O'Brien et al., 2016; Tenessen and Parks 2016). Harp seals did not
increase their call frequencies in environments with increased low-
frequency sounds (Terhune and Bosker 2016). Holt et al. (2015) reported
that changes in vocal modifications can have increased energetic costs
for individual marine mammals. A negative correlation between the
presence of some cetacean species and the number of vessels in an area
has been demonstrated by several studies (e.g., Campana et al., 2015;
Culloch et al., 2016).
Many odontocetes show considerable tolerance of vessel traffic,
although they sometimes react at long distances if confined by ice or
shallow water, if previously harassed by vessels, or have had little or
no recent exposure to vessels (Richardson et al., 1995). Dolphins of
many species tolerate and sometimes approach vessels (e.g., Anderwald
et al., 2013). Some dolphin species approach moving vessels to ride the
bow or stern waves (Williams et al., 1992). Pirotta et al. (2015) noted
that the physical presence of vessels, not just vessel noise, disturbed
the foraging activity of bottlenose dolphins. Sightings of striped
dolphin, Risso's dolphin, sperm whale, and Cuvier's beaked whale in the
western Mediterranean were negatively correlated with the number of
vessels in the area (Campana et al., 2015).
Sounds emitted by the McCall are low frequency and continuous but
would be widely dispersed in both space and time. Vessel traffic
associated with the proposed survey is of low density compared to
traffic associated with commercial shipping, industry support vessels,
or commercial fishing vessels, and would therefore be expected to
represent an insignificant incremental increase in the total amount of
anthropogenic sound input to the marine environment, and the effects of
vessel noise described above are not expected to occur as a result of
this survey. In summary, project vessel sounds would not be at levels
expected to cause anything more than possible localized and temporary
behavioral changes in marine mammals, and would not be expected to
result in significant negative effects on individuals or at the
population level. In addition, in all oceans of the world, large vessel
traffic is currently so prevalent that it is commonly considered a
usual source of ambient sound (NSF-USGS 2011).
[[Page 53463]]
Vessel Strike
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or vessel strikes, can
result in death or serious injury of the animal. Wounds resulting from
vessel strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones,
or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal at the
surface may be struck directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit
the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just below the surface may be cut
by a vessel's propeller. Superficial strikes may not kill or result in
the death of the animal. These interactions are typically associated
with large whales (e.g., fin whales), which are occasionally found
draped across the bulbous bow of large commercial vessels upon arrival
in port. Although smaller cetaceans are more maneuverable in relation
to large vessels than are large whales, they may also be susceptible to
strike. The severity of injuries typically depends on the size and
speed of the vessel, with the probability of death or serious injury
increasing as vessel speed increases (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn and Silber, 2013).
Impact forces increase with speed, as does the probability of a strike
at a given distance (Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011).
Pace and Silber (2005) also found that the probability of death or
serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel speed.
Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or death
increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10 to 14
kn (25.9 kmh), and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn (31.5 kmh). Higher
speeds during collisions result in greater force of impact, but higher
speeds also appear to increase the chance of severe injuries or death
through increased likelihood of collision by pulling whales toward the
vessel (Clyne 1999; Knowlton et al., 1995). In a separate study,
Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) analyzed the probability of lethal
mortality of large whales at a given speed, showing that the greatest
rate of change in the probability of a lethal injury to a large whale
as a function of vessel speed occurs between 8.6 and 15 kn (15.9 and
27.8 kmh). The chances of a lethal injury decline from approximately 80
percent at 15 kn (27.8 kmh) to approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn (15.9
kmh). At speeds below 11.8 kn (21.9 kmh), the chances of lethal injury
drop below 50 percent, while the probability asymptotically increases
toward one hundred percent above 15 kn (27.8 kmh).
The McCall will travel at a speed of 4-5 kn (7.4-9.3 kmh) while
towing seismic survey gear. At this speed, both the possibility of
striking a marine mammal and the possibility of a strike resulting in
serious injury or mortality are discountable. At average transit speed,
the probability of serious injury or mortality resulting from a strike
is less than 50 percent. However, the likelihood of a strike actually
happening is again discountable. Vessel strikes, as analyzed in the
studies cited above, generally involve commercial shipping, which is
much more common in both space and time than is geophysical survey
activity. Jensen and Silber (2004) summarized vessel strikes of large
whales worldwide from 1975-2003 and found that most collisions occurred
in the open ocean and involved large vessels (e.g., commercial
shipping). No such incidents were reported for geophysical survey
vessels during that time period.
It is possible for vessel strikes to occur while traveling at slow
speeds. For example, a hydrographic survey vessel traveling at low
speed (5.5 kn; 10.2 kmh) while conducting mapping surveys off the
central California coast struck and killed a blue whale in 2009. The
State of California determined that the whale had suddenly and
unexpectedly surfaced beneath the hull, with the result that the
propeller severed the whale's vertebrae, and that this was an
unavoidable event. This strike represents the only such incident in
approximately 540,000 hours of similar coastal mapping activity (p =
1.9 x 10-\6\; 95% CI = 0-5.5 x 10-\6\; NMFS,
2013b). In addition, a research vessel reported a fatal strike in 2011
of a dolphin in the Atlantic, demonstrating that it is possible for
strikes involving smaller cetaceans to occur. In that case, the
incident report indicated that an animal apparently was struck by the
vessel's propeller as it was intentionally swimming near the vessel.
While indicative of the type of unusual events that cannot be ruled
out, neither of these instances represents a circumstance that would be
considered reasonably foreseeable or that would be considered
preventable.
Although the likelihood of the vessel striking a marine mammal is
low, we propose a robust vessel strike avoidance protocol (see Proposed
Mitigation), which we believe eliminates any foreseeable risk of vessel
strike during transit. We anticipate that vessel collisions involving a
seismic data acquisition vessel towing gear, while not impossible,
represent unlikely, unpredictable events for which there are no
preventive measures. Given the proposed mitigation measures, the
relatively slow speed of the vessel towing gear, the presence of bridge
crew watching for obstacles at all times (including marine mammals),
and the presence of marine mammal observers, the possibility of vessel
strike is discountable and, further, were a strike of a large whale to
occur, it would be unlikely to result in serious injury or mortality.
No incidental take resulting from vessel strike is anticipated, and
this potential effect of the specified activity will not be discussed
further in the following analysis.
Entanglement--Entanglements occur when marine mammals become
wrapped around cables, lines, nets, or other objects suspended in the
water column. During seismic operations, numerous cables, lines, and
other objects primarily associated with the airgun array and hydrophone
streamers will be towed behind the McCall near the water's surface.
However, we are not aware of any cases of entanglement of marine
mammals in seismic survey equipment. Although entanglement with the
streamer is theoretically possible, it has not been documented during
hundreds of thousands of miles of industrial seismic cruises. There are
no meaningful entanglement risks posed by the proposed survey, and
entanglement risks are not discussed further in this document.
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat
Effects to Prey--Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and
location and, for some, is not well documented. Fish react to sounds
which are especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds,
and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most
likely effects. However, the reaction of fish to airguns depends on the
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g.,
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. Several
studies have demonstrated that airgun sounds might affect the
distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting
foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell
and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992;
Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017), though the bulk of studies
indicate no or slight reaction to noise (e.g., Miller and Cripps, 2013;
Dalen and Knutsen, 1987; Pena et al., 2013; Chapman and Hawkins, 1969;
Wardle et al., 2001; Sara et al., 2007; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009;
Blaxter et al., 1981; Cott et al., 2012; Boeger et al., 2006), and
that, most commonly, while there are likely to be
[[Page 53464]]
impacts to fish as a result of noise from nearby airguns, such effects
will be temporary. For example, investigators reported significant,
short-term declines in commercial fishing catch rate of gadid fishes
during and for up to five days after seismic survey operations, but the
catch rate subsequently returned to normal (Engas et al., 1996; Engas
and Lokkeborg, 2002). Other studies have reported similar findings
(Hassel et al., 2004). Skalski et al., (1992) also found a reduction in
catch rates--for rockfish (Sebastes spp.) in response to controlled
airgun exposure--but suggested that the mechanism underlying the
decline was not dispersal but rather decreased responsiveness to baited
hooks associated with an alarm behavioral response. A companion study
showed that alarm and startle responses were not sustained following
the removal of the sound source (Pearson et al., 1992). Therefore,
Skalski et al. (1992) suggested that the effects on fish abundance may
be transitory, primarily occurring during the sound exposure itself. In
some cases, effects on catch rates are variable within a study, which
may be more broadly representative of temporary displacement of fish in
response to airgun noise (i.e., catch rates may increase in some
locations and decrease in others) than any long-term damage to the fish
themselves (Streever et al., 2016).
Sound pressure levels of sufficient strength have been known to
cause injury to fish and fish mortality and, in some studies, fish
auditory systems have been damaged by airgun noise (McCauley et al.,
2003; Popper et al., 2005; Song et al., 2008). However, in most fish
species, hair cells in the ear continuously regenerate and loss of
auditory function likely is restored when damaged cells are replaced
with new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012b) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB
was recoverable within 24 hours for one species. Impacts would be most
severe when the individual fish is close to the source and when the
duration of exposure is long; both of which are conditions unlikely to
occur for this survey that is necessarily transient in any given
location and likely result in brief, infrequent noise exposure to prey
species in any given area. For this survey, the sound source is
constantly moving, and most fish would likely avoid the sound source
prior to receiving sound of sufficient intensity to cause physiological
or anatomical damage. In addition, ramp-up may allow certain fish
species the opportunity to move further away from the sound source.
A recent comprehensive review (Carroll et al., 2017) found that
results are mixed as to the effects of airgun noise on the prey of
marine mammals. While some studies suggest a change in prey
distribution and/or a reduction in prey abundance following the use of
seismic airguns, others suggest no effects or even positive effects in
prey abundance. As one specific example, Paxton et al. (2017), which
describes findings related to the effects of a 2014 seismic survey on a
reef off of North Carolina, showed a 78 percent decrease in observed
nighttime abundance for certain species. It is important to note that
the evening hours during which the decline in fish habitat use was
recorded (via video recording) occurred on the same day that the
seismic survey passed, and no subsequent data is presented to support
an inference that the response was long-lasting. Additionally, given
that the finding is based on video images, the lack of recorded fish
presence does not support a conclusion that the fish actually moved
away from the site or suffered any serious impairment. In summary, this
particular study corroborates prior studies indicating that a startle
response or short-term displacement should be expected.
A recent review article concluded that, while laboratory results
provide scientific evidence for high-intensity and low-frequency sound-
induced physical trauma and other negative effects on some fish and
invertebrates, the sound exposure scenarios in some cases are not
realistic to those encountered by marine organisms during routine
seismic operations (Carroll et al., 2017). The review finds that there
has been no evidence of reduced catch or abundance following seismic
activities for invertebrates, and that there is conflicting evidence
for fish with catch observed to increase, decrease, or remain the same.
Further, where there is evidence for decreased catch rates in response
to airgun noise, these findings provide no information about the
underlying biological cause of catch rate reduction (Carroll et al.,
2017).
In summary, impacts of the specified activity on marine mammal prey
species will likely be limited to behavioral responses, the majority of
prey species will be capable of moving out of the area during the
survey, a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and
behavior for prey species is anticipated, and, overall, impacts to prey
species will be minor and temporary. Prey species exposed to sound
might move away from the sound source, experience TTS, experience
masking of biologically relevant sounds, or show no obvious direct
effects. Mortality from decompression injuries is possible in close
proximity to a sound, but only limited data on mortality in response to
airgun noise exposure are available (Hawkins et al., 2014). The most
likely impacts for most prey species in the survey area would be
temporary avoidance of the area. The proposed survey would move through
an area relatively quickly, limiting exposure to multiple impulsive
sounds. In all cases, sound levels would return to ambient once the
survey moves out of the area or ends and the noise source is shut down
and, when exposure to sound ends, behavioral and/or physiological
responses are expected to end relatively quickly (McCauley et al.,
2000b). The duration of fish avoidance of a given area after survey
effort stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment,
distribution, and behavior is anticipated. While the potential for
disruption of spawning aggregations or schools of important prey
species can be meaningful on a local scale, the mobile and temporary
nature of this survey and the likelihood of temporary avoidance
behavior suggest that impacts would be minor.
Acoustic Habitat--Acoustic habitat is the soundscape--which
encompasses all of the sound present in a particular location and time,
as a whole--when considered from the perspective of the animals
experiencing it. Animals produce sound for, or listen for sounds
produced by, conspecifics (communication during feeding, mating, and
other social activities), other animals (finding prey or avoiding
predators), and the physical environment (finding suitable habitats,
navigating). Together, sounds made by animals and the geophysical
environment (e.g., produced by earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain,
waves) make up the natural contributions to the total acoustics of a
place. These acoustic conditions, termed acoustic habitat, are one
attribute of an animal's total habitat.
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced
by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include
incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic, or may be
intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition
purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). Anthropogenic noise varies
widely in its frequency content, duration, and loudness and these
characteristics greatly influence the potential habitat-mediated
effects to marine mammals (please see also the previous discussion on
masking under ``Acoustic Effects''),
[[Page 53465]]
which may range from local effects for brief periods of time to chronic
effects over large areas and for long durations. Depending on the
extent of effects to habitat, animals may alter their communications
signals (thereby potentially expending additional energy) or miss
acoustic cues (either conspecific or adventitious). For more detail on
these concepts see, e.g., Barber et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 2011;
Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., 2014.
Problems arising from a failure to detect cues are more likely to
occur when noise stimuli are chronic and overlap with biologically
relevant cues used for communication, orientation, and predator/prey
detection (Francis and Barber, 2013). Although the signals emitted by
seismic airgun arrays are generally low frequency, they would also
likely be of short duration and transient in any given area due to the
nature of these surveys. As described previously, exploratory surveys
such as these cover a large area but would be transient rather than
focused in a given location over time and therefore would not be
considered chronic in any given location.
Based on the information discussed herein, we conclude that impacts
of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term
adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species.
Further, any impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to
result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine
mammals, or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through the IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers,'' and the negligible impact
determinations.
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 would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to sound from low energy seismic airguns. Based
on the nature of the activity, Level A harassment is neither
anticipated nor proposed to be authorized. As described previously, no
serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the proposed take numbers are
estimated.
For acoustic impacts, 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) the number of days of activities. We note
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential 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 proposed take estimates.
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 PTS of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment--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 or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021; Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (re 1 [mu]Pa)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS
SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Generally
speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral
harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS
as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the
source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of
a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced
hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect
important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may
result in changes in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.
UT's proposed survey includes the use of impulsive seismic sources
(e.g., GI-airgun) and therefore, the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) criteria
is applicable for analysis of Level B harassment.
Level A harassment--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). UT's
proposed survey includes the use of impulsive sources.
These thresholds are provided in the Table 3 and 4 below. The
references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the
thresholds are described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be
accessed at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
The proposed survey would entail the use of up to two 105 in\3\
airguns with a maximum total discharge of 210 in\3\ at a tow depth of
3-4 m. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) model results were used
to determine the 160 dBrms radius for the two-airgun array
in water depths >100 m. Received sound
[[Page 53466]]
levels were predicted by L-DEO's model (Diebold et al., 2010) as a
function of distance from the airguns for the two 105 in\3\ airguns
with a maximum total discharge of 210 in\3\. This modeling approach
uses ray tracing for the direct wave traveling from the array to the
receiver and its associated source ghost (reflection at the air-water
interface in the vicinity of the array), in a constant-velocity half-
space (infinite homogenous ocean layer, unbounded by a seafloor).
The proposed surveys would acquire data with up to two 105-in\3\ GI
guns (separated by up to 2.4 m) at a tow depth of ~3-4 m. The shallow-
water radii are obtained by scaling the empirically derived
measurements from the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey to account for
the differences in volume and tow depth between the calibration survey
(6,600 in\3\ at 6 m tow depth) and the proposed survey (210 in\3\ at 4
m tow depth). A simple scaling factor is calculated from the ratios of
the isopleths calculated by the deep-water L-DEO model, which are
essentially a measure of the energy radiated by the source array.
L-DEO's methodology is described in greater detail in UT's IHA
application. The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleth
for the proposed airgun configuration are shown in Table 3.
Table 3--Predicted Radial Distances From the R/V Brooks McCall Seismic
Source to Isopleths Corresponding to Level B Harassment Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted
distances (m)
Airgun configuration Water depth (m) to 160 dB
received sound
level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two 105-in GI guns.................... <100 \1\ 1,750
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distance is based on empirically derived measurements in the Gulf of
Mexico with scaling applied to account for differences in tow depth.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more
technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a
duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional user
spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance (2018) that can be
used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in
conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict
potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions
included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate
that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be
overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of
potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool
offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more
sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. Table 4
presents the modeled PTS isopleths for mid-frequency cetaceans, the
only hearing group for which takes are expected, based on L-DEO
modeling incorporated in the companion User Spreadsheet (NMFS 2018).
Table 4--Modeled Radial Distances to Isopleths Corresponding to Level A
Harassment Thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group MF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS Peak................................................ 1.5
PTS SELcum.............................................. 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary
based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on
modeling performed by L-DEO using the Nucleus software program and the
NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The acoustic thresholds for
impulsive sounds (e.g., airguns) contained in the Technical Guidance
(2018) were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both
SELcum and peak sound pressure metrics (NMFS 2016a). 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 SELcum for the two-GI airgun array is derived from
calculating the modified farfield 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 (right) 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, it has been recognized that the
source level from the theoretical farfield signature is never
physically achieved at the source when the source is an array of
multiple airguns separated in space (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Near the
source (at short ranges, distances <1 km), the pulses of sound pressure
from each individual airgun in the source array do not stack
constructively as they do for the theoretical farfield signature. The
pulses from the different airguns spread out in time such that the
source levels observed or modeled are the result of the summation of
pulses from a few airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al., 2009).
At larger distances, away from the source array center, sound pressure
of all the airguns in the array stack coherently, but not within one
time sample, resulting in smaller source levels (a few dB) than the
source level derived from the farfield signature. Because the farfield
signature does not take into account the interactions of the two
airguns that occur near the source center and is calculated as a point
source (single airgun), the modified farfield signature is a more
appropriate measure of the sound source level for large arrays. For
this smaller array, the modified farfield changes will be
correspondingly smaller as well, but this method is used for
consistency across all array sizes.
Auditory injury for all species is unlikely to occur given the
small modeled zones of injury (estimated zone less than 2 m for mid-
frequency cetaceans). Additionally, animals are expected to have
aversive/compensatory
[[Page 53467]]
behavior in response to the activity (Nachtigall et al., 2018) further
limiting the likelihood of auditory injury for all species. UT did not
request authorization of take by Level A harassment, and no take by
Level A harassment is proposed for authorization by NMFS.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which
will inform the take calculations.
For the proposed survey area in the northwest Gulf of Mexico, UT
determined that the best source of density data for marine mammal
species that might be encountered in the project area was habitat-based
density modeling conducted by Garrison et al. (2022). The Garrison et
al. (2022) data provides abundance estimates for marine mammal species
in the Gulf of Mexico within 40 km\2\ hexagons (~3.9 km sides and ~7 km
across from each side) on a monthly basis. To calculate expected
densities specific to the survey area, UT created a 7-km perimeter
around the survey area and used that perimeter to select the density
hexagons for each species in each month. The 7-km distance was chosen
for the perimeter to ensure that at least one full density hexagon
outside the survey area in all directions was selected, providing a
more robust sample for the calculations. They then calculated the mean
of the predicted densities from the selected cells for each species and
month. The highest mean monthly density was chosen for each species
from the months of September to December (i.e., the months within which
the survey is expected to occur). NMFS concurred with this approach to
calculate species density.
Rough-toothed dolphins were not modeled by Garrison et al. (2022)
due to a lack of sightings, so habitat-based marine mammal density
estimates from Roberts et al. (2016) were used. The Roberts et al.
(2016) models consisted of 10 km x 10 km grid cells containing average
annual densities for U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The same 7 km
perimeter described above was used to select grid cells from the
Roberts et al. (2016) dataset, and the mean of the selected grid cells
for rough-toothed dolphins was calculated to estimate the annual
average density of the species in the survey area. Estimated densities
used and Level B harassment ensonified areas to inform take estimates
are presented in Table 5.
Table 5--Marine Mammal Densities and Total Ensonified Area of Activities
in the Proposed Survey Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Level B
Species density (#/ ensonified
km\2\) area (km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin................ \b\ 0.00082 7,866
Bottlenose dolphin \a\.................. \b\ 0.34024 7,866
Rough-toothed dolphin................... \c\ 0.00362 7,866
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Bottlenose dolphin density estimate does not differentiate between
coastal and shelf stocks.
\b\ Density calculated from Garrison et al. (2022).
\c\ Density calculated from Roberts et al. (2016).
Take Estimation
Here, we describe how the information provided above is synthesized
to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably
likely to occur and proposed for authorization. In order to estimate
the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels
that would result in Level B harassment, radial distances from the
airgun array to the predicted isopleth corresponding to the Level B
harassment threshold was calculated, as described above. Those radial
distances were then used to calculate the area(s) around the airgun
array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed the
harassment thresholds. The area expected to be ensonified on 1 day was
determined by multiplying the number of line km possible in 1 day by
two times the 160-dB radius plus adding endcaps to the start and
beginning of the line. The daily ensonified area was then multiplied by
the number of survey days (10 days). The highest mean monthly density
for each species was then multiplied by the total ensonified area to
calculate the estimated takes of each species.
No takes by Level A harassment are expected or proposed for
authorization. Estimated takes for the proposed survey are shown in
Table 6.
Table 6--Estimated Take Proposed for Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated take Proposed
---------------- authorized
Species Stock take Stock Percent of
Level B ---------------- abundance \1\ stock
Level B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic spotted dolphin...... Gulf of Mexico.. 6 \2\ 26 21,506 0.12
Bottlenose dolphin \3\........ Gulf of Mexico 2,676 2,676 20,759 12.89
Western Coastal.
Northern Gulf of 63,280 4.23
Mexico
Continental
Shelf.
Rough-toothed dolphin......... Gulf of Mexico.. 28 28 \2\ 4,853 0.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Stock abundance for Atlantic spotted dolphins and bottlenose dolphins was taken from Garrison et al. (2022).
Stock abundance for rough-toothed dolphins was taken from Roberts et al. (2016), as Garrison et al. (2022) did
not create a model for this species.
\2\ Proposed take increased to mean group size from Maze-Foley and Mullin (2006).
\3\ Estimated take for bottlenose dolphins is not apportioned to stock, as density information does not
differentiate between coastal and shelf dolphins. However, based on the proposed survey depths, we expect that
most of the takes would be from the coastal stock, but some takes could be from the shelf stock. Percent of
stock was calculated as if all takes proposed for authorization accrued to the single stock with the lowest
population abundance.
[[Page 53468]]
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, and impact on
operations.
Mitigation measures that would be adopted during the planned survey
include, but are not limited to: (1) vessel speed or course alteration,
provided that doing so would not compromise operation safety
requirements; (2) monitoring a pre-start clearance zone; and (3) ramp-
up procedures.
Vessel-Visual Based Mitigation Monitoring
Visual monitoring requires the use of trained observers (herein
referred to as visual protected species observers (PSOs)) to scan the
ocean surface visually for the presence of marine mammals. PSOs shall
establish and monitor a pre-start clearance zone and, to the extent
practicable, a Level B harassment zone (Table 3). 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 pre-start clearance (i.e., before ramp-up
begins), the pre-start clearance zone is the area in which observations
of marine mammals within the zone would prevent airgun operations from
beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The pre-start clearance zone encompasses the
area at and below the sea surface out to a radius of 200 meters from
the edges of the airgun array.
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 PSOs must
be on duty and conducting visual observations at all times during
daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30
minutes following sunset). Visual monitoring 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
must coordinate to ensure 360 degree visual coverage around the vessel
from the most appropriate observation posts, and must 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 a pre-start clearance zone and to
the extent practicable, a Level B harassment 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).
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 sightings 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 4 consecutive hours
followed by a break of at least 1 hour between watches and may conduct
a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period.
Pre-Start Clearance and Ramp-Up
Ramp-up is the gradual and systematic increase of emitted sound
levels from an acoustic source. Ramp-up would begin with one GI airgun
105 in\3\ first being activated, followed by the second after 5
minutes. The intent of pre-clearance observation (30 minutes) is to
ensure no marine mammals are observed within the pre-start clearance
zone prior to the beginning of ramp-up. The intent of ramp-up is to
warn marine mammals in the vicinity of survey activities and to allow
sufficient time for those animals to leave the immediate vicinity. A
ramp-up procedure, involving a stepwise increase in the number of
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:
(1) 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 PSOs time to monitor the pre-start clearance zone for 30
minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-start 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-start 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 pre-start clearance zone. If a marine mammal is observed
within the pre-start clearance zone during the 30 minutes pre-clearance
period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed
exiting the zone or until an additional time period has elapsed with no
further sightings (15 minutes for small delphinids and 30 minutes for
all other species);
Ramp-up must begin by activating the first airgun for 5
minutes and then adding the second airgun; and
PSOs must monitor the pre-start clearance zone during
ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon
detection of a marine mammal within the pre-start clearance zone. Once
ramp-up has begun, observations of marine mammals for which take
authorization is granted within the pre-start clearance zone does not
require shutdown.
(2) If the acoustic source is shut down for brief periods (i.e.,
less than 30 minutes) for reasons other than implementation of
prescribed mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be
activated again without ramp-up if PSOs
[[Page 53469]]
have maintained constant observation and no detections of marine
mammals have occurred within the pre-start clearance zone. For any
longer shutdown, pre-start clearance observation and ramp-up are
required. Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or
greater), including nighttime, if appropriate visual monitoring has
occurred with no detections of marine mammals in the 30 minutes prior
to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source activation may only occur at
night where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such
circumstances.
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 a 30 minute pre-start
clearance period.
Shutdown Procedures
The shutdown requirement will be waived for small dolphins. As
defined here, the small dolphin group is intended to encompass those
members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach
the source vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or
airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This exception to the shutdown
requirement applies solely to specific genera of small dolphins--Steno,
Stenella, and Tursiops. As Tursiops and Steno are the only species
expected to potentially be encountered, there is no shutdown
requirement included in the proposed IHA for species for which take is
proposed to be authorized.
Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures
These measures apply to all vessels associated with the planned
survey activity; however, we note that 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. These measures include the following:
(1) Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for
all marine mammals and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter course,
as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any
marine mammal. A single marine mammal at the surface may indicate the
presence of submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore,
precautionary measures should be exercised when an animal is observed.
A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike
avoidance zone around the vessel (specific distances detailed below),
to ensure the potential for strike is minimized. Visual observers
monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone can be either third-party
observers 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 to identify a marine
mammal as a baleen whale, sperm whale, or other marine mammals;
(2) Vessel speeds must be reduced to 10 kn (18.5 kph) or less when
mother and calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are
observed near a vessel;
(3) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100
m from sperm whales;
(4) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500
m baleen whales. If a baleen whale is sighted within the relevant
separation distance, the vessel must steer a course away at 10 knots or
less until the 500-m separation distance has been established. If a
whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species other than a
baleen whale, the vessel operator must assume that it is a baleen whale
and take appropriate action.
(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); and
(6) When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the
vessel should 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). This does not apply to any vessel towing
gear or any vessel that is navigationally constrained.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed 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.
Proposed 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 while
conducting the activities. 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 activity; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and,
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
As described above, PSO observations would take place during
daytime airgun operations. Two visual PSOs would be on duty at all time
during daytime hours. Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with
the following requirements:
(1) UT must 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, and to ensure that
PSOs are capable of calibrating equipment as
[[Page 53470]]
necessary for accurate distance estimates and species identification.
See Condition 5(d) in the IHA for list of equipment.
PSOs must have the following requirements and qualifications:
(1) PSOs shall be independent, dedicated and trained and must be
employed by a third-party observer provider;
(2) PSOs shall have no tasks other than to conduct visual
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);
(3) PSOs shall have successfully completed an approved PSO training
course appropriate for their designated task (visual);
(4) NMFS must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a
relevant training course information packet that includes the name and
qualifications (i.e., experience, training completed, or educational
background) of the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and
course reference material as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course;
(5) 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;
(6) 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
(7) 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:
Secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO
duties;
Previous work experience conducting academic, commercial,
or government-sponsored protected species surveys; or
Previous work experience as a PSO; the PSO should
demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO
duties.
At least one visual PSO must be unconditionally approved (i.e.,
have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in that role at the
particular Tier level (1-3) with no more than 18 months elapsed since
the conclusion of the at-sea experience). One PSO with such experience
shall be designated as the lead for the entire PSO team. The lead PSO
shall serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator. To the
maximum extent practicable, the duty schedule shall be planned such
that unconditionally-approved PSOs are on duty with conditionally-
approved PSOs.
PSOs must use standardized electronic data collection forms. At a
minimum, the following information must be recorded:
Vessel name, vessel size and type, maximum speed
capability of vessel;
Dates (MM/DD/YYYY format) of departures and returns to
port with port name;
PSO names and affiliations, PSO identification (ID;
initials or other identifier);
Date (MM/DD/YYYY) and participants of PSO briefings;
Visual monitoring equipment used (description);
PSO location on vessel and height (in meters) of
observation location above water surface;
Watch status (description);
Dates (MM/DD/YYYY) and times (Greenwich mean time (GMT) or
coordinated universal time (UTC)) of survey on/off effort and times
(GMC/UTC) corresponding with PSO on/off effort;
Vessel location (decimal degrees) when survey effort began
and ended and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts;
Vessel location (decimal degrees) at 30-second intervals
if obtainable from data collection software, otherwise at practical
regular interval;
Vessel heading (compass heading) and speed (in knots) at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any change;
Water depth (in meters) (if obtainable from data
collection software);
Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
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 (description) (e.g., vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions);
and
Vessel/Survey activity information (and changes thereof)
(description), such as acoustic source power output while in operation,
number and volume of acoustic source operating in the array, tow depth
of the acoustic source, and any other notes of significance (i.e., pre-
start 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 marine mammal:
Sighting ID (numeric);
Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort,
opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
Location of PSO/observer (description);
Vessel activity at the time of the sighting (e.g.,
deploying, recovering, testing, shooting, data acquisition, other);
PSO who sighted the animal/PSO ID;
Time and date of sighting (GMT/UTC, MM/DD/YYYY);
Initial detection method (description);
Sighting cue (description);
Vessel location at time of sighting (decimal degrees);
Water depth (in meters);
Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
Speed (knots) of the vessel from which the observation was
made;
Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel
(description, compass heading);
Bearing to sighting (degrees);
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;
Species reliability (an indicator of confidence in
identification) (1 = unsure/possible, 2 = probable, 3 = definite/sure,
9 = unknown/not recorded);
Estimated distance to the animal (meters) and method of
estimating distance;
Estimated number of animals (high, low, and best)
(numeric);
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
[[Page 53471]]
surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, traveling; as
explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in
behavior);
Animal's closest point of approach (in meters) and/or
closest distance from any element of the acoustic source;
Description of any actions implemented in response to the
sighting (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and time and location of the
action.
Photos (Yes or No);
Photo Frame Numbers (List of numbers); and
Conditions at time of sighting (Visibility; BSS).
Reporting
UT must submit a draft comprehensive report to NMFS on all
activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of
the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report
would describe the activities that were conducted and sightings of
marine mammals. The report would provide full documentation of methods,
results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day
report would summarize the dates and locations of survey 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). Geographic information system (GIS) files shall be provided in
Environmental Systems Research Institute (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. A final report
must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of any comments
on the draft report.
Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals
Sighting 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, UT shall report the incident
to the OPR, NMFS, and the NMFS Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator
as soon as feasible. The report must include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
Vessel strike--In the event of a vessel strike of a marine mammal
by any vessel involved in the activities covered by the authorization,
UT shall report the incident to OPR, NMFS and to the NMFS Southeast
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,
BSS, 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 impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), 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 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, the discussion of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in Table 1, given that the anticipated effects of
this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to
be similar. There is little information about the nature or severity of
the impacts, or the size, status, or structure of any of these species
or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would
occur as a result from low-energy survey, and no serious injury or
mortality is proposed to be authorized. As discussed in the Potential
Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
section, non-auditory physical effects and vessel strike are not
expected to occur. NMFS expects that all potential take would be in the
form of Level B behavioral harassment in the form of temporary
avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity was
occurring), responses that are considered to be of low severity and
with no lasting biological consequences (e.g., Southall et al., 2007,
2021).
In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected Level B
harassment
[[Page 53472]]
zone around the survey vessel is 1,750 m. Therefore, the ensonified
area surrounding the vessel is relatively small compared to the overall
distribution of animals in the area and their use of the habitat.
Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey
species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the survey
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 short duration (10 days) of the
disturbance and 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.
There are no rookeries, mating, or calving grounds known to be
biologically important to marine mammals within the planned survey area
and there are no feeding areas known to be biologically important to
marine mammals within the survey area. There is no designated critical
habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals within the project area.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary 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:
(1) No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be
authorized;
(2) No Level A harassment is anticipated, even in the absence of
mitigation measures or proposed to be authorized;
(3) Take is anticipated to be by Level B harassment only consisting
of temporary behavioral changes of small percentages of the affected
species due to avoidance of the area around the survey vessel. The
relatively short duration of the proposed survey (10 days) would
further limit the potential impacts of any temporary behavioral changes
that would occur;
(4) The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value
for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the
proposed survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
(5) Foraging success is not likely to be significantly impacted as
effects on prey species for marine mammals would be temporary and
spatially limited; and
(6) The proposed mitigation measures, including visual monitoring,
ramp-ups, and shutdowns are expected to minimize potential impacts to
marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals
may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
NMFS proposes to authorize incidental take by Level B harassment of
3 marine mammal species with four managed stocks. The total amount of
takes proposed for authorization relative to the best available
population abundance is less than 5 percent for 3 managed stocks and
less than 13 percent for 1 managed stock (Gulf of Mexico Western
Coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin assuming all takes by Level b
harassment are of this stock; see Take Estimation subsection) (Table
6). The take numbers proposed for authorization are considered
conservative estimates for purposes of the small numbers determination
as they assume all takes represent different individual animals, which
is unlikely to be the case.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population
size of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the 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.
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for
authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS
has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is
not required for this action.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to UT for conducting marine geophysical surveys in the
northwest Gulf of Mexico within Texas State waters during fall 2023,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found
at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-research-and-other-activities.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed marine
geophysical survey. We also request comment on the potential renewal of
this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include
with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help
inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal
IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal
IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for
public
[[Page 53473]]
comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical
activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section
of this notice is planned, or (2) the activities as described in the
Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be
completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for
completion of the activities beyond that described in the Dates and
Duration section of this notice, provided all of the following
conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: August 3, 2023.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-16945 Filed 8-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P