Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35073

Limited Determination was published in the Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA 225. Zhaoqing Asia Aluminum Factory Federal Register (84 FR 6378) on provides a dispute settlement Company Ltd. February 27, 2019. In the event a party mechanism involving trade remedy 226. Zhaoqing China Square Industrial Ltd. wished to challenge the Final 227. Zhaoqing China Square Industry determinations issued by the Limited Determination, pursuant to NAFTA Government of the United States, the 228. Zhaoqing New Zhongya Aluminum Co., Article 1904(15)(c)(ii), the deadline for Government of Canada, and the Ltd. the submission of a Notice of Intent to Government of Mexico. For the 229. Zhejiang Anji Xinxiang Aluminum Co., Commence Judicial Review was March complete text of the NAFTA Agreement Ltd. 19, 2019 (10 days prior to the latest date and the NAFTA Rules of Procedure for 230. Zhejiang Lilies Industrial and on which a panel may be requested), Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, Commercial Co. and pursuant to NAFTA Article 1904(4), please see https://www.nafta-sec- 231. Zhejiang Yili Automobile Air Condition the deadline for the submission of a Co., Ltd. alena.org/Home/Legal-Texts. 232. Zhejiang Yongkang Listar Aluminum Request for Panel Review was March 29, Dated: July 16, 2019. 2019 (within 30 days of publication of Industry Co., Ltd. Paul E. Morris, 233. Zhejiang Zhengte Group Co., Ltd. the Final Determination in the Federal 234. Zhenjiang Xinlong Group Co., Ltd. Register). U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat. 235. Zhongshan Daya Hardware Co., Ltd. On May 8, 2019, the American Cast [FR Doc. 2019–15489 Filed 7–19–19; 8:45 am] 236. Zhongshan Gold Mountain Aluminum Iron Pipe Company, Berg Steel Pipe BILLING CODE 3510–GT–P Factory Ltd. Corp., Berg Spiral Pipe Corp., Dura- 237. Zhongya Shaped Aluminum (HK) Bond Industries, and Stupp Holding Limited DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 238. Zhuhai Runxingtai Electrical Equipment Corporation, individually and as Co., Ltd. members of the American Line Pipe Producers Association (‘‘ALPPA’’); National Oceanic and Atmospheric [FR Doc. 2019–15510 Filed 7–19–19; 8:45 am] Greens Bayou Pipe Mill, LP; JSW Steel Administration BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P (USA) Inc.; Skyline Steel; Trinity Products LLC; and Welspun Tubular RIN 0648–XG948 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE LLC filed a Notice of Intent with the NAFTA Secretariat, specifying an Takes of Marine Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine International Trade Administration intention to seek judicial review at the United States Court of International Mammals Incidental to Marine North American Free Trade Agreement Trade. The Notice of Intent was Geophysical Surveys in the Northeast (NAFTA) Binational Panel Review submitted 50 days after the deadline Pacific Ocean Precluded established by Article 1904(15). No AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries further action is required by the AGENCY: United States Section, NAFTA Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Secretariat in response to the Notice of Secretariat, International Trade Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Intent. Administration, Department of On May 22, 2019, Evraz Inc. NA Commerce. Commerce. (‘‘Evraz’’) submitted a Conditional ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental ACTION: NAFTA Binational Panel Request to the NAFTA Secretariat, ‘‘for harassment authorization. Review is precluded in the matter of the purpose of challenging Petitioners’ Large Diameter Welded Pipe from untimely attempt to appeal the SUMMARY: In accordance with the Canada. underlying agency determination.’’ The regulations implementing the Marine SUMMARY: Notice of the Department of Conditional Request for Panel Review Protection Act (MMPA) as Commerce’s Large Diameter Welded was submitted 54 days after the amended, notification is hereby given Pipe from Canada: Final Affirmative deadline established by Article 1904(4). that NMFS has issued an incidental Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Accordingly, review by a panel is harassment authorization (IHA) to Value (Final Determination) was precluded. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L- published in the Federal Register on NAFTA Article 1904(4) provides: DEO) to incidentally harass, by Level A February 27, 2019. On May 8, 2019, the A request for a panel shall be made in and Level B harassment, marine NAFTA Secretariat received a Notice of writing to the other involved Party within 30 mammals during seismic activities Intent to Commence Judicial Review days following the date of publication of the associated with a marine geophysical final determination in question in the official survey in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. (Notice of Intent). No action is required journal of the importing Party. In the case of by the Secretariat in response to the final determinations that are not published in DATES: This Authorization is effective Notice of Intent. On May 22, 2019, the the official journal of the importing Party, the from July 10, 2019 through July 9, 2020. Secretariat also received a Conditional importing Party shall immediately notify the Request for Panel Review (Conditional other involved Party of such final FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Request). The Conditional Request was determination where it involves goods from Amy Fowler, Office of Protected submitted after the deadline for requests the other involved Party, and the other Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. for panel review provided by NAFTA involved Party may request a panel within 30 Electronic copies of the application and days of receipt of such notice. Where the Article 1904(4). Panel review is supporting documents, as well as a list competent investigating authority of the of the references cited in this document, therefore precluded. importing Party has imposed provisional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul measures in an investigation, the other may be obtained online at: https:// E. Morris, United States Secretary, involved Party may provide notice of its www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 intention to request a panel under this incidental-take-authorizations-under- Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, Article, and the Parties shall begin to marine-mammal-protection-act. In case establish a panel at that time. Failure to DC 20230, (202) 482–5438. of problems accessing these documents, request a panel within the time specified in please call the contact listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this paragraph shall preclude review by a the Department of Commerce’s Final panel. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35074 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

Background operated by Columbia University’s L- current modeling approach for The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of DEO under an existing Cooperative estimating Level A and Level B marine mammals, with certain Agreement. The planned two- harassment zones and takes. L-DEO’s exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and dimensional (2–D) and three- application and the Federal Register (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et dimensional (3–D) seismic surveys notice of the proposed IHA (84 FR would occur in International Waters 26940; June 10, 2019) describe the seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic applicant’s approach to modeling Level (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon Zone (EEZ). The 2–D survey would use A and Level B harassment zones. The request, the incidental, but not a 36-airgun towed array with a total model L-DEO currently uses does not intentional, taking of small numbers of discharge volume of ∼6,600 cubic inches allow for the consideration of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who (in3); the 3–D survey would employ an environmental and site-specific engage in a specified activity (other than 18-airgun array with a discharge volume parameters as requested by the commercial fishing) within a specified of ∼3,300 in3. The total survey duration Commission. geographical region if certain findings would be approximately 35 days. A total L-DEO’s application describes their are made and either regulations are of ∼3,760 kilometers (km) of transect approach to modeling Level A and Level issued or, if the taking is limited to lines would be surveyed in the B harassment zones. In summary, L- harassment, a notice of a proposed Northeast Pacific Ocean: ∼3,196 km DEO acquired field measurements for incidental take authorization may be during the 3–D survey and 564 km several array configurations at shallow, provided to the public for review. during the 2–D survey. intermediate, and deep-water depths Authorization for incidental takings A detailed description of the planned during acoustic verification studies shall be granted if NMFS finds that the geophysical survey is provided in the conducted in the northern Gulf of taking will have a negligible impact on Federal Register notice for the proposed Mexico in 2007 and 2008 (Tolstoy et al., the or stock(s) and will not have IHA (84 FR 26940; June 10, 2019). Since 2009). Based on the empirical data from an unmitigable adverse impact on the that time, no changes have been made those studies, L-DEO developed a sound availability of the species or stock(s) for to the planned survey activities. propagation modeling approach that taking for subsistence uses (where Therefore, a detailed description is not predicts received sound levels as a relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe provided here. Please refer to that function of distance from a particular the permissible methods of taking and Federal Register notice for the airgun array configuration in deep other ‘‘means of effecting the least description of the specific activity. water. For this survey, L-DEO modeled practicable adverse impact’’ on the Level A and Level B harassment zones Comments and Responses affected species or stocks and their based on the empirically-derived habitat, paying particular attention to A notice of NMFS’s proposal to issue measurements from the Gulf of Mexico rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of an IHA to L-DEO was published in the calibration survey (Appendix H of NSF– similar significance, and on the Federal Register on June 10, 2019 (84 USGS 2011). L-DEO used the deep- availability of such species or stocks for FR 26940). That notice described, in water radii obtained from model results taking for certain subsistence uses detail, L-DEO’s activity, the marine down to a maximum water depth of (referred to in shorthand as mammal species that may be affected by 2,000 meters (m) (Figures 2 and 3 in ‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements the activity, and the anticipated effects Appendix H of NSF–USGS 2011). pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring on marine mammals. During the 30-day In 2015, LDEO explored the question and reporting of such takings are set public comment period, NMFS received of whether the Gulf of Mexico forth. comments from the Marine Mammal calibration data described above Commission (Commission). adequately informs the model to predict Summary of Request Comment: The Commission exclusion isopleths in other areas by On December 21, 2018, NMFS recommended that NMFS require L- conducting a retrospective sound power received a request from L-DEO for an DEO to re-estimate the proposed Level analysis of one of the lines acquired IHA to take marine mammals incidental A and Level B harassment zones and during L-DEO’s seismic survey offshore to a marine geophysical survey of the associated takes of marine mammals New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, 2015). Axial Seamount in the Northeast Pacific using (1) both operational (including NMFS presented a comparison of the Ocean. The application was deemed number/type/spacing of airguns, tow predicted radii (i.e., modeled exclusion adequate and complete on May 3, 2019. depth, source level/operating pressure, zones) with radii based on in situ L-DEO’s request is for take of a small operational volume) and site-specific measurements (i.e., the upper bound number of 26 species of marine environmental (including sound speed [95th percentile] of the cross-line mammals by Level B harassment and profiles, bathymetry, and sediment prediction) in a previous notice of Level A harassment. Neither L-DEO nor characteristics at a minimum) issued Authorization for LDEO (see 80 NMFS expects serious injury or parameters, (2) a comprehensive source FR 27635, May 14, 2015, Table 1). mortality to result from this activity model (i.e., Gundalf Optimizer or Briefly, the analysis presented in Crone and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. AASM) and (3) an appropriate sound (2015), specific to the survey site propagation model for the proposed offshore New Jersey, confirmed that in- Description of Specified Activity incidental harassment authorization. situ, site specific measurements and Researchers from the University of Specifically, the Commission reiterates estimates of 160 decibel (dB) and 180 Texas at Austin, University of Nevada that L-DEO should be using the ray- dB isopleths collected by the Reno, University of California San tracing propagation model BELLHOP— hydrophone streamer of the R/V Diego, with funding from the U.S. which is a free, standard propagation Langseth in shallow water were smaller National Science Foundation (NSF), code that readily incorporates all than the modeled (i.e., predicted) zones plan to conduct high-energy seismic environmental inputs listed herein, for two seismic surveys conducted surveys from Research Vessel (R/V) rather than the limited, in-house offshore New Jersey in shallow water in Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth) in the MATLAB code currently in use. 2014 and 2015. In that particular case, Northeast Pacific Ocean during summer Response: NMFS acknowledges the Crone’s (2015) results showed that L- 2019. The NSF-owned Langseth is Commission’s concerns about L-DEO’s DEO’s modeled 180 decibel (dB) and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35075

160 dB zones were approximately 28 a degree of conservativeness built into The Commission stated one reason for percent and 33 percent larger, L-DEO’s model for deep water, which recommending that NMFS require L- respectively, than the in-situ, site- NMFS expects to offset some of the DEO to conduct sound source specific measurements, thus confirming limitations of the model to capture the verification efforts was due to the short- that L-DEO’s model was conservative in variability resulting from site-specific comings of the L-DEO model. However, that case. factors. Based upon the best available as previously noted, the L-DEO model is The following is a summary of two information (i.e., the three data points, conservative and is viewed appropriate additional analyses of in-situ data that two of which are peer-reviewed, for R/V Langseth operations. Use of the support L-DEO’s use of the modeled discussed in this response), NMFS finds L-DEO model is further supported by Level A and Level B harassment zones that the Level A and Level B harassment ten years of successful operations with in this particular case. In 2010, L-DEO zone calculations are appropriate for use no observed harm to marine life. For assessed the accuracy of their modeling in this particular IHA. these reasons, additional sound source approach by comparing the sound levels The use of models for calculating verification efforts are not warranted at of the field measurements acquired in Level A and Level B harassment zones this time. the Gulf of Mexico study to their model and for developing take estimates is not Comment: The Commission predictions (Diebold et al., 2010). They a requirement of the MMPA incidental recommended that NMFS recalculate reported that the observed sound levels take authorization process. Further, the densities (and thus, estimated take) from the field measurements fell almost NMFS does not prescribe specific model of Guadalupe fur seals, northern fur entirely below the predicted mitigation parameters nor a specific model for seals, and northern elephant seals to radii curve for deep water (i.e., greater applicants as part of the MMPA include more recent data and than 1,000 m; 3,280.8 ft) (Diebold et al., incidental take authorization process at population growth through 2019 rather 2010). In 2012, L-DEO used a similar this time, although we do review than 2017. process to model distances to isopleths methods to ensure they adequately Response: Through discussions with corresponding to Level A and Level B predict take. There is a level of the Commission, NMFS has recalculated harassment thresholds for a shallow- variability not only with parameters in the densities of these species. The water seismic survey in the northeast the models, but also the uncertainty density of Guadalupe fur seals increased Pacific Ocean offshore Washington associated with data used in models, to 0.00343 per square kilometer State. LDEO conducted the shallow- and therefore, the quality of the model (km2), the density of northern fur seals water survey using a 6,600 in3 airgun results submitted by applicants. NMFS increased to 0.01065 animals per km2, configuration aboard the R/V Langseth considers this variability when and the density of northern elephant and recorded the received sound levels evaluating applications and the take seals increased to 0.03333 animals per on both the shelf and slope using the estimates and mitigation measures that km2. Estimated take of these three Langseth’s 8 km hydrophone streamer. the model informs. NMFS takes into species increased accordingly. Further Crone et al. (2014) analyzed those consideration the model used, and its detail regarding these changes is received sound levels from the 2012 results, in determining the potential included in the Estimated Take section survey and confirmed that in-situ, site impacts to marine mammals; however, later in this document. specific measurements and estimates of it is just one component of the analysis Comment: The Commission the 160 dB and 180 dB isopleths during the MMPA authorization process recommended that NMFS use a collected by the Langseth’s hydrophone as NMFS also takes into consideration consistent approach for requiring all streamer in shallow water were two to other factors associated with the activity geophysical and seismic survey three times smaller than L-DEO’s (e.g., geographic location, duration of operators to abide by the same general modeling approach had predicted. activities, context, sound source mitigation measures, including While the results confirmed the role of intensity, etc.). prohibiting L-DEO from using power bathymetry in sound propagation, Crone Comment: Given the shortcomings downs and the mitigation airgun during et al. (2014) were also able to confirm noted for L-DEO’s source and sound its geophysical surveys. that the empirical measurements from propagation modeling and the Response: NMFS is in the process of the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey requirements that other action developing protocols that could be (the same measurements used to inform proponents are obliged to fulfill, the applied to geophysical and seismic L-DEO’s modeling approach for the Commission recommended that NMFS surveys. The protocols are being planned surveys in the northwest require L-DEO to archive, analyze, and developed on the basis of detailed Atlantic Ocean) overestimated the size compare the in-situ data collected by review of available literature, including of the exclusion and buffer zones for the the hydrophone streamer and ocean peer-reviewed science, review articles, shallow-water 2012 survey off bottom seismometers (OBSs) to L-DEO’s gray literature, and protocols required Washington State and were thus modeling results for the extents of the by other countries around the world. precautionary, in that particular case. Level A and B harassment zones based NMFS will share the protocols with the NMFS continues to work with L-DEO on the various water depths to be Commission when they are ready for to address the issue of incorporating surveyed and provide the data and external comment and review. site-specific information for future results to NMFS. Note that power downs to the single authorizations for seismic surveys. Response: Based on information 40 in3 airgun are only allowed/required However, L-DEO’s current modeling presented by the applicant and in lieu of shutdown when certain approach (supported by the three data supported by published analysis such as species of , specifically points discussed previously) represents Diebold et al. 2010, Tolstoy et al. 2009, identified in the Mitigation section the best available information for NMFS Crone et al. 2014, Crone et al. 2017, below, enter the shutdown zone. In all to reach determinations for this IHA. As Barton et al. 2006, and Diebold et al. other cases, shutdown would be described earlier, the comparisons of L- 2006, L-DEO modeling results and implemented under conditions as DEO’s model results and the field data predicted distances to harassment zones described in the IHA. collected at multiple locations (i.e., the are likely more conservative than actual Comment: The Commission noted Gulf of Mexico, offshore Washington distances measured from data collected that monitoring and reporting State, and offshore New Jersey) illustrate in situ for depths from shallow to deep. requirements adopted need to be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35076 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

sufficient to provide a reasonably have the lowest levels of impacts to and habitat preferences, and behavior accurate assessment of the manner of marine mammals and that require less and life history, of the potentially taking and the numbers of animals taken complex analysis. affected species. Additional information incidental to the specified activity. Response: We appreciate the regarding population trends and threats Those assessments should account for Commission’s input and direct the may be found in NMFS’s Stock all animals in the various survey areas, reader to our recent response to the Assessment Reports (SARs; https:// including those animals directly on the identical comment, which can be found www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ trackline that are not detected and how at 84 FR 31032 (June 28, 2019), pg. marine-mammal-protection/marine- well animals are detected based on the 31035–31036 mammal-stock-assessments) and more distance from the observer which is Comment: The Commission noted general information about these species achieved by incorporating g(0) and f(0) that the proposed surveys are scheduled (e.g., physical and behavioral values. The Commission recommended to begin immediately after the public descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s comment period closed and expressed that NMFS require L-DEO to use the website (https:// concern that NMFS did not have Commission’s method as described in www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). the Commission’s Addendum to better adequate time to consider public estimate the numbers of marine comments before issuing the IHA. The Table 1 lists all species with expected mammals taken by Level A and B Commission recommended NMFS more potential for occurrence in the survey harassment for the incidental thoroughly review applications, draft area and summarizes information harassment authorization. The Federal Register notices, and draft related to the population or stock, Commission stated that all other NSF- proposed authorizations prior to including regulatory status under the affiliated entities and all seismic submitting any proposed authorizations MMPA and ESA and potential operators should use this method as to the Federal Register, as well as biological removal (PBR), where known. well. require earlier submission of For , we follow Committee on Response: NMFS agrees that reporting applications and other documentation Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the of the manner of taking and the numbers to ensure sufficient time to prepare the MMPA as the maximum number of of animals incidentally taken should proposed authorization and consider animals, not including natural account for all animals taken, including comments received from the public. mortalities, that may be removed from a those animals that are not detected and Response: NMFS thanks the marine mammal stock while allowing how well animals are detected based on Commission for its concerns regarding that stock to reach or maintain its the distance from the observer, to the the IHA process. NMFS thoroughly optimum sustainable population (as extent practicable. NMFS appreciates reviewed the comments received and described in NMFS’s SARs). While no the Commission’s recommendations and considered all comments in making mortality is anticipated or authorized further requires that L-DEO provide an appropriate revisions to the final IHA. here, PBR and annual serious injury and estimate of take, including marine NMFS encourages all applicants to mortality from anthropogenic sources mammals that were not detected in their submit applications for IHAs five to are included here as gross indicators of reporting for this survey, as it has in eight months in advance of the intended the status of the species and other previous actions. NMFS welcomes L- project start date and for rulemakings/ threats. DEO’s input on a method to generate LOAs at least nine months, and Marine mammal abundance estimates this quantitative method, but in the preferably 15 months, in advance of the presented in this document represent absence of a new procedure, intended project start date. More the total number of individuals that recommends that use of the generally, NMFS publishes Federal Commission’s method for marine Register notices for proposed IHAs as make up a given stock or the total geophysical surveys, which was quickly as possible once the application number estimated within a particular attached to the Commission’s comment is received and aims to allow more time study or survey area. NMFS’s stock letter. We look forward to engaging on the back end of the comment period, abundance estimates for most species further with L-DEO, the Commission but there are situations where the length represent the total estimate of and other applicants to refine methods of processing times are driven by the individuals within the geographic area, to incorporate consideration of g(0) and exigency of an applicant’s activity start if known, that comprises that stock. For f(0) values into post-survey take date or by the need to work with some species, this geographic area may estimates. applicants to ensure we have the extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed Comment: The commission necessary information to deem an stocks in this region are assessed in recommended that NMFS refrain from application adequate and complete. NMFS’s U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs using the proposed renewal process for Here, NMFS provided the required 30- (Caretta et al., 2018; Muto et al., 2018). L-DEO’s authorization based on the day notice for public comment, and has All values presented in Table 1 are the complexity of analysis and potential for adequately considered the comments most recent available at the time of impacts on marine mammals, and the received in making the necessary publication and are available in the potential burden on reviewers of findings for this IHA. 2017 SARs (Caretta et al., 2018; Muto et reviewing key documents and al., 2018) and draft 2018 SARs developing comments quickly. Description of Marine Mammals in the (available online at: https:// Additionally, the Commission Area of Specified Activities www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ recommends that NMFS use the IHA Sections 3 and 4 of the application marine-mammal-protection/draft- renewal process sparingly and summarize available information marine-mammal-stock-assessment- selectively for activities expected to regarding status and trends, distribution reports).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35077

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA

ESA/ MMPA Stock abundance Annual Common name Scientific name Stock status; (CV, N , most recent PBR min M/SI 3 strategic abundance survey) 2 (Y/N) 1

Order Cetartiodactyla——Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen )

Family :. Gray ...... Eschrichtius robustus ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... -/-; N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 ...... 138. 2016). Western North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 175 (0.05, 167, 2016) .. 0.07 ...... Unknown. Family : North Pacific Eubalaena japonica ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 31 (0.226, 26, 2015) .... 0.05 ...... 0. Family Balaenopteridae (): ...... Megaptera novaeangliae ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; Y 1,918 (0.03, 1,876, 11 ...... >9.2. 2014). ...... acutorostrata ... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 636 (0.72, 369, 2014) .. 3.5 ...... >1.3. ...... Balaenoptera borealis ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 519 (0.4, 374, 2014) .... 0.75 ...... 0. ...... Balaenoptera physalus ...... California/Oregon/Washington E/D; Y 9,029 (0.12, 8,127, 81 ...... >2.0. 2014). ...... Balaenoptera musculus ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 1,647 (0.07, 1,551, 2.3 ...... >0.2. 2011).

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and )

Family Physeteridae: ...... Physeter macrocephalus ...... California/Oregon/Washington E/D; Y 1,967 (0.57, 1,270, 2.5 ...... 0.9. 2014). Family : ...... breviceps ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 4,111 (1.12, 1,924, 19 ...... 0. 2014). ...... Kogia sima ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N Unknown (Unknown, Undetermined .. 0. Unknown, 2014). Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales): Cuvier’s .... Ziphius cavirostris ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 3,274 (0.67, 2,059, 21 ...... <0.1. 2014). Baird’s beaked whale ...... bairdii ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 2,697 (0.6, 1,633, 16 ...... 0. 2014). Blainville’s beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 3,044 (0.54, 1,967, 20 ...... 0.1. 2014). Hubbs’ beaked whale ..... Mesoplodon carlshubbi. Stejneger’s beaked whale Mesoplodon stejnegeri. Family Delphinidae: Bottlenose ...... Tursiops truncatus ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 1,924 (0.54, 1,255, 11 ...... >1.6. offshore. 2014). ...... coeruleoalba ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 29,211 (0.2, 24,782, 238 ...... >0.8. 2014). Short-beaked common Delphinus delphis ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 969,861 (0.17, 839,325, 8,393 ...... >40. dolphin. 2014). Pacific white-sided dol- obliquidens California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 26,814 (0.28, 21,195, 191 ...... 7.5. phin. 2014). Northern right whale dol- Lissodelphis borealis ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 26,556 (0.44, 18,608, 179 ...... 3.8. phin. 2014). Risso’s dolphin ...... Grampus griseus ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 6,336 (0.32, 4,817, 46 ...... >3.7. 2014). False ...... Pseudorca crassidens ...... Hawaii Pelagic ...... -/-; N 1,540 (0.66, 928, 2010) 9.3 ...... 7.6. Killer whale ...... Orcinus orca ...... Offshore ...... -/-; N 240 (0.49, 162, 2014) .. 1.6 ...... 0. Southern Resident ...... E/D; Y 83 (N/A, 83, 2016) ...... 0.14 ...... 0. Northern Resident ...... -/-; N 261 (N/A, 261, 2011) ... 1.96 ...... 0. West Coast Transient ...... -/-; N 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) ... 2.4 ...... 0. Short-finned .. Globicephala macrorhynchus California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 836 (0.79, 466, 2014) .. 4.5 ...... 1.2. Family Phocoenidae (por- poises): Harbor ...... phocoena ...... Northern Oregon/Washington -/-; N 21,487 (0.44, 15,123, 151 ...... >3.0. Coast. 2011). Dall’s porpoise ...... Phocoenoides dalli ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 25,750 (0.45, 17,954, 172 ...... 0.3. 2014).

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): Northern fur seal ...... Callorhinus ursinus ...... Eastern Pacific ...... -/D; Y 620,660 (0.2, 525,333, 11,295 ...... 457. 2016). California ...... -/D; N 14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 451 ...... 1.8. 2013). California sea lion ...... Zalophus californianus ...... U.S...... -/-; N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 14,011 ...... >197. 2014). Steller sea lion ...... Eumetopias jubatus ...... Eastern U.S...... -/-; N 41,638 (see SAR, 2,498 ...... 108. 41,638, 2015).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35078 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA—Continued

ESA/ MMPA Stock abundance Annual Common name Scientific name Stock status; (CV, N , most recent PBR min M/SI 3 strategic abundance survey) 2 (Y/N) 1

Guadalupe fur seal ...... Arctocephalus townsendi ...... Mexico ...... T/D; Y 20,000 (N/A, 15,830, 542 ...... >3.2. 2010). Family Phocidae (earless seals): Harbor seal ...... Phoca vitulina ...... Oregon/Washington Coastal -/-; N Unknown (Unknown, Undetermined .. 10.6. Unknown, 1999). Northern elephant seal .... Mirounga angustirostris ...... California Breeding ...... -/-; N 179,000 (N/A, 81,368, 4,882 ...... 8.8. 2010). 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fish- eries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. Note—Italicized species are not expected or authorized to be taken.

All species that could potentially we are not aware of any changes in the divided into functional hearing groups occur in the planned survey areas are status of these species and stocks; based on directly measured or estimated included in Table 1. However, the therefore, detailed descriptions are not hearing ranges on the basis of available temporal and/or spatial occurrence of provided here. Please refer to that behavioral response data, audiograms gray whales, Southern Resident and Federal Register notice for these derived using auditory evoked potential Northern Resident killer whales, harbor descriptions. Please also refer to the techniques, anatomical modeling, and porpoise, harbor seal, California sea NMFS website (https:// other data. Note that no direct lion, and Steller sea lion is such that www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species) for measurements of hearing ability have take is not expected to occur, and they generalized species accounts. been successfully completed for are not discussed further beyond the Marine Mammal Hearing mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency explanation provided here. These Hearing is the most important sensory cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) species are found in the eastern North modality for marine mammals described generalized hearing ranges for Pacific, but are generally found in underwater, and exposure to these marine mammal hearing groups. coastal waters and are not expected to anthropogenic sound can have Generalized hearing ranges were chosen occur offshore in the survey area. deleterious effects. To appropriately based on the approximately 65 decibel A detailed description of the species assess the potential effects of exposure (dB) threshold from the normalized likely to be affected by L-DEO’s planned to sound, it is necessary to understand composite audiograms, with the surveys, including brief introductions to the frequency ranges marine mammals exception for lower limits for low- the species and relevant stocks as well are able to hear. Current data indicate frequency cetaceans where the lower as available information regarding that not all marine mammal species bound was deemed to be biologically population trends and threats, and have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., implausible and the lower bound from information regarding local occurrence, Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine were provided in the Federal Register Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). mammal hearing groups and their notice for the proposed IHA (84 FR To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) associated hearing ranges are provided 26940; June 10, 2019). Since that time, recommended that marine mammals be in Table 2.

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS (NMFS, 2018)

Generalized hearing range * Hearing group (kHz)

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ...... 7 Hz to 35. Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...... 150 Hz to 160. High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus 275 Hz to 160. cruciger & L. australis). Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ...... 50 Hz to 86. Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ...... 60 Hz to 39. * 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 range of hearing compared to otariids, For more detail concerning these group was modified from Southall et al. especially in the higher frequency range groups and associated frequency ranges, (2007) on the basis of data indicating (Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., please see NMFS (2018) for a review of that phocid species have consistently 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). available information. 26 marine demonstrated an extended frequency mammal species (23 cetacean and three

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35079

pinniped (two otariid and one phocid) fur seal, and northern elephant seal) and actual locations within this distance of species) have the reasonable potential to the number of Level A takes for sei the array center where the sound level co-occur with the planned survey whales. Takes of these species have exceeds 230 dB peak SPL would not activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the been adjusted accordingly, but these necessarily exist. In general, Caldwell cetacean species that may be present, changes do not affect any of our and Dragoset (2000) suggest that the five are classified as low-frequency findings. near-field for airgun arrays is considered cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 15 Harassment is the only type of take to extend out to approximately 250 m. are classified as mid-frequency expected to result from these activities. In order to provide quantitative cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid Except with respect to certain activities support for this theoretical argument, species and the sperm whale), and three not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the we calculated expected maximum are classified as high-frequency MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act distances at which the near-field would cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, transition to the far-field (Table 5). For Kogia spp.). which (i) has the potential to injure a a specific array one can estimate the marine mammal or marine mammal distance at which the near-field Potential Effects of Specified Activities stock in the wild (Level A harassment); transitions to the far-field by: on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat or (ii) has the potential to disturb a The effects of underwater noise from marine mammal or marine mammal seismic airguns and other associated stock in the wild by causing disruption activities for the Northeast Pacific of behavioral patterns, including, but geophysical surveys have the potential not limited to, migration, breathing, with the condition that D >> l, and to result in behavioral harassment and nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering where D is the distance, L is the longest a small degree of permanent threshold (Level B harassment). dimension of the array, and l is the shift (PTS) in marine mammals in the Authorized takes would primarily be wavelength of the signal (Lurton, 2002). vicinity of the action area associated by Level B harassment, as use of seismic Given that l can be defined by: direct effects on marine mammals. The airguns has the potential to result in project would not result in permanent disruption of behavioral patterns for impacts to habitats used directly by individual marine mammals. There is marine mammals, such as haulout sites, also some potential for auditory injury where f is the frequency of the sound but may have potential short-term (Level A harassment) for mysticetes and signal and v is the speed of the sound impacts to food sources such as forage high frequency cetaceans (i.e., kogiidae in the medium of interest, one can fish or zooplankton during the spp.), due to larger predicted auditory rewrite the equation for D as: geophysical survey. These potential injury zones for those functional hearing effects are discussed in detail in the groups. The required mitigation and Federal Register notice for the proposed monitoring measures are expected to IHA (84 FR 26940; June 10, 2019), minimize the severity of such taking to therefore that information is not the extent practicable. and calculate D directly given a repeated here. Please refer to that Auditory injury is unlikely to occur particular frequency and known speed Federal Register notice for that for mid-frequency cetaceans, otariid of sound (here assumed to be 1,500 information. pinnipeds, and phocid pinnipeds given meters per second in water, although The main impact associated with L- very small modeled zones of injury for this varies with environmental DEO’s Northeast Pacific geophysical those species (up to 43.7 m). Moreover, conditions). survey would be temporarily elevated the source level of the array is a To determine the closest distance to sound levels and the associated direct theoretical definition assuming a point the arrays at which the source level effects on marine mammals. The project source and measurement in the far-field predictions in Table 1 are valid (i.e., would not result in permanent impacts of the source (MacGillivray, 2006). As maximum extent of the near-field), we to habitats used directly by marine described by Caldwell and Dragoset calculated D based on an assumed mammals, such as haulout sites, but (2000), an array is not a point source, frequency of 1 kHz. A frequency of 1 may have potential short-term impacts but one that spans a small area. In the kHz is commonly used in near-field/far- to food sources such as forage fish or far-field, individual elements in arrays field calculations for airgun arrays zooplankton during the geophysical will effectively work as one source (Zykov and Carr, 2014; MacGillivray, survey. These potential effects are because individual pressure peaks will 2006; NSF and USGS, 2011), and based discussed in detail in the Federal have coalesced into one relatively broad on representative airgun spectrum data Register notice for the proposed IHA (84 pulse. The array can then be considered and field measurements of an airgun FR 26940; June 10, 2019), therefore that a ‘‘point source.’’ For distances within array used on the R/V Marcus G. information is not repeated here. Please the near-field, i.e., approximately 2–3 Langseth, nearly all (greater than 95 refer to that Federal Register notice for times the array dimensions, pressure percent) of the energy from airgun that information. peaks from individual elements do not arrays is below 1 kHz (Tolstoy et al., arrive simultaneously because the 2009). Thus, using 1 kHz as the upper Estimated Take observation point is not equidistant cut-off for calculating the maximum This section provides an estimate of from each element. The effect is extent of the near-field should the number of incidental takes destructive interference of the outputs reasonably represent the near-field authorized through this IHA, which will of each element, so that peak pressures extent in field conditions. inform both NMFS’ consideration of in the near-field will be significantly If the largest distance to the peak ‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible lower than the output of the largest sound pressure level threshold was impact determination. Based on input individual element. Here, the 230 dB equal to or less than the longest received during the public comment peak isopleth distances would in all dimension of the array (i.e., under the period, minor changes were made to the cases be expected to be within the near- array), or within the near-field, then densities of three species of marine field of the array where the definition of received levels that meet or exceed the mammals (northern fur seal, Guadalupe source level breaks down. Therefore, threshold in most cases are not expected

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES EN22JY19.005 EN22JY19.006 EN22JY19.007 35080 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

to occur. This is because within the only be possible under highly unlikely degrees by other factors related to the near-field and within the dimensions of circumstances. source (e.g., frequency, predictability, the array, the source levels specified in Therefore, we expect the potential for duty cycle), the environment (e.g., Table 1 are overestimated and not Level A harassment of mid-frequency bathymetry), and the receiving animals applicable. In fact, until one reaches a cetaceans, otariid pinnipeds, and (hearing, motivation, experience, distance of approximately three or four phocid pinnipeds to be de minimis, demography, behavioral context) and times the near-field distance the average even before the likely moderating effects can be difficult to predict (Southall et intensity of sound at any given distance of aversion and/or other compensatory al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on from the array is still less than that behaviors (e.g., Nachtigall et al., 2018) what the available science indicates and based on calculations that assume a are considered. We do not believe that the practical need to use a threshold directional point source (Lurton, 2002). Level A harassment is a likely outcome based on a factor that is both predictable The 6,600 in3 airgun array used in the for any mid-frequency cetacean, otariid and measurable for most activities, 2D survey has an approximate diagonal pinniped, or phocid pinniped and do NMFS uses a generalized acoustic not propose to authorize any Level A of 28.8 m, resulting in a near-field threshold based on received level to harassment for these species. distance of 138.7 m at 1 kHz (NSF and estimate the onset of behavioral As described previously, no mortality harassment. NMFS predicts that marine USGS, 2011). Field measurements of is anticipated or authorized for this this array indicate that the source mammals are likely to be behaviorally activity. Below we describe how the harassed in a manner we consider Level behaves like multiple discrete sources, take is estimated. rather than a directional point source, B harassment when exposed to Generally speaking, we estimate take underwater anthropogenic noise above beginning at approximately 400 m (deep by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds site) to 1 km (shallow site) from the received levels of 120 dB re 1 above which NMFS believes the best micropascal (mPa) (root mean square center of the array (Tolstoy et al., 2009), available science indicates marine distances that are actually greater than (rms)) for continuous (e.g., vibratory mammals will be behaviorally harassed pile-driving, drilling) and above 160 dB four times the calculated 140-m near- or incur some degree of permanent re 1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive field distance. Within these distances, hearing impairment; (2) the area or impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or the recorded received levels were volume of water that will be ensonified intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) always lower than would be predicted above these levels in a day; (3) the sources. L-DEO’s planned activity based on calculations that assume a density or occurrence of marine includes the use of impulsive seismic mammals within these ensonified areas; directional point source, and sources. Therefore, the 160 dB re 1 mPa and, (4) and the number of days of increasingly so as one moves closer (rms) criteria is applicable for analysis activities. We note that while these towards the array (Tolstoy et al., 2009). of Level B harassment. Similarly, the 3,300 in3 airgun array basic factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial Level A harassment for non-explosive used in the 3D survey has an sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance approximate diagonal of 17.9 m, prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively for Assessing the Effects of resulting in a near-field distance of 53.5 Anthropogenic Sound on Marine m at 1 kHz (NSF and USGS, 2011). inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) Given this, relying on the calculated (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies distances (138.7 m for the 2D survey results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in dual criteria to assess auditory injury and 53.5 m for the 3D survey) as the (Level A harassment) to five different distances at which we expect to be in more detail and present the authorized take. marine mammal groups (based on the near-field is a conservative approach hearing sensitivity) as a result of since even beyond this distance the Acoustic Thresholds exposure to noise from two different acoustic modeling still overestimates Using the best available science, types of sources (impulsive or non- the actual received level. Within the NMFS has developed acoustic impulsive. L-DEO’s planned seismic near-field, in order to explicitly evaluate thresholds that identify the received survey includes the use of impulsive the likelihood of exceeding any level of underwater sound above which (seismic airguns) sources. particular acoustic threshold, one would exposed marine mammals would be These thresholds are provided in the need to consider the exact position of reasonably expected to be behaviorally table below. The references, analysis, the , its relationship to individual harassed (equated to Level B and methodology used in the array elements, and how the individual harassment) or to incur PTS of some development of the thresholds are acoustic sources propagate and their degree (equated to Level A harassment). described in NMFS 2018 Technical acoustic fields interact. Given that Level B Harassment for non-explosive Guidance, which may be accessed at within the near-field and dimensions of sources—Though significantly driven by https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ the array source levels would be below received level, the onset of behavioral national/marine-mammal-protection/ those in Table 5, we believe exceedance disturbance from anthropogenic noise marine-mammal-acoustic-technical- of the peak pressure threshold would exposure is also informed to varying guidance.

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

PTS Onset acoustic thresholds * Hearing group (Received level) Impulsive Non-impulsive

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ...... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ...... Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ...... Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ...... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ...... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35081

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT—Continued

PTS Onset acoustic thresholds * Hearing group (Received level) Impulsive Non-impulsive

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ...... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ...... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impul- sive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. 2 Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.

Ensonified Area For deep and intermediate-water incoherent. Aside from local topography cases, the field measurements cannot be effects, the region around the critical Here, we describe operational and used readily to derive Level A and Level distance is where the observed levels environmental parameters of the activity B isopleths, as at those sites the rise closest to the model curve. that will feed into identifying the area calibration hydrophone was located at a However, the observed sound levels are ensonified above the acoustic roughly constant depth of 350–500 m, found to fall almost entirely below the thresholds, which include source levels which may not intersect all the sound model curve. Thus, analysis of the Gulf and transmission loss coefficient. pressure level (SPL) isopleths at their of Mexico calibration measurements The planned 3D survey would acquire widest point from the sea surface down demonstrates that although simple, the data with the 18-airgun array with a to the maximum relevant water depth L-DEO model is a robust tool for ∼ total discharge of 3,300 in3 towed at a for marine mammals of 2,000 m. At conservatively estimating isopleths. depth of 10 m. The planned 2D survey short ranges, where the direct arrivals For deep water (>1,000 m), L-DEO would acquire data using the 36-airgun dominate and the effects of seafloor used the deep-water radii obtained from array with a total discharge of 6,600 in3 interactions are minimal, the data model results down to a maximum at a maximum tow depth of 12 m. L- recorded at the deep and slope sites are water depth of 2000 m. The radii for DEO model results are used to suitable for comparison with modeled intermediate water depths (100–1,000 levels at the depth of the calibration determine the 160-dBrms radius for the m) were derived from the deep-water hydrophone. At longer ranges, the 18-airgun array, 36-airgun array, and 40- ones by applying a correction factor comparison with the model— in3 airgun in deep water (>1,000 m) (multiplication) of 1.5, such that constructed from the maximum SPL down to a maximum water depth of observed levels at very near offsets fall through the entire water column at below the corrected mitigation curve 2,000 m. Received sound levels were varying distances from the airgun predicted by L-DEO’s model (Diebold et (See Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF– array—is the most relevant. USGS, 2011). al., 2010) which uses ray tracing for the In deep and intermediate-water direct wave traveling from the array to depths, comparisons at short ranges Measurements have not been reported the receiver and its associated source between sound levels for direct arrivals for the single 40-in3 airgun. L-DEO ghost (reflection at the air-water recorded by the calibration hydrophone model results are used to determine the interface in the vicinity of the array), in and model results for the same array 160-dB (rms) radius for the 40-in3 a constant-velocity half-space (infinite tow depth are in good agreement (Fig. airgun at a 12 m tow depth in deep homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded 12 and 14 in Appendix H of NSF–USGS, water (See LGL 2018, Figure A–2). For by a seafloor). In addition, propagation 2011). Consequently, isopleths falling intermediate-water depths, a correction measurements of pulses from the 36- within this domain can be predicted factor of 1.5 was applied to the deep- airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have reliably by the L-DEO model, although water model results. been reported in deep water they may be imperfectly sampled by L-DEO’s modeling methodology is (approximately 1,600 m), intermediate measurements recorded at a single described in greater detail in the IHA water depth on the slope (approximately depth. At greater distances, the application (LGL 2018). The estimated 600–1,100 m), and shallow water calibration data show that seafloor- distances to the Level B harassment (approximately 50 m) in the Gulf of reflected and sub-seafloor-refracted isopleth for the Langseth’s 18-airgun Mexico in 2007–2008 (Tolstoy et al. arrivals dominate, whereas the direct array, 36-airgun array, and single 40-in3 2009; Diebold et al. 2010). arrivals become weak and/or airgun are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V Langseth SEISMIC SOURCES TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Source and volume Tow depth Distance (m) (m) a

Single Bolt airgun (40 in3) ...... 12 431 2 strings, 18 airguns (3,300 in3) ...... 10 3,758

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35082 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V Langseth SEISMIC SOURCES TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD—Continued

Source and volume Tow depth Distance (m) (m) a

4 strings, 36 airguns (6,600 in3) ...... 12 6,733 a Distance based on L-DEO model results.

Predicted distances to Level A marine mammal density or occurrence 2009). At larger distances, away from harassment isopleths, which vary based to facilitate the estimation of take the source array center, sound pressure on marine mammal hearing groups, numbers. of all the airguns in the array stack were calculated based on modeling The values for SELcum and peak SPL coherently, but not within one time performed by L-DEO using the for the Langseth airgun array were sample, resulting in smaller source NUCLEUS software program and the derived from calculating the modified levels (a few dB) than the source level NMFS User Spreadsheet, described far-field signature (Table 5). The farfield derived from the farfield signature. below. The updated acoustic thresholds signature is often used as a theoretical Because the farfield signature does not for impulsive sounds (e.g., airguns) representation of the source level. To take into account the large array effect contained in the Technical Guidance compute the farfield signature, the near the source and is calculated as a were presented as dual metric acoustic source level is estimated at a large point source, the modified farfield thresholds using both SELcum and peak distance below the array (e.g., 9 km), signature is a more appropriate measure sound pressure metrics (NMFS 2016). and this level is back projected of the sound source level for distributed As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset mathematically to a notional distance of sound sources, such as airgun arrays. L- of PTS (Level A harassment) to have 1 m from the array’s geometrical center. DEO used the acoustic modeling occurred when either one of the two However, when the source is an array of methodology as used for Level B metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric multiple airguns separated in space, the harassment with a small grid step of 1 resulting in the largest isopleth). The source level from the theoretical farfield m in both the inline and depth SELcum metric considers both level and signature is not necessarily the best directions. The propagation modeling duration of exposure, as well as measurement of the source level that is takes into account all airgun auditory weighting functions by marine physically achieved at the source interactions at short distances from the mammal hearing group. In recognition (Tolstoy et al. 2009). Near the source (at source, including interactions between of the fact that the requirement to short ranges, distances <1 km), the subarrays which are modeled using the calculate Level A harassment ensonified pulses of sound pressure from each NUCLEUS software to estimate the areas could be more technically individual airgun in the source array do notional signature and MATLAB challenging to predict due to the not stack constructively, as they do for software to calculate the pressure signal duration component and the use of the theoretical farfield signature. The at each mesh point of a grid. weighting functions in the new SELcum pulses from the different airguns spread For a more complete explanation of thresholds, NMFS developed an out in time such that the source levels this modeling approach, please see optional User Spreadsheet that includes observed or modeled are the result of ‘‘Appendix A: Determination of tools to help predict a simple isopleth the summation of pulses from a few Mitigation Zones’’ in the IHA that can be used in conjunction with airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al. application.

TABLE 5—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS BASED ON MODIFIED FARFIELD SIGNATURE FOR THE R/V Langseth 3,300 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY, 6,600 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY, AND SINGLE 40 IN3 AIRGUN

Low Mid High Phocid Otariid frequency frequency frequency pinnipeds pinnipeds cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans (underwater) (underwater) (Lpk,flat: 219 (Lpk,flat: 230 (Lpk,flat: 202 (Lpk,flat: 218 (Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,LF,24h: dB; LE,MF,24h: dB; LE,HF,24h: dB; LE,HF,24h: dB; LE,HF,24h: 183 dB) 185 dB) 155 dB) 185 dB) 203 dB)

3 3,300 in airgun array (Peak SPLflat) ...... 245.29 250.97 243.61 246.00 251.92 3 3.300 in airgun array (SELcum) ...... 226.38 226.33 226.66 226.33 227.07 3 6,600 in airgun array (Peak SPLflat) ...... 252.06 252.65 253.24 252.25 252.52 3 6,600 in airgun array (SELcum) ...... 232.98 232.84 233.10 232.84 232.08 3 40 in airgun (Peak SPLflat) ...... 223.93 224.09 223.92 223.95 223.95 3 40 in airgun (SELcum) ...... 202.99 202.89 204.37 202.89 202.35

In order to more realistically functions for each relevant marine Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the incorporate the Technical Guidance’s mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting weighting functions over the seismic weighted spectrum levels were then factor adjustment). Using the User array’s full acoustic band, unweighted converted to pressures (mPa) in order to Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ spectrum data for the Langseth’s airgun integrate them over the entire methodology for mobile sources array (modeled in 1 hertz (Hz) bands) broadband spectrum, resulting in (described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the was used to make adjustments (dB) to broadband weighted source levels by hearing group-specific weighted source the unweighted spectrum levels, by hearing group that could be directly levels, and inputs assuming spherical frequency, according to the weighting incorporated within the User spreading propagation and source

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35083

velocities and shot intervals specific to DEO to estimate distances to Level A A harassment isopleths for the surveys each of the three planned surveys harassment isopleths for the 18-airgun are shown in Table 6. As described provided in the IHA application, array, 36-airgun array, and single 40 in3 above, NMFS considers onset of PTS potential radial distances to auditory airgun for the surveys are shown in (Level A harassment) to have occurred injury zones were then calculated for Tables A–3, A–6, and A–10 in when either one of the dual metrics SELcum thresholds. Appendix A of the IHA application. (SELcum and Peak SPLflat) is exceeded Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the Outputs from the User Spreadsheets in (i.e., metric resulting in the largest form of estimated SLs are shown in the form of estimated distances to Level isopleth). Table 5. User Spreadsheets used by L-

TABLE 6—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

LF MF HF Phocid Otariid Source and volume cetaceans cetaceans cetaceans pinnipeds pinnipeds

3 a Single Bolt airgun (40 in ) PTS SELcum ...... 0.5 0 0 0 0 PTS Peak ...... 1.76 0.51 12.5 1.98 0.4 2 strings, 18 airguns (3300 PTS SELcum ...... 75.6 0 0.3 2.9 0 in3). PTS Peak ...... 23.2 11.8 118.7 25.1 9.9 4 strings, 36 airguns (6600 PTS SELcum ...... 426.9 0 1.3 13.9 0 in3). PTS Peak ...... 38.9 13.6 268.3 43.7 10.6

Note that because of some of the The densities calculated by the Navy function of habitat variables (e.g., sea assumptions included in the methods were updated by L-DEO using stock surface temperature, seafloor depth) and used, isopleths produced may be abundances presented in the latest SARs thus, within the study area that was overestimates to some degree, which (e.g., Caretta et al., 2018). modeled, densities can be predicted at will ultimately result in some degree of While the IHA application was in all locations where these habitat overestimate of Level A harassment. review by NMFS, the U.S. Navy variables can be measured or estimated. However, these tools offer the best way published the Marine Species Density Spatial habitat models therefore allow to predict appropriate isopleths when Database Phase III for the Northwest estimates of cetacean densities on finer more sophisticated modeling methods Training and Testing (NWTT) Study scales than traditional line-transect or are not available, and NMFS continues Area (Navy 2018). The planned mark-recapture analyses. to develop ways to quantitatively refine geophysical survey area is located near The methods used to estimate these tools and will qualitatively the western boundary of the defined pinniped at-sea densities are typically address the output where appropriate. NWTT Offshore Study Area. For mobile sources, such as the planned For several cetacean species, the Navy different than those used for cetaceans, seismic survey, the User Spreadsheet updated densities estimated by line- because pinnipeds are not limited to the predicts the closest distance at which a transect surveys or mark-recapture water and spend a significant amount of stationary animal would not incur PTS studies (e.g., Barlow 2016). These time on land (e.g., at rookeries). if the sound source traveled by the methods usually produce a single value Pinniped abundance is generally animal in a straight line at a constant for density that is an averaged estimate estimated via shore counts of animals speed. across very large geographical areas, on land at known haulout sites or by such as waters within the U.S. EEZ off counting number of pups weaned at Marine Mammal Occurrence California, Oregon, and Washington rookeries and applying a correction In this section we provide the (referred to as a ‘‘uniform’’ density factor to estimate the abundance of the information about the presence, density, estimate). This is the general approach population (for example Harvey et al., or group dynamics of marine mammals applied in estimating cetacean 1990; Jeffries et al., 2003; Lowry, 2002; that will inform the take calculations. abundance in the NMFS stock Sepulveda et al., 2009). Estimating in- In developing their IHA application, assessment reports. The disadvantage of water densities from land-based counts L-DEO utilized estimates of cetacean these methods is that they do not is difficult given the variability in densities in the survey area synthesized provide information on varied foraging ranges, migration, and haulout by Barlow (2016). Observations from concentrations of species in sub-regions behavior between species and within NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science of very large areas, and do not estimate each species, and is driven by factors Center (SWFSC) ship surveys off of density for other seasons or timeframes such as age class, sex class, breeding Oregon and Washington (up to 556 km that were not surveyed. More recently, cycles, and seasonal variation. Data from shore) between 1991 and 2014 a newer method called spatial habitat such as age class, sex class, and seasonal were pooled. Systematic, offshore, at-sea modeling has been used to estimate variation are often used in conjunction survey data for pinnipeds are more cetacean densities that address some of with abundance estimates from known limited. To calculate pinniped densities these shortcomings (e.g., Barlow et al., haulout sites to assign an in-water in the survey area, L-DEO utilized 2009; Becker et al., 2010; 2012a; 2014; abundance estimate for a given area. methods described in U.S. Navy (2010) Becker et al., 2016; Ferguson et al., The total abundance divided by the area which calculated density estimates for 2006; Forney et al., 2012; 2015; Redfern of the region provides a representative pinnipeds off Washington at different et al., 2006). (Note that spatial habitat in-water density estimate for each times of the year using information on models are also referred to as ‘‘species species in a different location, which breeding and migration, population distribution models’’ or ‘‘habitat-based enables analyses of in-water stressors estimates from shore counts, and areas density models.’’) These models resulting from at-sea Navy testing or used by different species while at sea. estimate density as a continuous training activities. In addition to using

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35084 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

shore counts to estimate pinniped 2016). Density data are not available for surveys north and south of the planned density, traditional line-transect derived the NWTT Offshore area northwest of survey area (RPS 2012a,c). estimates are also used, particularly in the SWFSC strata, so data from the Fin Whale open ocean areas. SWFSC Oregon/Washington stratum Because the Navy’s density were used as representative estimates. NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE calculations for many species included Sightings have been made off Oregon habitat-based density model for fin spatial habitat modeling and and Washington in shelf and deeper whales which provides spatially explicit demographic information, we utilized waters (Green et al. 1992; Adams et al. density estimates off the U.S. West the Navy Marine Species Density 2014; Carretta et al. 2017). An estimated Coast for summer and fall based on Database (NMSDD) to estimate densities abundance of 211 minke whales was survey data collected between 1991 and and resulting take of marine mammals reported for the Oregon/Washington 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Density from the planned geophysical survey. region based on sightings data from data are not available for the NWTT Where available, the appropriate 1991–2005 (Barlow and Forney 2007), Offshore area northwest of the SWFSC seasonal density estimate from the whereas a 2008 survey did not record strata, so the habitat-based density NMSDD was used in the estimation here any minke whales while on survey values in the northernmost pixels (i.e., summer). For species with a effort (Barlow 2010). The abundance for adjoining this region were interpolated quantitative density range within or Oregon/Washington for 2014 was based on the nearest-neighbor approach around the planned survey area, the estimated at 507 minke whales (Barlow to provide representative density estimates for this area. maximum presented density was 2016). There were no sightings of minke Fin whales are routinely sighted conservatively used. Background whales off Washington/Oregon during information on the density calculations during surveys off Oregon and the June–July 2012 L-DEO Juan de Fuca Washington (Barlow and Forney 2007; for each species/guild as well as plate seismic survey or during the July reported sightings in nearby waters are Barlow 2010; Adams et al. 2014; 2012 L-DEO seismic survey off Oregon, Calambokidis et al. 2015; Edwards et al. reported here. Density estimates for southeast of the planned survey area each species/guild are found in Table 7. 2015; Carretta et al. 2017), including in (RPS 2012b,c). One minke whale was coastal as well as offshore waters. They Humpback Whale seen during the July 2012 L-DEO have also been detected acoustically NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE seismic survey off southern Washington, near the planned study area during habitat-based density model for north of the planned survey area (RPS June–August (Edwards et al. 2015). humpback whales which provides 2012a). No sightings of minke whales There is one sighting of a fin whale in spatially explicit density estimates off were made near the planned survey area the Ocean Biogeographic Information the U.S. West Coast for summer and fall during the 2014 SWFSC CCE vessel System (OBIS) database within the based on survey data collected between survey (Barlow 2016). planned survey area, which was made 1991 and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Sei Whale in August 2005 during the SWFSC Density data are not available for the Collaborative Survey of Cetacean NWTT Offshore area northwest of the Density values for sei whales are Abundance and the Pelagic Ecosystem SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based available for the SWFSC Oregon/ (CSCAPE) Marine Mammal Survey, and density values in the northernmost Washington and Northern California several other sightings in adjacent pixels adjoining this region were offshore strata for summer/fall (Barlow, waters (OBIS 2018). Eight fin whale interpolated based on the nearest- 2016). Density data are not available for sightings (19 animals) were made off neighbor approach to provide the NWTT Offshore area northwest of Washington/Oregon during the June– representative density estimates for this the SWFSC strata, so data from the July 2012 L-DEO Juan de Fuca plate area. SWFSC Oregon/Washington stratum seismic survey, including two sightings Six humpback whale sightings (8 were used as representative estimates. (4 animals) in the vicinity of the animals) were made off Washington/ Sei whales are rare in the waters off planned survey area; sightings were Oregon during the June–July 2012 L- California, Oregon, and Washington made in waters 2,369–3,940 m deep DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey; (Brueggeman et al. 1990; Green et al. (RPS 2012b). Fourteen fin whale all were well inshore of the planned 1992; Barlow 1994, 1997). Only 16 sightings (28 animals) were made during survey area (RPS 2012b). There were 98 confirmed sightings were reported for the July 2012 L-DEO seismic surveys off humpback whale sightings (213 California, Oregon, and Washington southern Washington, northeast of the animals) made during the July 2012 L- during extensive surveys from 1991– planned survey area (RPS 2012a). No fin DEO seismic survey off southern 2014 (Green et al. 1992, 1993; Hill and whales were sighted during the July Washington, northeast of the planned Barlow 1992; Carretta and Forney 1993; 2012 L-DEO seismic survey off Oregon, survey area (RPS 2012a), and 11 Mangels and Gerrodette 1994; Von southeast of the planned survey area sightings (23 animals) during the July Saunder and Barlow 1999; Barlow 2003; (RPS 2012c). Fin whales were also seen 2012 L-DEO seismic survey off Oregon, Forney 2007; Barlow 2010; Carretta et off southern Oregon during July 2012 in southeast of the planned survey area al. 2017). Based on surveys conducted water >2,000 m deep during surveys by (RPS 2012c). No sightings were made in 1991–2008, the estimated abundance Adams et al. (2014). near the planned survey area in the of sei whales off the coasts of Oregon Blue Whale 2014 NMFS Southwest Fisheries and Washington was 52 (Barlow 2010); Science Center (SWFSC) California for 2014, the abundance estimate was NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE Current Ecosystem (CCE) vessel survey 468 (Barlow 2016). Two sightings of habitat-based density model for blue (Barlow 2016). four individuals were made during the whales which provides spatially explicit June–July 2012 L-DEO Juan de Fuca density estimates off the U.S. West Minke Whale plate seismic survey off Washington/ Coast for summer and fall based on Density values for minke whales are Oregon (RPS 2012b); these were well survey data collected between 1991 and available for the SWFSC Oregon/ inshore of the planned survey area 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Density Washington and Northern California (∼125° W). No sei whales were sighted data are not available for the NWTT offshore strata for summer/fall (Barlow, during the July 2012 L-DEO seismic Offshore area northwest of the SWFSC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35085

strata, so the habitat-based density Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are density model for the small beaked values in the northernmost pixels rarely sighted off Oregon and whale guild which provides spatially adjoining this region were interpolated Washington, with only one sighting of explicit density estimates off the U.S. based on the nearest-neighbor approach an unidentified Kogia sp. beyond the West Coast for summer and fall based to provide representative density U.S. EEZ, during the 1991–2014 NOAA on survey data collected between 1991 estimates for this area. vessel surveys (Carretta et al. 2017). and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). The nearest sighting of blue whales is This sighting was made in October 1993 Density data are not available for the ∼55 km to the southwest (OBIS 2018), during the SWFSC PODS Marine NWTT Offshore area northwest of the and there are several other sightings in Mammal Survey ∼150 km to the south SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based adjacent waters (Carretta et al. 2018; of the planned survey area (OBIS 2018). density values in the northernmost OBIS 2018). Satellite telemetry suggests Norman et al. (2004) reported eight pixels adjoining this region were that blue whales are present in waters confirmed stranding records of pygmy interpolated based on the nearest- offshore of Oregon and Washington sperm whales for Oregon and neighbor approach to provide during fall and winter (Bailey et al. Washington, five of which occurred representative density estimates for this 2009; Hazen et al. 2017). during autumn and winter. area. Four beaked whale sightings were Sperm Whale Baird’s Beaked Whale reported in water depths >2,000 m off NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE Oregon/Washington during surveys in habitat-based density model for Baird’s habitat-based density model for sperm 2008 (Barlow 2010). None were seen in beaked whale which provides spatially whales which provides spatially explicit 1996 or 2001 (Barlow 2003), and several explicit density estimates off the U.S. density estimates off the U.S. West were recorded from 1991 to 1995 West Coast for summer and fall based Coast for summer and fall based on (Barlow 1997). One Cuvier’s beaked on survey data collected between 1991 survey data collected between 1991 and whale sighting was made east of the and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Density planned survey area during 2014 Density data are not available for the data are not available for the NWTT (Barlow 2016). Acoustic monitoring in NWTT Offshore area northwest of the Offshore area northwest of the SWFSC Washington offshore waters detected SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based strata, so the habitat-based density Cuvier’s beaked whale pulses between density values in the northernmost January and November 2011 (Sˆ irovic´ et values in the northernmost pixels pixels adjoining this region were adjoining this region were interpolated interpolated based on the nearest- al. 2012b in USN 2015). There is one based on the nearest-neighbor approach neighbor approach to provide sighting of a Cuvier’s beaked whale near to provide representative density representative density estimates for this the planned survey area in the OBIS estimates for this area. area. database that was made in July 1996 There is one sighting of a sperm Green et al. (1992) sighted five groups during the SWFSC ORCAWALE Marine whale in the vicinity of the survey area during 75,050 km of aerial survey effort Mammal Survey (OBIS 2018), and in the OBIS database that was made in in 1989–1990 off Washington/Oregon several other sightings were made in July 1996 during the SWFSC spanning coastal to offshore waters: adjacent waters, primarily to the south ORCAWALE Marine Mammal Survey Two in slope waters and three in and east of the planned survey area (OBIS 2018), and several other sightings offshore waters. Two groups were (Carretta et al. 2018; OBIS 2018). in adjacent waters (Carretta et al. 2018; sighted during summer/fall 2008 Cuvier’s beaked whales were detected OBIS 2018). Sperm whale sightings surveys off Washington/Oregon, in acoustically in waters near the planned were also made in the vicinity of the waters >2,000 m deep (Barlow 2010). survey area in August 2016 during the planned survey area during the 2014 Acoustic monitoring offshore SWFSC PASCAL study using drifting SWFSC vessel survey (Barlow 2016). A Washington detected Baird’s beaked acoustic recorders (Keating et al. 2018). single sperm whale was sighted during whale pulses during January through There are no sightings of Blainville’s the 2009 ETOMO survey, north of the November 2011, with peaks in February beaked whales near the planned survey planned survey area (Holst 2017). and July (Sˆ irovic´ et al. 2012b in USN area in the OBIS database (OBIS 2018). Sperm whales were detected 2015). Baird’s beaked whales were There is one sighting of an unidentified acoustically in waters near the planned detected acoustically near the planned species of Mesoplodont whale near the survey area in August 2016 during the survey area in August 2016 during the survey area in the OBIS database that SWFSC Passive Acoustics Survey of SWFSC PASCAL study using drifting was made in July 1996 during the Cetacean Abundance Levels (PASCAL) acoustic recorders (Keating et al. 2018). SWFSC ORCAWALE Marine Mammal study using drifting acoustic recorders There is one sighting of a Baird’s beaked Survey (OBIS 2018). There was one (Keating et al. 2018). whale near the survey area in the OBIS acoustic encounter with Blainville’s beaked whales recorded in Quinault Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales (Kogia database that was made in August 2005 Canyon off Washington in waters 1,400 Guild) during the SWFSC CSCAPE Marine Mammal Survey (OBIS 2018). m deep during 2011 (Baumann- Kogia species are treated as a guild off Pickering et al. 2014). Blainville’s the U.S. West Coast (Barlow & Forney, Small Beaked Whale Guild beaked whales were not detected 2007). Barlow (2016) provided stratified NMFS has developed habitat-based acoustically in waters near the planned density estimates for Kogia spp. for density models for a small beaked whale survey area in August 2016 during the waters off California, Oregon, and guild in the CCE (Becker et al., 2012b; SWFSC PASCAL study using drifting Washington; these were used for all Forney et al., 2012). The small beaked acoustic recorders (Keating et al. 2018). seasons for both the Northern California whale guild includes Cuvier’s beaked Although Blainville’s beaked whales and Oregon/Washington strata. In the whale and beaked whales of the genus could be encountered during the absence of other data, the Barlow (2016) Mesoplodon, including Blainville’s planned survey, an encounter would be Oregon/Washington estimate was also beaked whale, Hubbs’ beaked whale, unlikely because the planned survey used for the area northwest of the and Stejneger’s beaked whale. NMFS area is beyond the northern limits of SWFSC strata for all seasons. SWFSC developed a CCE habitat-based this tropical species’ usual distribution.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35086 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

Stejneger’s beaked whale calls were West Coast for summer and fall based the U.S. West Coast in 2014, striped detected during acoustic monitoring on survey data collected between 1991 dolphins were seen as far north as 44° offshore Washington between January and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). N (Barlow 2016). and June 2011, with an absence of calls Density data are not available for the Short-Beaked from mid-July to November 2011 NWTT Offshore area northwest of the (Sˆ irovic´ et al. 2012b in USN 2015). SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based Short-beaked common dolphins are Analysis of these data suggest that this density values in the northernmost found off the U.S. West Coast species could be more than twice as pixels adjoining this region were throughout the year, distributed prevalent in this area than Baird’s interpolated based on the nearest- between the coast and at least 345 miles beaked whale (Baumann-Pickering et al. neighbor approach to provide (556 km) from shore (Barlow, 2010; 2014). Stejneger’s beaked whales were representative density estimates for this Becker et al., 2017; Carretta et al., also detected acoustically in waters near area. 2017b). The short-beaked common the planned survey area in August 2016 Bottlenose dolphins occur frequently dolphin is the most abundant cetacean during the SWFSC PASCAL study using off the coast of California, and sightings species off California (Barlow, 2016; drifting acoustic recorders (Keating et have been made as far north as 41° N, Carretta et al., 2017b; Forney et al., al. 2018). There are no sightings of but few records exist for Oregon/ 1995); however, their abundance Stejneger’s beaked whales near the Washington (Carretta et al. 2017). Three decreases dramatically north of about planned survey area in the OBIS sightings and one stranding of 40° N (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., database (OBIS 2018). There is one bottlenose dolphins have been 2012c; Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., sighting of an unidentified species of documented in Puget Sound since 2004 2012). Short-beaked common dolphins Mesoplodont beaked whale near the (Cascadia Research 2011 in USN 2015). are occasionally sighted in waters off survey area in the OBIS database that It is possible that offshore bottlenose Oregon and Washington, and one group was made during July 1996 during the dolphins may range as far north as the of approximately 40 short-beaked SWFSC ORCAWALE Marine Mammal planned survey area during warm-water common dolphins was sighted off Survey (OBIS 2018). periods (Carretta et al. 2017). Adams et northern Washington in 2005 at about Baird’s beaked whale is sometimes al. (2014) made one sighting off 48° N (Forney, 2007), and multiple seen close to shore where deep water Washington during September 2012. groups were sighted as far north as 44° approaches the coast, but its primary There are no sightings of bottlenose N during anomalously warm conditions habitat is over or near the continental dolphins near the planned survey area in 2014 (Barlow, 2016). NMFS SWFSC slope and oceanic seamounts (Jefferson in the OBIS database (OBIS 2018). developed a CCE habitat-based density et al. 2015). Along the U.S. West Coast, model for short-beaked common Striped Dolphin Baird’s beaked whales have been dolphins which provides spatially sighted primarily along the continental Striped dolphin encounters increase explicit density estimates off the U.S. slope (Green et al. 1992; Becker et al. in deep, relatively warmer waters off the West Coast for summer and fall based 2012; Carretta et al. 2018) from late U.S. West Coast, and their abundance on survey data collected between 1991 spring to early fall (Green et al. 1992). decreases north of about 42° N (Barlow and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). The whales move out from those areas et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2012b; Becker Density data are not available for the in winter (Reyes 1991). In the eastern et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2012). NWTT Offshore area northwest of the North Pacific Ocean, Baird’s beaked Although striped dolphins typically do SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based whales apparently spend the winter and not occur north of California, there are density values in the northernmost spring far offshore, and in June, they a few sighting records off Oregon and pixels adjoining this region were move onto the continental slope, where Washington (Barlow, 2003, 2010; Von interpolated based on the nearest- peak numbers occur during September Saunder & Barlow, 1999), and multiple neighbor approach to provide and October. Green et al. (1992) noted sightings in 2014 when water representative density estimates for this that Baird’s beaked whales on the U.S. temperatures were anomalously warm area. West Coast were most abundant in the (Barlow, 2016). NMFS SWFSC There are no sightings of short-beaked summer, and were not sighted in the fall developed a CCE habitat-based density dolphins near the planned survey area or winter. MacLeod et al. (2006) model for striped dolphins which in the OBIS database (OBIS 2018). provides spatially explicit density reported numerous sightings and Pacific White-Sided Dolphin strandings of Berardius spp. off the U.S. estimates off the U.S. West Coast for West Coast. summer and fall based on survey data Pacific white-sided dolphins occur collected between 1991 and 2014 year-round in the offshore region of the (Becker et al., in prep). Density data are NWTT Study Area, with increased During surveys off the U.S. West not available for the NWTT Offshore abundance in the summer/fall (Barlow, Coast, offshore bottlenose dolphins were area northwest of the SWFSC strata, so 2010; Forney & Barlow, 1998; Oleson et generally found at distances greater than the habitat-based density values in the al., 2009). NMFS SWFSC developed a 1.86 miles (3 km) from the coast and northernmost pixels adjoining this CCE habitat-based density model for were most abundant off southern region were interpolated based on the Pacific white-sided dolphins which California (Barlow, 2010, 2016). Based nearest-neighbor approach to provide provides spatially explicit density on sighting data collected by SWFSC representative density estimates for this estimates off the U.S. West Coast for during systematic surveys in the area. summer and fall based on survey data Northeast Pacific between 1986 and Striped dolphins regularly occur off collected between 1991 and 2014 2005, there were few sightings of California (Becker et al. 2012), where (Becker et al., in prep). Density data are offshore bottlenose dolphins north of they have been seen as far as the ∼300 not available for the NWTT Offshore about 40° N (Hamilton et al., 2009). n.mi. limit during the NOAA Fisheries area northwest of the SWFSC strata, so NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE habitat- vessel surveys (Carretta et al. 2017). the habitat-based density values in the based density model for bottlenose Strandings have occurred along the northernmost pixels adjoining this dolphins which provides spatially coasts of Oregon and Washington region were interpolated based on the explicit density estimates off the U.S. (Carretta et al. 2016). During surveys off nearest-neighbor approach to provide

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35087

representative density estimates for this dolphins which provides spatially were used to represent density year- area. explicit density estimates off the U.S. round. Fifteen Pacific white-sided dolphin West Coast for summer and fall based Eleven sightings of ∼536 individuals sightings (231 animals) were made off on survey data collected between 1991 were reported off Oregon/Washington Washington/Oregon during the June– and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). during the 2008 SWFSC vessel survey July 2012 L-DEO Juan de Fuca plate Density data are not available for the (Barlow 2010). Killer whales were seismic survey; none were near the NWTT Offshore area northwest of the sighted offshore Washington during planned survey area (RPS 2012b). There SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based surveys from August 2004 to September were fifteen Pacific white-sided dolphin density values in the northernmost 2008 (Oleson et al. 2009). Keating et al. sightings (462 animals) made during the pixels adjoining this region were (2015) analyzed cetacean whistles from July 2012 L-DEO seismic surveys off interpolated based on the nearest- recordings made during 2000–2012; southern Washington, northeast of the neighbor approach to provide several killer whale acoustic detections planned survey area (RPS 2012a). This representative density estimates for this were made offshore Washington. species was not sighted during the July area. Short-Finned Pilot Whale 2012 L-DEO seismic survey off Oregon, Two sightings of 38 individuals were Along the U.S. West Coast, short- southeast of the planned survey area recorded off Washington from August finned pilot whales were once common (RPS 2012c). One group of 10 Pacific 2004 to September 2008 (Oleson et al. white-sided dolphins was sighted south of Point Conception, California 2009). Risso’s dolphins were sighted off (Carretta et al., 2017b; Reilly & Shane, during the 2009 ETOMO survey north of Oregon, in June and October 2011 the planned survey area (Holst 2017). 1986), but now sightings off the U.S. (Adams et al. 2014). There were three West Coast are infrequent and typically Northern Risso’s dolphin sightings (31 animals) occur during warm water years (Carretta Survey data suggest that, at least in made during the July 2012 L-DEO et al., 2017b). Stranding records for this the eastern North Pacific, seasonal seismic surveys off southern species from Oregon and Washington inshore-offshore and north-south Washington, northeast of the planned waters are considered to be beyond the movements are related to prey survey area (RPS 2012a). This species normal range of this species rather than availability, with peak abundance in the was not sighted during the July 2012 L- an extension of its range (Norman et al., Southern California Bight during winter DEO seismic survey off Oregon, 2004). Density values for short-finned and distribution shifting northward into southeast of the planned survey area pilot whales are available for the Oregon and Washington as water (RPS 2012c), or off Washington/Oregon SWFSC Oregon/Washington and temperatures increase during late spring during the June–July 2012 L-DEO Juan Northern California strata for summer/ and summer (Barlow, 1995; Becker et de Fuca plate seismic survey (RPS fall (Barlow, 2016). Density data are not al., 2014; Forney et al., 1995; Forney & 2012b). available for the NWTT Offshore area Barlow, 1998; Leatherwood & Walker, northwest of the SWFSC strata, so data 1979). NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE from the SWFSC Oregon/Washington habitat-based density model for False killer whales were not included stratum were used as representative northern right whale dolphins which in the NMSDD, as they are very rarely estimates. These values were used to provides spatially explicit density encountered in the northeast Pacific. represent density year-round. estimates off the U.S. West Coast for Density estimates for false killer whales Few sightings were made off summer and fall based on survey data were also not presented in Barlow California/Oregon/Washington in 1984– collected between 1991 and 2014 (2016), as no sightings occurred during 1992 (Green et al. 1992; Carretta and (Becker et al., in prep). Density data are surveys conducted between 1986 and Forney 1993; Barlow 1997), and not available for the NWTT Offshore 2008 (Ferguson and Barlow 2001, 2003; sightings remain rare (Barlow 1997; area northwest of the SWFSC strata, so Forney 2007; Barlow 2003, 2010). One Buchanan et al. 2001; Barlow 2010). No the habitat-based density values in the sighting was made off of southern short-finned pilot whales were seen northernmost pixels adjoining this California during 2014 (Barlow 2016). during surveys off Oregon and region were interpolated based on the There are no sightings of false killer Washington in 1989–1990, 1992, 1996, nearest-neighbor approach to provide whales near the survey area in the OBIS and 2001 (Barlow 2003). A few sightings representative density estimates for this database (OBIS 2018). were made off California during surveys area. Killer Whale in 1991–2014 (Barlow 2010). Carretta et Seven northern right whale dolphin al. (2017) reported one sighting off sightings (231 animals) were made off Due to the difficulties associated with Oregon during 1991–2008. Several Washington/Oregon during the June– reliably distinguishing the different stranding events in Oregon/southern July 2012 L-DEO Juan de Fuca plate stocks of killer whales from at-sea Washington have been recorded over seismic survey; none were seen near the sightings, density estimates for the the past few decades, including in planned survey area (RPS 2012b). There Offshore region of the NWTT Study March 1996, June 1998, and August were eight northern right whale dolphin Area are presented for the species as a 2002 (Norman et al. 2004). sightings (278 animals) made during the whole (i.e., includes the Offshore, West Dall’s Porpoise July 2012 L-DEO seismic surveys off Coast Transient, Northern Resident, and southern Washington, northeast of the Southern Resident stocks). Density NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE planned survey area (RPS 2012a). This values for killer whales are available for habitat-based density model for Dall’s species was not sighted during the July the SWFSC Oregon/Washington and porpoise which provides spatially 2012 L-DEO seismic survey off Oregon, Northern California offshore strata for explicit density estimates off the U.S. southeast of the planned survey area summer/fall (Barlow, 2016). Density West Coast for summer and fall based (RPS 2012c). data are not available for the NWTT on survey data collected between 1991 Offshore area northwest of the SWFSC and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Risso’s Dolphin strata, so data from the SWFSC Oregon/ Density data are not available for the NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE Washington stratum were used as NWTT Offshore area northwest of the habitat-based density model for Risso’s representative estimates. These values SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35088 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

density values in the northernmost density estimates for northern fur seals m). A depth of 10 m is used as the pixels adjoining this region were did not include abundance data shoreward extent of the shelf (rather interpolated based on the nearest- collected from Bogoslof Island in 2015. than extending to shore), because neighbor approach to provide Incorporating the 2015 Bogoslof counts Guadalupe fur seals in the Offshore representative density estimates for this yielded an increased abundance Study Area are not expected to haul out area. estimate, and thus an increased density and would not be likely to come close Oleson et al. (2009) reported 44 of northern fur seals. The density to shore. All fur seals (i.e., 100 percent) sightings of 206 individuals off estimate increased from 0.0103 animals/ would use waters off the shelf (beyond Washington during surveys form August km2 to 0.01065 animals/km2. As a the 200-m isobath) out to 300 km from 2004 to September 2008. Dall’s porpoise result, the estimated take of northern fur shore, and 25 of percent of fur seals were seen in the waters off Oregon seals increased from 194 takes by Level would be expected to use waters during summer, fall, and winter surveys B harassment to 201. No Level A take between 300 and 700 km from shore in 2011 and 2012 (Adams et al. 2014). of northern fur seals is anticipated nor (including the planned geophysical Nineteen Dall’s porpoise sightings (144 authorized. survey area). The second stratum (200 m animals) were made off Washington/ Thirty-one northern fur seal sightings to 300 km from shore) is the preferred Oregon during the June–July 2012 L- (63 animals) were made off Washington/ habitat where Guadalupe fur seals are DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey; Oregon during the June–July 2012 L- most likely to occur most of the time. none were in near the planned survey DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey Individuals may spend a portion of their area (RPS 2012b). There were 16 Dall’s north of the planned survey area (RPS time over the continental shelf or farther porpoise sightings (54 animals) made 2012b). There were six sightings (6 than 300 km from shore, necessitating a during the July 2012 L-DEO seismic animals) made during the July 2012 L- density estimate for those areas, but all surveys off southern Washington, DEO seismic surveys off southern Guadalupe fur seals would be expected northeast of the planned survey area Washington, northeast of the planned to be in the central stratum most of the (RPS 2012a). This species was not survey area (RPS 2012a). This species time, which is the reason 100 percent is sighted during the July 2012 L-DEO was not sighted during the July 2012 L- used in the density estimate for the seismic survey off Oregon, southeast of DEO seismic survey off Oregon, central stratum (Norris, 2017a). Spatial the planned survey area (RPS 2012c). southeast of the planned survey area areas for the three strata were estimated Dall’s porpoise was the most frequently (RPS 2012c). in a GIS and used to calculate the sighted marine mammal species (5 Guadalupe Fur Seal densities. sightings of 28 animals) during the 2009 During the public comment period, ETOMO survey north of the planned As with northern fur seals, adult male the Commission noted that the Navy survey area (Holst 2017). Guadalupe fur seals are expected to be density estimate for Guadalupe fur seals ashore at breeding areas over the projected the abundance through 2017, Northern Fur Seal summer, and are not expected to be while L-DEO’s survey will occur in The Navy estimated the abundance of present during the planned geophysical 2019. The Commission recommended northern fur seals from the Eastern survey (Caretta et al., 2017b; Norris calculating the abundance estimate in Pacific stock and the California breeding 2017b). Additionally, breeding females 2019 using the annual growth rate stock that could occur in the NWTT are unlikely to be present within the above. This calculation yielded an Offshore Study Area by determining the Offshore Study Area as they remain increased density estimate of Guadalupe percentage of time tagged animals spent ashore to nurse their pups through the fur seals, from 0.0029 animals/km2 to within the Study Area and applying that fall and winter, making only short 0.00343 animals/km2. As such, the take percentage to the population to foraging trips from rookeries (Gallo- estimate increased from 55 takes by calculate an abundance for adult Reynoso et al., 2008; Norris 2017b; Level B harassment to 65. No Level A females, juveniles, and pups Yochem et al., 1987). To estimate the take of Guadalupe fur seals is independently on a monthly basis. total abundance of Guadalupe fur seals, anticipated or authorized. Adult males are not expected to occur the Navy adjusted the population Guadalupe fur seals have not within the Offshore Study Area and the reported in the 2016 SAR (Caretta et al., previously been observed in the planned survey area during the planned 2017b) of 20,000 seals by applying the planned survey area, nor on previous L- geophysical survey as they spend the average annual growth rate of 7.64 DEO surveys off Washington and summer ashore at breeding areas in the percent over the seven years between Oregon. Bering Sea and San Miguel Island 2010 and 2017. The resulting 2017 (Caretta et al., 2017b). Using the projected abundance was 33,485 fur Northern Elephant Seal monthly abundances of fur seals within seals. Using the reported composition of The most recent surveys supporting the Offshore Study Area, the Navy the breeding population of Guadalupe the abundance estimate for northern created strata to estimate the density of fur seals (Gallo-Reynoso 1994) and elephant seals were conducted in 2010 fur seals within three strata: 22 km to 70 satellite telemetry data (Norris 2017b), (Caretta et al., 2017b). By applying the km from shore, 70 km to 130 km from the Navy established seasonal and average growth rate of 3.8 percent per shore, and 130 km to 463 km from shore demographic abundances of fur seals year for the California breeding stock (the western Study Area boundary). L- expected to occur within the Offshore over the seven years from 2010 to 2017, DEO’s planned survey is 423 km from Study Area. the Navy calculated a projected 2017 shore at the closest point. Based on The distribution of Guadalupe fur abundance estimate of 232,399 elephant satellite tag data and historic sealing seals in the Offshore Study Area was seals (Caretta et al., 2017b; Lowry et al., records (Olesiuk 2012; Kajimura 1984), stratified by distance from shore (or 2014). Male and female distributions at the Navy assumed 25 percent of the water depth) to reflect their preferred sea differ both seasonally and spatially. population present within the overall pelagic habitat (Norris, 2017a). Ten Pup counts reported by Lowry et al., Offshore Study Area may be within the percent of fur seals in the Study Area (2014) and life tables compiled by 130 km to 463 km stratum. are expected to use waters over the Condit et al., (2014) were used to During the public comment period, continental shelf (approximated as determine the proportion of males and the Commission noted that the Navy’s waters with depths between 10 and 200 females in the population, which was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35089

estimated to be 56 percent female and (Jannot et al. 2011). Northern elephant TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY 44 percent male. Females are assumed seals were sighted five times (5 animals) VALUES IN THE SURVEY AREA— to be at sea 100 percent of the time during the July 2012 L-DEO seismic Continued within their seasonal distribution area surveys off southern Washington, in fall and summer (Robinson et al., northeast of the planned survey area Reported 2012). Males are at sea approximately 90 (RPS 2012a). This species was not Species density percent of the time in fall and spring, sighted during the July 2012 L-DEO (#/km2) a seismic survey off Oregon, southeast of remain ashore through the entire winter, c the planned survey area (RPS 2012c), or Guadalupe fur seal ...... 0.00343 and spend one month ashore to molt in Phocids: the summer (i.e., are at sea 66 percent off Washington/Oregon during the June– Northern elephant seal .. c 0.03333 of the summer). Monthly distribution July 2012 L-DEO Juan de Fuca plate maps produced by Robinson et al. seismic survey that included the a Navy 2018. planned survey area (RPS 2012b). One b No stock-specific densities are available so (2012) showing the extent of foraging densities are presumed equal for all stocks areas used by satellite tagged female northern elephant seal was sighted present. elephant seals were used to estimate the during the 2009 ETOMO survey north of c Density estimate increased from that pre- spatial areas to calculate densities. the planned survey area (Holst 2017). sented in Federal Register notice of proposed Although the distributions were based IHA (84 FR 26940; June 10, 2019). on tagged female seals, Le Boeuf et al. TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY Take Calculation and Estimation (2000) and Simmons et al. (2007) VALUES IN THE SURVEY AREA reported similar tracks by males over Here we describe how the information broad spatial scales. The spatial areas Reported provided above is brought together to Species density produce a quantitative take estimate. In representing each monthly distribution (#/km2) a were calculating using GIS and then order to estimate the number of marine averaged to produce seasonally variable LF Cetaceans: mammals predicted to be exposed to areas and resulting densities. Humpback whale ...... 0.001829 sound levels that would result in Level Similar to the Guadalupe fur seal Minke whale ...... 0.0013 A or Level B harassment, radial above, the Commission suggested using Sei whale ...... 0.0004 distances from the airgun array to the population growth rate above to Fin whale ...... 0.004249 predicted isopleths corresponding to the calculate the abundance of northern Blue whale ...... 0.001096 Level A harassment and Level B MF Cetaceans: elephant seals in 2019. The resulting Sperm whale ...... 0.002561 harassment thresholds are calculated, as density estimate of northern elephant Cuvier’s and described above. Those radial distances seals increased from 0.0309 animals/ Mesoplodont beaked are then used to calculate the area(s) km2 to 0.03333 animals/km2. As such, whales ...... 0.007304 around the airgun array predicted to be the estimated take by Level B Baird’s beaked whale .... 0.00082 ensonified to sound levels that exceed harassment increased from 583 to 629 Bottlenose dolphin ...... 0.000003 the Level A and Level B harassment animals. Take of northern elephant seals Striped dolphin ...... 0.009329 thresholds. The area estimated to be Short-beaked common ensonified in a single day of the survey by Level A harassment is not dolphin ...... 0.124891 anticipated or authorized. Pacific white-sided dol- is then calculated (Table 8), based on Off Washington, most elephant seal phin ...... 0.017426 the areas predicted to be ensonified sightings at sea were made during June, Northern right-whale dol- around the array and representative July, and September; off Oregon, phin ...... 0.039962 trackline distances traveled per day. sightings were recorded from November Risso’s dolphin ...... 0.007008 This number is then multiplied by the through May (Bonnell et al. 1992). False killer whale ...... N/A number of survey days. The product is b Several seals were seen off Oregon Killer whale ...... 0.00092 then multiplied by 1.25 to account for Short-finned pilot whale 0.00025 the additional 25 percent contingency. during summer, fall, and winter surveys HF Cetaceans: in 2011 and 2012 (Adams et al. 2014). Kogia spp...... 0.00163 This results in an estimate of the total Northern elephant seals were also taken Dall’s porpoise ...... 0.043951 areas (km2) expected to be ensonified to as bycatch off Oregon in the west coast Otariids: the Level A and Level B harassment groundfish fishery during 2002–2009 Northern fur seal ...... bc0.01065 thresholds.

TABLE 8—AREAS (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS, PER DAY

Daily Relevant ensonified Total survey Total Survey Criteria isopleth area days 25% increase ensonified (m) area (km2) (km2)

Level B Harassment

2-D Survey ...... 160-dB ...... 6,733 1,346.90 3 1.25 5,050.86

Level A Harassment

LF Cetaceans ...... 426.9 158.67 3 1.25 595.01 HF Cetaceans ...... 268.3 99.77 3 1.25 374.12 Phocids ...... 43.7 16.26 3 1.25 60.96 MF Cetaceans ...... 13.6 5.06 3 1.25 18.97 Otariids ...... 10.6 3.94 3 1.25 14.79

Level B Harassment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35090 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

TABLE 8—AREAS (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS, PER DAY—Continued

Relevant Daily Total ensonified Total survey 25% increase ensonified Survey Criteria isopleth area days (m) area (km2) (km2)

3-D Survey ...... 160-dB ...... 3,758 690.52 16 1.25 13,810.40

Level A Harassment

LF Cetaceans ...... 118.7 47.39 16 1.25 947.74 HF Cetaceans ...... 75.6 30.13 16 1.25 602.59 Phocids ...... 25.1 9.98 16 1.25 199.59 MF Cetaceans ...... 11.2 4.45 16 1.25 89.01 Otariids ...... 9.9 3.93 16 1.25 78.67

The marine mammals predicted to subtracted from the total exposures animals and reducing the Level B takes occur within these respective areas, within the Level B harassment zone. to six animals. NMFS agreed and has based on estimated densities, are During the public comment period, the made that change. Authorized takes for assumed to be incidentally taken. For Commission noted that the typical the planned survey are shown in Table species where take by Level A group size for sei whales is two animals 9. harassment has been requested, the (Barlow 2016) and recommended calculated Level A takes have been increasing the Level A take to two

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B EXPOSURES, AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK EXPOSED

Percent Species Stock Level B Level A Total take of stock

LF Cetaceans: Humpback whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 32 3 35 1.21 Minke whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 23 2 25 3.93 Sei whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 6 2 8 1.54 Fin whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 74 7 81 0.90 Blue whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 19 2 21 1.28 MF Cetaceans: Sperm whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 48 0 48 2.40 Cuvier’s and Mesoplodont California/Oregon/Washington ...... 138 0 138 a 2.18 beaked whales. Baird’s beaked whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 15 0 15 0.56 Bottlenose dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... b 13 0 b 13 0.68 Striped dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 176 0 176 0.60 Short-beaked common dolphin .. California/Oregon/Washington ...... 2356 0 2356 0.24 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 329 0 329 1.23 Northern right-whale dolphin ..... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 754 0 754 2.82 Risso’s dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 132 0 132 2.08 False killer whale ...... Hawaii Pelagic ...... b 5 0 b 5 0.32 Killer whale ...... Offshore ...... 17 0 17 c 5.67 West Coast Transient ...... c 7.00 Short-finned pilot whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... b 18 0 b 18 2.15 HF Cetaceans: Kogia spp...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 29 2 31 0.71 Dall’s porpoise ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 786 43 829 3.05 Otariids: Northern fur seal ...... Eastern Pacific ...... 201 0 201 c 0.03 California ...... c 1.43 Guadalupe fur seal ...... Mexico ...... 65 0 65 0.33 Phocids: Northern elephant seal ...... California Breeding ...... 629 0 629 0.35 a Combined stock abundances for Cuvier’s beaked whales and Mesoplodont guild. b Calculated take increased to mean group size (Barlow 2016). c Where multiple stocks are affected, for the purposes of calculating the percentage of stock affected, takes are analyzed as if all takes oc- curred within each stock.

It should be noted that the authorized added in the form of operational survey sub-standard, and in recognition of the take numbers shown in Table 9 are days to account for the possibility of uncertainties in the density estimates expected to be conservative for several additional seismic operations associated used to estimate take as described reasons. First, in the calculations of with airgun testing and repeat coverage above. Additionally, marine mammals estimated take, 25 percent has been of any areas where initial data quality is would be expected to move away from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35091

a loud sound source that represents an of a military readiness activity, intended to (1) provide additional aversive stimulus, such as an airgun personnel safety, practicality of protection to naı¨ve marine mammals array, potentially reducing the number implementation, and impact on the that may be in the area during pre- of takes by Level A harassment. effectiveness of the military readiness clearance, and (2) during airgun use, aid However, the extent to which marine activity. in establishing and maintaining the mammals would move away from the L-DEO has reviewed mitigation exclusion zone by alerting the visual sound source is difficult to quantify and measures employed during seismic observer and crew of marine mammals is, therefore, not accounted for in the research surveys authorized by NMFS that are outside of, but may approach take estimates. under previous incidental harassment and enter, the exclusion zone. Note that due to the different density authorizations, as well as recommended L-DEO must use at least five estimates used, and in consideration of best practices in Richardson et al. dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved the near-field soundscape of the airgun (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and Protected Species Observers (PSOs). The array, we have authorized a different Dolman (2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), PSOs must have no tasks other than to number of incidental takes than the Wright (2014), and Wright and conduct observational effort, record number of incidental takes requested by Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated observational data, and communicate L-DEO (see Table 6 in the IHA a suite of required mitigation measures with and instruct relevant vessel crew application). into their project description based on with regard to the presence of marine the above sources. mammals and mitigation requirements. Mitigation To reduce the potential for PSO resumes shall be provided to In order to issue an IHA under disturbance from acoustic stimuli NMFS for approval. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, associated with the activities, L-DEO is At least one of the visual and two of NMFS must set forth the permissible required to implement mitigation the acoustic PSOs aboard the vessel methods of taking pursuant to such measures for marine mammals. must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea activity, and other means of effecting Mitigation measures that would be experience working in those roles, the least practicable impact on such adopted during the planned surveys respectively, during a deep penetration species or stock and its habitat, paying include (1) Vessel-based visual (i.e., ‘‘high energy’’) seismic survey, particular attention to rookeries, mating mitigation monitoring; (2) Vessel-based with no more than 18 months elapsed grounds, and areas of similar passive acoustic monitoring; (3) since the conclusion of the at-sea significance, and on the availability of Establishment of an exclusion zone; (4) experience. One visual PSO with such such species or stock for taking for Power down procedures; (5) Shutdown experience shall be designated as the certain subsistence uses (latter not procedures; (6) Ramp-up procedures; lead for the entire protected species applicable for this action). NMFS and (7) Vessel strike avoidance observation team. The lead PSO shall regulations require applicants for measures. serve as primary point of contact for the incidental take authorizations to include vessel operator and ensure all PSO Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation information about the availability and requirements per the IHA are met. To Monitoring feasibility (economic and technological) the maximum extent practicable, the of equipment, methods, and manner of Visual monitoring requires the use of experienced PSOs should be scheduled conducting such activity or other means trained observers (herein referred to as to be on duty with those PSOs with of effecting the least practicable adverse visual PSOs) to scan the ocean surface appropriate training but who have not impact upon the affected species or visually for the presence of marine yet gained relevant experience. stocks and their habitat (50 CFR mammals. The area to be scanned During survey operations (e.g., any 216.104(a)(11)). visually includes primarily the day on which use of the acoustic source In evaluating how mitigation may or exclusion zone, but also the buffer zone. is planned to occur, and whenever the may not be appropriate to ensure the The buffer zone means an area beyond acoustic source is in the water, whether least practicable adverse impact on the exclusion zone to be monitored for activated or not), a minimum of two species or stocks and their habitat, as the presence of marine mammals that visual PSOs must be on duty and well as subsistence uses where may enter the exclusion zone. During conducting visual observations at all applicable, we carefully consider two pre-clearance monitoring (i.e., before times during daylight hours (i.e., from primary factors: ramp-up begins), the buffer zone also 30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 (1) The manner in which, and the acts as an extension of the exclusion minutes following sunset) and 30 degree to which, the successful zone in that observations of marine minutes prior to and during nighttime implementation of the measure(s) is mammals within the buffer zone would ramp-ups of the airgun array. Visual expected to reduce impacts to marine also prevent airgun operations from monitoring of the exclusion and buffer mammals, marine mammal species or beginning (i.e. ramp-up). The buffer zones must begin no less than 30 stocks, and their habitat. This considers zone encompasses the area at and below minutes prior to ramp-up and must the nature of the potential adverse the sea surface from the edge of the continue until one hour after use of the impact being mitigated (likelihood, 0–500 m exclusion zone, out to a radius acoustic source ceases or until 30 scope, range). It further considers the of 1,000 m from the edges of the airgun minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall likelihood that the measure will be array (500–1,000 m). Visual monitoring coordinate to ensure 360° visual effective if implemented (probability of of the exclusion zones and adjacent coverage around the vessel from the accomplishing the mitigating result if waters is intended to establish and, most appropriate observation posts, and implemented as planned), the when visual conditions allow, maintain shall conduct visual observations using likelihood of effective implementation zones around the sound source that are binoculars and the naked eye while free (probability implemented as planned); clear of marine mammals, thereby from distractions and in a consistent, and reducing or eliminating the potential for systematic, and diligent manner. (2) the practicability of the measures injury and minimizing the potential for PSOs shall establish and monitor the for applicant implementation, which more severe behavioral reactions for exclusion and buffer zones. These zones may consider such things as cost, animals occurring close to the vessel. shall be based upon the radial distance impact on operations, and, in the case Visual monitoring of the buffer zone is from the edges of the acoustic source

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35092 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

(rather than being based on the center of Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory the array or around the vessel itself). would take place in addition to the injury, disruption of critical behaviors. During use of the acoustic source (i.e., visual monitoring program. Visual The PSOs would establish a minimum anytime airguns are active, including monitoring typically is not effective EZ with a 500-m radius. The 500-m EZ ramp-up), occurrences of marine during periods of poor visibility or at would be based on radial distance from mammals within the buffer zone (but night, and even with good visibility, is any element of the airgun array (rather outside the exclusion zone) shall be unable to detect marine mammals when than being based on the center of the communicated to the operator to they are below the surface or beyond array or around the vessel itself). With prepare for the potential shutdown or visual range. Acoustical monitoring can certain exceptions (described below), if powerdown of the acoustic source. be used in addition to visual a marine mammal appears within or During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime observations to improve detection, enters this zone, the acoustic source the acoustic source is active, including identification, and localization of would be shut down. ramp-up), occurrences of marine cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring The 500-m EZ is intended to be mammals within the buffer zone (but would serve to alert visual PSOs (if on precautionary in the sense that it would outside the exclusion zone) should be duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are be expected to contain sound exceeding communicated to the operator to detected. It is only useful when marine the injury criteria for all cetacean prepare for the potential shutdown or mammals call, but it can be effective hearing groups, (based on the dual powerdown of the acoustic source. either by day or by night, and does not criteria of SELcum and peak SPL), while Visual PSOs will immediately depend on good visibility. It would be also providing a consistent, reasonably communicate all observations to the on monitored in real time so that the visual observable zone within which PSOs duty acoustic PSO(s), including any observers can be advised when would typically be able to conduct determination by the PSO regarding cetaceans are detected. effective observational effort. species identification, distance, and The R/V Langseth will use a towed Additionally, a 500-m EZ is expected to bearing and the degree of confidence in PAM system, which must be monitored minimize the likelihood that marine mammals will be exposed to levels the determination. Any observations of by at a minimum one on duty acoustic likely to result in more severe marine mammals by crew members PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior behavioral responses. Although shall be relayed to the PSO team. During to ramp-up and at all times during use significantly greater distances may be good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; of the acoustic source. Acoustic PSOs observed from an elevated platform Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), visual may be on watch for a maximum of four under good conditions, we believe that PSOs shall conduct observations when consecutive hours followed by a break 500 m is likely regularly attainable for the acoustic source is not operating for of at least one hour between watches PSOs using the naked eye during typical comparison of sighting rates and and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period. conditions. behavior with and without use of the An extended EZ of 1,500 m must be acoustic source and between acquisition Combined observational duties (acoustic and visual but not at same time) may enforced for all beaked whales, and periods, to the maximum extent dwarf and pygmy sperm whales. practicable. Visual PSOs may be on not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period watch for a maximum of four for any individual PSO. Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up consecutive hours followed by a break Survey activity may continue for 30 minutes when the PAM system Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as of at least one hour between watches ‘‘soft start’’) means the gradual and and may conduct a maximum of 12 malfunctions or is damaged, while the PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the systematic increase of emitted sound hours of observation per 24-hour period. levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up Combined observational duties (visual diagnosis indicates that the PAM system must be repaired to solve the problem, begins by first activating a single airgun and acoustic but not at same time) may of the smallest volume, followed by operations may continue for an not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period doubling the number of active elements additional two hours without acoustic for any individual PSO. in stages until the full complement of an monitoring during daylight hours only array’s airguns are active. Each stage Passive Acoustic Monitoring under the following conditions: • Sea state is less than or equal to should be approximately the same Acoustic monitoring means the use of BSS 4; duration, and the total duration should trained personnel (sometimes referred to • No marine mammals (excluding not be less than approximately 20 as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) delphinids) detected solely by PAM in minutes. The intent of pre-clearance operators, herein referred to as acoustic the applicable exclusion zone in the observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to previous two hours; protected species are observed within acoustically detect the presence of • NMFS is notified via email as soon the buffer zone prior to the beginning of marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring as practicable with the time and ramp-up. During pre-clearance is the involves acoustically detecting marine location in which operations began only time observations of protected mammals regardless of distance from occurring without an active PAM species in the buffer zone would the source, as localization of animals system; and prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of may not always be possible. Acoustic • Operations with an active acoustic ramp-up). The intent of ramp-up is to monitoring is intended to further source, but without an operating PAM warn protected species of pending support visual monitoring (during system, do not exceed a cumulative total seismic operations and to allow daylight hours) in maintaining an of four hours in any 24-hour period. sufficient time for those animals to leave exclusion zone around the sound source the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up that is clear of marine mammals. In Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer procedure, involving a step-wise cases where visual monitoring is not Zones increase in the number of airguns firing effective (e.g., due to weather, An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined and total array volume until all nighttime), acoustic monitoring may be area within which occurrence of a operational airguns are activated and used to allow certain activities to occur, marine mammal triggers mitigation the full volume is achieved, is required as further detailed below. action intended to reduce the potential at all times as part of the activation of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35093

the acoustic source. All operators must operational planning cannot reasonably deactivated and any dispute resolved adhere to the following pre-clearance avoid such circumstances; only following deactivation. and ramp-up requirements: • If the acoustic source is shut down Additionally, shutdown will occur • The operator must notify a for brief periods (i.e., less than 30 whenever PAM alone (without visual designated PSO of the planned start of minutes) for reasons other than that sighting), confirms presence of marine ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead described for shutdown and powerdown mammal(s) in the EZ. If the acoustic PSO; the notification time should not be (e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be PSO cannot confirm presence within the less than 60 minutes prior to the activated again without ramp-up if PSOs EZ, visual PSOs will be notified but planned ramp-up in order to allow the have maintained constant visual and/or shutdown is not required. PSOs time to monitor the exclusion and acoustic observation and no visual or Following a shutdown, airgun activity buffer zones for 30 minutes prior to the acoustic detections of marine mammals would not resume until the marine initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance); have occurred within the applicable mammal has cleared the 500-m EZ. The • Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as exclusion zone. For any longer animal would be considered to have to minimize the time spent with the shutdown, pre-clearance observation cleared the 500-m EZ if it is visually source activated prior to reaching the and ramp-up are required. For any observed to have departed the 500-m designated run-in; shutdown at night or in periods of poor EZ, or it has not been seen within the • One of the PSOs conducting pre- visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp- 500-m EZ for 15 min in the case of small clearance observations must be notified up is required, but if the shutdown odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in again immediately prior to initiating period was brief and constant the case of mysticetes and large ramp-up procedures and the operator observation was maintained, pre- odontocetes, including sperm whales, must receive confirmation from the PSO clearance watch of 30 min is not pygmy sperm whales, dwarf sperm to proceed; required; and whales, pilot whales, beaked whales, • Ramp-up may not be initiated if any • Testing of the acoustic source and Risso’s dolphins. marine mammal is within the applicable involving all elements requires ramp- The shutdown requirement can be exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine up. Testing limited to individual source waived for small dolphins in which case mammal is observed within the elements or strings does not require the acoustic source shall be powered applicable exclusion zone or the buffer ramp-up but does require pre-clearance down to the single 40-in3 airgun if an zone during the 30 minute pre-clearance of 30 min. individual is visually detected within period, ramp-up may not begin until the the exclusion zone. As defined here, the Shutdown and Powerdown animal(s) has been observed exiting the small delphinoid group is intended to zones or until an additional time period The shutdown of an airgun array encompass those members of the Family has elapsed with no further sightings requires the immediate de-activation of Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily (15 minutes for small odontocetes and all individual airgun elements of the approach the source vessel for purposes pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for all array while a powerdown requires of interacting with the vessel and/or mysticetes and all other odontocetes, immediate de-activation of all airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This including sperm whales, pygmy sperm individual airgun elements of the array exception to the shutdown requirement whales, dwarf sperm whales, beaked except the single 40-in3 airgun. Any applies solely to specific genera of small whales, pilot whales, and Risso’s PSO on duty will have the authority to dolphins—Tursiops, Delphinus, dolphins); delay the start of survey operations or to Stenella, Lagenorhynchus, and • Ramp-up shall begin by activating a call for shutdown or powerdown of the Lissodelphis. The acoustic source must single airgun of the smallest volume in acoustic source if a marine mammal is be powered down to 40-in3 airgun if an the array and shall continue in stages by detected within the applicable individual belonging to these genera is doubling the number of active elements exclusion zone. The operator must also visually detected within the 500-m at the commencement of each stage, establish and maintain clear lines of exclusion zone. with each stage of approximately the communication directly between PSOs Powerdown conditions shall be same duration. Duration shall not be on duty and crew controlling the maintained until delphinids for which less than 20 minutes. The operator must acoustic source to ensure that shutdown shutdown is waived are no longer provide information to the PSO and powerdown commands are observed within the 500-m exclusion documenting that appropriate conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs zone, following which full-power procedures were followed; to maintain watch. When both visual operations may be resumed without • PSOs must monitor the exclusion and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all ramp-up. Visual PSOs may elect to and buffer zones during ramp-up, and detections will be immediately waive the powerdown requirement if ramp-up must cease and the source communicated to the remainder of the delphinids for which shutdown is must be shut down upon observation of on-duty PSO team for potential waived to be voluntarily approaching a marine mammal within the applicable verification of visual observations by the the vessel for the purpose of interacting exclusion zone. Once ramp-up has acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections with the vessel or towed gear, and may begun, observations of marine mammals by visual PSOs. When the airgun array use best professional judgment in within the buffer zone do not require is active (i.e., anytime one or more making this decision. shutdown or powerdown, but such airguns is active, including during We include this small delphinoid observation shall be communicated to ramp-up and powerdown) and (1) a exception because power-down/ the operator to prepare for the potential marine mammal appears within or shutdown requirements for small shutdown or powerdown; enters the applicable exclusion zone delphinoids under all circumstances • Ramp-up may occur at times of and/or (2) a marine mammal (other than represent practicability concerns poor visibility, including nighttime, if delphinids, see below) is detected without likely commensurate benefits appropriate acoustic monitoring has acoustically and localized within the for the animals in question. Small occurred with no detections in the 30 applicable exclusion zone, the acoustic delphinoids are generally the most minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. source will be shut down. When commonly observed marine mammals Acoustic source activation may only shutdown is called for by a PSO, the in the specific geographic region and occur at times of poor visibility where acoustic source will be immediately would typically be the only marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35094 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

mammals likely to intentionally larger exclusion zone). If PSOs observe the vessel strike avoidance zone can be approach the vessel. As described any behaviors in a small delphinid for either third-party observers or crew above, auditory injury is extremely which shutdown is waived that indicate members, but crew members unlikely to occur for mid-frequency an adverse reaction, then powerdown responsible for these duties must be cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), as this will be initiated immediately. provided sufficient training to group is relatively insensitive to sound Upon implementation of shutdown, distinguish marine mammals from other produced at the predominant the source may be reactivated after the phenomena and broadly to identify a frequencies in an airgun pulse while marine mammal(s) has been observed marine mammal to broad taxonomic also having a relatively high threshold exiting the applicable exclusion zone group (i.e., as a large whale or other for the onset of auditory injury (i.e., (i.e., animal is not required to fully exit marine mammal); permanent threshold shift). the buffer zone where applicable) or 2. Vessel speeds must be reduced to A large body of anecdotal evidence following 15 minutes for small 10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs, indicates that small delphinoids odontocetes and pinnipeds, and 30 pods, or large assemblages of any commonly approach vessels and/or minutes for mysticetes and all other marine mammal are observed near a towed arrays during active sound odontocetes, including sperm whales, vessel; production for purposes of bow riding, pygmy sperm whales, dwarf sperm 3. All vessels must maintain a with no apparent effect observed in whales, beaked whales, pilot whales, minimum separation distance of 100 m those delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., and Risso’s dolphins, with no further from large whales (i.e., sperm whales 2012). The potential for increased observation of the marine mammal(s). and all baleen whales); shutdowns resulting from such a The following shutdown requirements 4. All vessels must attempt to measure would require the Langseth to have been added to the final IHA as they maintain a minimum separation revisit the missed track line to reacquire were not included in the proposed IHA: distance of 50 m from all other marine data, resulting in an overall increase in • L-DEO must implement shutdown mammals, with an exception made for the total sound energy input to the if a marine mammal species for which those animals that approach the vessel; marine environment and an increase in take was not authorized, or a species for and the total duration over which the survey which authorization was granted but the 5. When marine mammals are sighted is active in a given area. Although other takes have been met, approaches the while a vessel is underway, the vessel mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., Level A or Level B harassment zones; should take action as necessary to avoid large delphinoids) are no more likely to • L-DEO must implement shutdown violating the relevant separation incur auditory injury than are small if any large whale (defined as a sperm distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel delphinoids, they are much less likely whale or any mysticete species) with a to the animal’s course, avoid excessive to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining calf (defined as an animal less than two- speed or abrupt changes in direction a power-down/shutdown requirement thirds the body size of an adult observed until the animal has left the area). If for large delphinoids would not have to be in close association with an adult) marine mammals are sighted within the similar impacts in terms of either or an aggregation of six or more large relevant separation distance, the vessel practicability for the applicant or whales is observed at any distance; and should reduce speed and shift the corollary increase in sound energy • L-DEO must implement shutdown engine to neutral, not engaging the output and time on the water. We do if a North Pacific right whale is engines until animals are clear of the anticipate some benefit for a power- observed at any distance. area. This recommendation does not apply to any vessel towing gear. down/shutdown requirement for large Vessel Strike Avoidance delphinoids in that it simplifies We have carefully evaluated the suite somewhat the total range of decision- These measures apply to all vessels of mitigation measures described here making for PSOs and may preclude any associated with the planned survey and considered a range of other potential for physiological effects other activity; however, we note that these measures in the context of ensuring that than to the auditory system as well as requirements do not apply in any case we prescribe the means of effecting the some more severe behavioral reactions where compliance would create an least practicable adverse impact on the for any such animals in close proximity imminent and serious threat to a person affected marine mammal species and to the source vessel. or vessel or to the extent that a vessel stocks and their habitat. Based on our Powerdown conditions shall be is restricted in its ability to maneuver evaluation of the required measures, maintained until the marine mammal(s) and, because of the restriction, cannot NMFS has determined that the of the above listed genera are no longer comply. These measures include the mitigation measures provide the means observed within the exclusion zone, following: effecting the least practicable impact on following which full-power operations 1. Vessel operators and crews must the affected species or stocks and their may be resumed without ramp-up. maintain a vigilant watch for all marine habitat, paying particular attention to Additionally, visual PSOs may elect to mammals and slow down, stop their rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of waive the powerdown requirement if vessel, or alter course, as appropriate similar significance. the small dolphin(s) appear to be and regardless of vessel size, to avoid voluntarily approaching the vessel for striking any marine mammal. A single Monitoring and Reporting the purpose of interacting with the marine mammal at the surface may In order to issue an IHA for an vessel or towed gear, and may use best indicate the presence of submerged activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the professional judgment in making this animals in the vicinity of the vessel; MMPA states that NMFS must set forth decision. Visual PSOs shall use best therefore, precautionary measures requirements pertaining to the professional judgment in making the should be exercised when an animal is monitoring and reporting of such taking. decision to call for a shutdown if there observed. A visual observer aboard the The MMPA implementing regulations at is uncertainty regarding identification vessel must monitor a vessel strike 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that (i.e., whether the observed marine avoidance zone around the vessel requests for authorizations must include mammal(s) belongs to one of the (specific distances detailed below), to the suggested means of accomplishing delphinid genera for which shutdown is ensure the potential for strike is the necessary monitoring and reporting waived or one of the species with a minimized. Visual observers monitoring that will result in increased knowledge

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35095

of the species and of the level of taking • The operator will work with the experience. Requests for such a waiver or impacts on populations of marine selected third-party observer provider to shall be submitted to NMFS and must mammals that are expected to be ensure PSOs have all equipment include written justification. Requests present in the action area. Effective (including backup equipment) needed shall be granted or denied (with reporting is critical both to compliance to adequately perform necessary tasks, justification) by NMFS within one week as well as ensuring that the most value including accurate determination of of receipt of submitted information. is obtained from the required distance and bearing to observed marine Alternate experience that may be monitoring. mammals. considered includes, but is not limited Monitoring and reporting PSOs must have the following to (1) secondary education and/or requirements prescribed by NMFS requirements and qualifications: experience comparable to PSO duties; should contribute to improved • PSOs shall be independent, (2) previous work experience understanding of one or more of the dedicated, trained visual and acoustic conducting academic, commercial, or following: PSOs and must be employed by a third- government-sponsored protected • Occurrence of marine mammal party observer provider; species surveys; or (3) previous work • species or stocks in the area in which PSOs shall have no tasks other than experience as a PSO; the PSO should take is anticipated (e.g., presence, to conduct observational effort (visual or demonstrate good standing and abundance, distribution, density); acoustic), collect data, and consistently good performance of PSO • Nature, scope, or context of likely communicate with and instruct relevant duties. marine mammal exposure to potential vessel crew with regard to the presence For data collection purposes, PSOs stressors/impacts (individual or of protected species and mitigation shall use standardized data collection cumulative, acute or chronic), through requirements (including brief alerts forms, whether hard copy or electronic. better understanding of: (1) Action or regarding maritime hazards); PSOs shall record detailed information • environment (e.g., source PSOs shall have successfully about any implementation of mitigation characterization, propagation, ambient completed an approved PSO training requirements, including the distance of noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life course appropriate for their designated animals to the acoustic source and history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs description of specific actions that of marine mammal species with the are required to complete specialized ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), action; or (4) biological or behavioral training for operating PAM systems and any observed changes in behavior before context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or are encouraged to have familiarity with and after implementation of mitigation, feeding areas); the vessel with which they will be and if shutdown was implemented, the • Individual marine mammal working; length of time before any subsequent • responses (behavioral or physiological) PSOs can act as acoustic or visual ramp-up of the acoustic source. If to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or observers (but not at the same time) as required mitigation was not cumulative), other stressors, or long as they demonstrate that their implemented, PSOs should record a cumulative impacts from multiple training and experience are sufficient to description of the circumstances. At a stressors; perform the task at hand; minimum, the following information • • How anticipated responses to NMFS must review and approve must be recorded: stressors impact either: (1) Long-term PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant • Vessel names (source vessel and fitness and survival of individual training course information packet that other vessels associated with survey) marine mammals; or (2) populations, includes the name and qualifications and call signs; species, or stocks; (i.e., experience, training completed, or • PSO names and affiliations; • Effects on marine mammal habitat educational background) of the • Dates of departures and returns to (e.g., marine mammal prey species, instructor(s), the course outline or port with port name; acoustic habitat, or other important syllabus, and course reference material • Date and participants of PSO physical components of marine as well as a document stating successful briefings; mammal habitat); and completion of the course; • Dates and times (Greenwich Mean • Mitigation and monitoring • NMFS shall have one week to Time) of survey effort and times effectiveness. approve PSOs from the time that the corresponding with PSO effort; necessary information is submitted, • Vessel location (latitude/longitude) Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring after which PSOs meeting the minimum when survey effort began and ended and As described above, PSO observations requirements shall automatically be vessel location at beginning and end of would take place during daytime airgun considered approved; visual PSO duty shifts; operations and nighttime start ups (if • PSOs must successfully complete • Vessel heading and speed at applicable) of the airguns. During relevant training, including completion beginning and end of visual PSO duty seismic operations, at least five visual of all required coursework and passing shifts and upon any line change; PSOs would be based aboard the (80 percent or greater) a written and/or • Environmental conditions while on Langseth. Monitoring shall be oral examination developed for the visual survey (at beginning and end of conducted in accordance with the training program; PSO shift and whenever conditions following requirements: • PSOs must have successfully changed significantly), including BSS • The operator shall provide PSOs attained a bachelor’s degree from an and any other relevant weather with bigeye binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150; accredited college or university with a conditions including cloud cover, fog, 2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus; major in one of the natural sciences, a sun glare, and overall visibility to the height control) of appropriate quality minimum of 30 semester hours or horizon; (i.e., Fujinon or equivalent) solely for equivalent in the biological sciences, • Factors that may have contributed PSO use. These shall be pedestal- and at least one undergraduate course in to impaired observations during each mounted on the deck at the most math or statistics; and PSO shift change or as needed as appropriate vantage point that provides • The educational requirements may environmental conditions changed (e.g., for optimal sea surface observation, PSO be waived if the PSO has acquired the vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); safety, and safe operation of the vessel; relevant skills through alternate and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35096 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

• Survey activity information, such as pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of submitted in interim monthly reports as acoustic source power output while in signal); and well as additional data collected as operation, number and volume of • Any additional information described above and the IHA. The draft airguns operating in the array, tow recorded such as water depth of the report must be accompanied by a depth of the array, and any other notes hydrophone array, bearing of the animal certification from the lead PSO as to the of significance (i.e., pre-clearance, ramp- to the vessel (if determinable), species accuracy of the report, and the lead PSO up, shutdown, testing, shooting, ramp- or taxonomic group (if determinable), may submit directly NMFS a statement up completion, end of operations, spectrogram screenshot, and any other concerning implementation and streamers, etc.). notable information. effectiveness of the required mitigation The following information should be Reporting and monitoring. A final report must be recorded upon visual observation of any submitted within 30 days following protected species: A report would be submitted to NMFS resolution of any comments on the draft • Watch status (sighting made by PSO within 90 days after the end of the report. on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, cruise. The report would describe the alternate vessel/platform); operations that were conducted and Reporting Injured or Dead Marine • PSO who sighted the animal; sightings of marine mammals near the Mammals • Time of sighting; operations. The report would provide In the event that personnel involved • Vessel location at time of sighting; full documentation of methods, results, • in survey activities covered by the Water depth; and interpretation pertaining to all authorization discover an injured or • Direction of vessel’s travel (compass monitoring. The 90-day report would dead marine mammal, the L-DEO shall direction); summarize the dates and locations of • Direction of animal’s travel relative report the incident to the Office of seismic operations, and all marine Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and to the vessel; mammal sightings (dates, times, • Pace of the animal; to the NMFS West Coast Regional • locations, activities, associated seismic Stranding Coordinator as soon as Estimated distance to the animal survey activities). The report would also and its heading relative to vessel at feasible. The report must include the include estimates of the number and following information: initial sighting; nature of exposures that occurred above • • Time, date, and location (latitude/ Identification of the animal (e.g., the harassment threshold based on PSO longitude) of the first discovery (and genus/species, lowest possible observations and including an estimate updated location information if known taxonomic level, or unidentified) and of those that were not detected, in and applicable); the composition of the group if there is consideration of both the characteristics • Species identification (if known) or a mix of species; and behaviors of the species of marine • Estimated number of animals (high/ description of the animal(s) involved; mammals that affect detectability, as • low/best); well as the environmental factors that Condition of the animal(s) • Estimated number of animals by affect detectability. (including carcass condition if the cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, L-DEO is required to submit a draft animal is dead); • calves, group composition, etc.); comprehensive report to NMFS on all Observed behaviors of the • Description (as many distinguishing activities and monitoring results within animal(s), if alive; features as possible of each individual • 90 days of the completion of the survey If available, photographs or video seen, including length, shape, color, or expiration of the IHA, whichever footage of the animal(s); and pattern, scars or markings, shape and comes sooner. The report must describe • General circumstances under which size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and all activities conducted and sightings of the animal was discovered. blow characteristics); protected species near the activities, Additional Information Requests—If • Detailed behavior observations (e.g., must provide full documentation of NMFS determines that the number of blows/breaths, number of methods, results, and interpretation circumstances of any marine mammal surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, pertaining to all monitoring, and must stranding found in the vicinity of the feeding, traveling; as explicit and summarize the dates and locations of activity suggest investigation of the detailed as possible; note any observed survey operations and all protected association with survey activities is changes in behavior); species sightings (dates, times, warranted (example circumstances • Animal’s closest point of approach locations, activities, associated survey noted below), and an investigation into (CPA) and/or closest distance from any activities). The draft report shall also the stranding is being pursued, NMFS element of the acoustic source; will submit a written request to the IHA- • Platform activity at time of sighting include geo-referenced time-stamped holder indicating that the following (e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, vessel tracklines for all time periods initial available information must be shooting, data acquisition, other); and during which airguns were operating. • Description of any actions Tracklines should include points provided as soon as possible, but no implemented in response to the sighting recording any change in airgun status later than 7 business days after the (e.g., when the airguns began operating, request for information. (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and • time and location of the action. when they were turned off, or when Status of all sound source use in the If a marine mammal is detected while they changed from full array to single 48 hours preceding the estimated time using the PAM system, the following gun or vice versa). GIS files shall be of stranding and within 50 km of the information should be recorded: provided in ESRI shapefile format and discovery/notification of the stranding • An acoustic encounter include the UTC date and time, latitude by NMFS; and identification number, and whether the in decimal degrees, and longitude in • If available, description of the detection was linked with a visual decimal degrees. All coordinates shall behavior of any marine mammal(s) sighting; be referenced to the WGS84 geographic observed preceding (i.e., within 48 • Date and time when first and last coordinate system. In addition to the hours and 50 km) and immediately after heard; report, all raw observational data shall the discovery of the stranding. • Types and nature of sounds heard be made available to NMFS. The report Examples of circumstances that could (e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst must summarize the information trigger the additional information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35097

request include, but are not limited to, Negligible Impact Analysis and 26 marine mammal species. However, the following: Determination we believe that any PTS incurred in • Atypical nearshore milling events NMFS has defined negligible impact marine mammals as a result of the of live cetaceans; as an impact resulting from the planned activity would be in the form • Mass strandings of cetaceans (two specified activity that cannot be of only a small degree of PTS, not total or more individuals, not including cow/ reasonably expected to, and is not deafness, and would be unlikely to calf pairs); reasonably likely to, adversely affect the affect the fitness of any individuals, • Beaked whale strandings; species or stock through effects on because of the constant movement of both the Langseth and of the marine • Necropsies with findings of annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact mammals in the project areas, as well as pathologies that are unusual for the the fact that the vessel is not expected finding is based on the lack of likely species or area; or to remain in any one area in which • adverse effects on annual rates of Stranded animals with findings individual marine mammals would be recruitment or survival (i.e., population- consistent with blast trauma. expected to concentrate for an extended level effects). An estimate of the number In the event that the investigation is period of time (i.e., since the duration of of takes alone is not enough information still inconclusive, the investigation of exposure to loud sounds will be on which to base an impact the association of the survey activities is relatively short). Also, as described determination. In addition to still warranted, and the investigation is above, we expect that marine mammals considering estimates of the number of still being pursued, NMFS may provide would be likely to move away from a marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ additional information requests, in sound source that represents an aversive writing, regarding the nature and through harassment, NMFS considers stimulus, especially at levels that would location of survey operations prior to other factors, such as the likely nature be expected to result in PTS, given the time period above. of any responses (e.g., intensity, sufficient notice of the Langseth’s duration), the context of any responses Vessel Strike—In the event of a ship approach due to the vessel’s relatively (e.g., critical reproductive time or strike of a marine mammal by any vessel low speed when conducting seismic location, migration), as well as effects involved in the activities covered by the surveys. We expect that the majority of on habitat, and the likely effectiveness authorization, L-DEO must shall report takes would be in the form of short-term of the mitigation. We also assess the the incident to OPR, NMFS and to Level B behavioral harassment in the number, intensity, and context of regional stranding coordinators as soon form of temporary avoidance of the area estimated takes by evaluating this as feasible. The report must include the or decreased foraging (if such activity information relative to population following information: were occurring), reactions that are status. Consistent with the 1989 • Time, date, and location (latitude/ considered to be of low severity and preamble for NMFS’s implementing with no lasting biological consequences longitude) of the incident; regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, • Species identification (if known) or (e.g., Southall et al., 2007). 1989), the impacts from other past and Potential impacts to marine mammal description of the animal(s) involved; ongoing anthropogenic activities are • habitat were discussed previously in Vessel’s speed during and leading incorporated into this analysis via their this document (see Potential Effects of up to the incident; impacts on the environmental baseline the Specified Activity on Marine • Vessel’s course/heading and what (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status Mammals and their Habitat). Marine operations were being conducted (if of the species, population size and mammal habitat may be impacted by applicable); growth rate where known, ongoing elevated sound levels, but these impacts • Status of all sound sources in use; sources of human-caused mortality, or would be temporary. Prey species are • Description of avoidance measures/ ambient noise levels). mobile and are broadly distributed requirements that were in place at the To avoid repetition, our analysis throughout the project areas; therefore, time of the strike and what additional applies to all species listed in Tables 7 marine mammals that may be measures were taken, if any, to avoid and 9, given that NMFS expects the temporarily displaced during survey strike; anticipated effects of the planned activities are expected to be able to • Environmental conditions (e.g., geophysical survey to be similar in resume foraging once they have moved wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea nature. Where there are meaningful away from areas with disturbing levels state, cloud cover, visibility) differences between species or stocks, or of underwater noise. Because of the ∼ immediately preceding the strike; groups of species, in anticipated relatively short duration ( 19 days) and individual responses to activities, • Estimated size and length of animal temporary nature of the disturbance, the impact of expected take on the that was struck; availability of similar habitat and population due to differences in resources in the surrounding area, the • Description of the behavior of the population status, or impacts on habitat, impacts to marine mammals and the marine mammal immediately preceding NMFS has identified species-specific food sources that they utilize are not and following the strike; factors to inform the analysis. • expected to cause significant or long- If available, description of the NMFS does not anticipate that serious term consequences for individual presence and behavior of any other injury or mortality would occur as a marine mammals or their populations. marine mammals immediately result of L-DEO’s planned survey, even The activity is expected to impact a preceding the strike; in the absence of mitigation. Thus the small percentage of all marine mammal • Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., authorization does not authorize any stocks that would be affected by L- dead, injured but alive, injured and mortality. As discussed in the Potential DEO’s planned survey (less than seven moving, blood or tissue observed in the Effects section, non-auditory physical percent of all species). Additionally, the water, status unknown, disappeared); effects, stranding, and vessel strike are acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the planned and not expected to occur. survey would be small relative to the • To the extent practicable, We have authorized a limited number ranges of the marine mammals that photographs or video footage of the of instances of Level A harassment of would potentially be affected. Sound animal(s). seven species and Level B harassment of levels would increase in the marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 35098 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices

environment in a relatively small area or stock through effects on annual rates Table 9 provides the authorized surrounding the vessel compared to the of recruitment or survival: numbers of take by Level A and Level range of the marine mammals within the No mortality is anticipated or B harassment, which are used here for planned survey area. The planned authorized; purposes of the small numbers analysis. geophysical survey occurs outside of the • The planned activity is temporary The numbers of marine mammals that U.S. EEZ and outside of any established and of relatively short duration (19 we have authorized to be taken by Level Biologically Important Areas or critical days); A and Level B harassment would be • habitat. The anticipated impacts of the considered small relative to the relevant The required mitigation measures are planned activity on marine mammals populations (less than seven percent for expected to reduce the number and/or would primarily be temporary all species and stocks) for the species for severity of takes by allowing for behavioral changes due to avoidance of which abundance estimates are the area around the survey vessel; available. detection of marine mammals in the • vicinity of the vessel by visual and The number of instances of PTS Based on the analysis contained acoustic observers, and by minimizing that may occur are expected to be very herein of the planned activity (including the severity of any potential exposures small in number. Instances of PTS that the required mitigation and monitoring via power downs and/or shutdowns of are incurred in marine mammals would measures) and the anticipated take of the airgun array. Based on previous be of a low level, due to constant marine mammals, NMFS finds that monitoring reports for substantially movement of the vessel and of the small numbers of marine mammals will similar activities that have been marine mammals in the area, and the be taken relative to the population size previously authorized by NMFS, we nature of the survey design (not of the affected species or stocks. concentrated in areas of high marine expect that the required mitigation will Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis be effective in preventing at least some mammal concentration); • The availability of alternate areas of and Determination extent of potential PTS in marine similar habitat value for marine There are no relevant subsistence uses mammals that may otherwise occur in mammals to temporarily vacate the of the affected marine mammal stocks or the absence of the required mitigation. survey area during the planned survey species implicated by this action. The ESA-listed marine mammal to avoid exposure to sounds from the Therefore, NMFS has determined that species under our jurisdiction that are activity; the total taking of affected species or likely to be taken by the planned • The potential adverse effects on fish stocks would not have an unmitigable surveys include the endangered sei, fin, or invertebrate species that serve as prey adverse impact on the availability of blue, sperm, and Central America DPS species for marine mammals from the such species or stocks for taking for humpback whales, and the threatened planned survey would be temporary and subsistence purposes. Mexico DPS humpback whale and spatially limited; and Guadalupe fur seal. We have authorized • The required mitigation measures, National Environmental Policy Act very small numbers of takes for these including visual and acoustic In compliance with the National species relative to their population monitoring, power-downs, and Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 sizes. Given the low probability of shutdowns, are expected to minimize U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by fitness impacts to any individual, potential impacts to marine mammals. the regulations published by the combined with the small portion of any Based on the analysis contained Council on Environmental Quality (40 of these stocks impacted, we do not herein of the likely effects of the CFR parts 1500–1508), the NSF expect population-level impacts to any specified activity on marine mammals prepared an Environmental Analysis of these species. The other marine and their habitat, and taking into (EA) to consider the direct, indirect, and mammal species that may be taken by consideration the implementation of the cumulative effects to the human harassment during the planned surveys required monitoring and mitigation environment from this marine are not listed as threatened or measures, NMFS finds that the total geophysical survey in the Northeast endangered under the ESA. With the marine mammal take from the planned Pacific. NSF’s EA was made available to exception of the northern fur seal, none activity will have a negligible impact on the public for review and comment in of the non-listed marine mammals for all affected marine mammal species or relation to its suitability for adoption by which we propose to authorize take are stocks. NMFS in order to assess the impacts to considered ‘‘depleted’’ or ‘‘strategic’’ by the human environment of issuance of Small Numbers NMFS under the MMPA. an IHA to L-DEO. In compliance with NMFS concludes that exposures to As noted above, only small numbers NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well marine mammal species and stocks due of incidental take may be authorized as NOAA Administrative Order 216–6, to L-DEO’s planned survey would result under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of NMFS has review the NSF’s EA, in only short-term (temporary and short the MMPA for specified activities other determined it to be sufficient, and in duration) effects to individuals than military readiness activities. The adopted that EA and signed a Finding exposed. Animals may temporarily MMPA does not define small numbers of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on avoid the immediate area, but are not and so, in practice, where estimated July 10, 2019. expected to permanently abandon the numbers are available, NMFS compares area. Major shifts in habitat use, the number of individuals taken to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) distribution, or foraging success are not most appropriate estimation of Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered expected. NMFS does not anticipate the abundance of the relevant species or Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. authorized take to impact annual rates stock in our determination of whether 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal of recruitment or survival. an authorization is limited to small agency insure that any action it In summary and as described above, numbers of marine mammals. authorizes, funds, or carries out is not the following factors primarily support Additionally, other qualitative factors likely to jeopardize the continued our determination that the impacts may be considered in the analysis, such existence of any endangered or resulting from this activity are not as the temporal or spatial scale of the threatened species or result in the expected to adversely affect the species activities. destruction or adverse modification of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2019 / Notices 35099

designated critical habitat. To ensure ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments reporting requirements including ESA compliance for the issuance of to Adrienne Thomas, Government monthly chinook bycatch by origin, and IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this Information Specialist, NOAA, 151 intertemporal harvest information. case with the ESA Interagency Patton Avenue, Room 159, Asheville, • The Amendment 80 Cooperative Cooperation Division whenever we NC 28801 (or via the internet at Annual Report is a required summary of propose to authorize take for [email protected]). Comments cooperative harvests, discards, endangered or threatened species. will generally be posted without change. monitoring methods, disciplinary The NMFS Office of Protected All Personally Identifiable Information actions taken against non-compliant Resources Interagency Cooperation (for example, name and address) members, groundfish retention Division issued a Biological Opinion on voluntarily submitted by the commenter calculations, and a third-party audit. July 10, 2019, under section 7 of the may be publicly accessible. Do not Voluntary elements of the report ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to L- submit Confidential Business include catch from the Northern Bristol DEO under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Information or otherwise sensitive or Bay Trawl Area, fleet catch capacity MMPA by the NMFS Permits and protected information. You may submit over time, and intertemporal harvest Conservation Division. The Biological attachments to electronic comments in information. An additional voluntary Opinion concluded that the proposed Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF element was added to this report in action is not likely to jeopardize the file formats. 2019 requesting information on continued existence of sei whale, fin FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: cooperatives or other measures whale, blue whale, sperm whale, Requests for additional information or implemented to reduced bycatch in the humpback whale (Central America DPS copies of the information collection BSAI yellowfin sole Trawl Limited Access Sector fishery by A80 and Mexico DPS), and Guadalupe fur instrument and instructions should be seal, and is not likely to destroy or participants. directed to Gabrielle Aberle, NOAA’s • modify critical habitat of listed species The Amendment 80 Halibut National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) because no critical habitat exists for Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668, these species in the action area. Management Plan is a voluntary Telephone (907) 586–7228. collection providing information to the Authorization SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Council about fishery cooperative NMFS has issued an IHA to L-DEO for I. Abstract halibut avoidance practices, the potential harassment of small communication between participating The North Pacific Fishery numbers of 26 marine mammal species harvesters, use of halibut excluders, Management Council (Council) has incidental to a marine geophysical deck sorting, bycatch performance developed cooperative programs as survey in the Northeast Pacific, assessment of individual boats, options in several fishery catch share provided the previously mentioned incentives to reduce bycatch, and programs. As part of cooperative mitigation, monitoring, and reporting consequences for substandard programs, the Council and the National are incorporated. performance. Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have • The Amendment 80 Halibut Dated: July 17, 2019. required or requested that the Bycatch Avoidance Progress Report is Donna S. Wieting, cooperatives submit annual reports voluntary and intended to inform the Director, Office of Protected Resources, detailing various fishery activities. Council about non-regulatory methods National Marine Fisheries Service. These reports are intended to be a used within A80 fishery cooperatives to [FR Doc. 2019–15516 Filed 7–19–19; 8:45 am] resource for the Council to track the reduce and avoid halibut bycatch in BILLING CODE 3510–22–P effectiveness of cooperatives and their BSAI groundfish fisheries. ability to meet the Council’s goals, and • The American Fisheries Act Catcher as way for NMFS to monitor the internal Vessel Intercooperative Agreement is DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE fishery management practices of voluntary and includes fishery cooperatives. Additionally, they are a allocations of cooperative members, National Oceanic and Atmospheric tool for the cooperatives to provide penalties to members that exceed them, Administration feedback on the programs. This monitoring methods, limits on the collection covers the following required Proposed Information Collection; amount of cod harvested by certain and voluntary cooperative and inter- Comment Request; Alaska Council vessels, procedures for intercooperative cooperative reports, agreements, and Cooperative Annual Reports sideboard transfers, and incentives for plans: prohibited species catch reduction. AGENCY: National Oceanic and • The Alaska Crab Rationalization • The American Fisheries Act Catcher Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Program Cooperative Annual Report is Vessel Intercooperative Report is Commerce. voluntary and provides information voluntary and provides information ACTION: Notice. about measures taken by cooperatives to about cooperative Bering Sea pollock increase the availability of crab quota fishery allocations, harvest, salmon SUMMARY: The Department of share (QS) for transfer to active bycatch reduction measures, groundfish Commerce, as part of its continuing participants and crew members in the sideboards, and prohibited species effort to reduce paperwork and fishery, as well as actions to decrease catch. respondent burden, invites the general high QS lease rates and improve low • The American Fisheries Act public and other Federal agencies to crew compensation. Cooperative Annual Report (moved take this opportunity to comment on • The Rockfish Program Cooperative from 0678–0401) is required and must proposed and/or continuing information Annual Report is a required summary of report the cooperative’s pollock and collections, as required by the cooperative harvests, retention, sideboard allocations, sub-allocations Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. discards, monitoring methods, and made to individual vessels, retained and DATES: Written comments must be disciplinary actions made within each discarded catch, monitoring methods, submitted on or before September 20, Rockfish Program cooperative. actions taken against non-compliant 2019. Additionally, it contains voluntary members, any pollock landed outside of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Jul 19, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JYN1.SGM 22JYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES