Vol. 81 Tuesday, No. 75 April 19, 2016

Part III

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Takes of Marine Incidental to Specified Activities; Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southeast Pacific Ocean, 2016–2017; Notice

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23118 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [email protected]. Please include monitoring and reporting of such taking. 0648–XE451 in the subject line. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Comments sent via email, including all in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an impact Administration attachments, must not exceed a 25 resulting from the specified activity that RIN 0648–XE451 megabyte file size. NMFS is not cannot be reasonably expected to, and is responsible for email comments sent to not reasonably likely to, adversely affect Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to addresses other than the one provided the species or stock through effects on Specified Activities; Marine here. annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ Geophysical Survey in the Southeast Instructions: All submitted comments Except with respect to certain Pacific Ocean, 2016–2017 are part of the public record, and NMFS activities not pertinent here, the MMPA will post them to http:// defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and incidental/research.htm without has the potential to injure a marine Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), change. All Personal Identifying or marine mammal stock in the Department of Commerce. Information (for example: name, wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has ACTION: Notice; proposed Incidental address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the potential to disturb a marine Harassment Authorization; request for the commenter may also be publicly mammal or marine mammal stock in the comments. accessible. Do not submit confidential wild by causing disruption of behavioral business information or otherwise patterns, including, but not limited to, SUMMARY: NMFS has received an sensitive or protected information. migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, application from the Lamont-Doherty To obtain an electronic copy of feeding, or sheltering [Level B Earth Observatory (Lamont-Doherty) in Lamont-Doherty’s application, NSF’s harassment]. collaboration with the National Science draft environmental analysis, NMFS’ Summary of Request Foundation (NSF), for an Incidental draft environmental assessment (EA), Harassment Authorization and a list of the references used in this On January 19, 2016, NMFS received (Authorization) to take marine document, write to the previously an application from Lamont-Doherty mammals, by harassment only, mentioned address, telephone the requesting that NMFS issue an incidental to conducting three marine contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER Authorization for the take of marine geophysical (seismic) surveys in the INFORMATION CONTACT), or visit the mammals, incidental to Oregon State southeast Pacific Ocean, in the latter internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ University (OSU) and University of half of 2016 and/or the beginning half pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. Texas (UT) conducting seismic surveys of 2017. The proposed dates are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in the southeast Pacific Ocean, in the between June 2016 and June 2017, to Jordan Carduner, NMFS, Office of latter half of 2016 and/or the first half account for logistical and scheduling Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427– of 2017. NMFS considered the needs of the applicant. Per the Marine 8401. application and supporting materials Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), we adequate and complete on March 21, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: are requesting comments on our 2016. proposal to issue an Authorization to Background Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct Lamont-Doherty to incidentally take, by Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine three two-dimensional (2–D) surveys on level B harassment, 44 species of marine the R/V Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth), mammal during the specified activity Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et a vessel owned by NSF and operated on and to incidentally take, by Level A its behalf by Columbia University’s harassment, 26 species of marine seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory mammals. Although considered primarily in international waters of the unlikely, any Level A harassment but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a southeast Pacific Ocean, with a small potentially incurred would be expected portion of the surveys occurring within to be in the form of some smaller degree species or population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified the territorial waters of Chile. All of permanent hearing loss due in part to proposed surveys will be conducted the required monitoring measures for activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region within the exclusive economic zone detecting marine mammals and required (EEZ) of Chile. mitigation measures for power downs or if, after NMFS provides a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for Increased underwater sound shut downs of the airgun array if any generated during the operation of the is likely to enter the Level A review and comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) the taking is seismic airgun array is the only aspect exclusion zone. NMFS does not expect of the proposed activity that is likely to any serious injury, mortality, or limited to harassment. An Authorization shall be granted for result in the take of marine mammals. deafness to occur in marine mammals as We anticipate that take, by Level B a result of this proposed survey. the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if NMFS finds that harassment, of 44 species of marine DATES: NMFS must receive comments the taking will have a negligible impact mammals could result from the and information on or before May 19, on the species or stock(s), and will not specified activity. Although unlikely, 2016. have an unmitigable adverse impact on NMFS also anticipates that a small ADDRESSES: Address comments on the the availability of the species or stock(s) amount of take by Level A harassment application to Jolie Harrison, Chief, for subsistence uses (where relevant). of 26 species of marine mammals could Permits and Conservation Division, The Authorization must also set forth occur during the proposed survey. Office of Protected Resources, National the permissible methods of taking; other Description of the Specified Activity Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East- means of effecting the least practicable West Highway, Silver Spring, MD adverse impact on the species or stock Overview 20910. The mailbox address for and its habitat (i.e., mitigation); and Lamont-Doherty plans to use one providing email comments is requirements pertaining to the source vessel, the Langseth, with an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23119

array of 36 airguns as the energy source boundary thrust fault that can produce at any time during the proposed with a total volume of approximately some of the world’s largest earthquakes authorized period of June 2016 to June 6,600 cubic inches (in 3). The receiving and tsunamis. This survey will image 2017; however the proposed southern system would consist of 64 ocean the characteristics of the plate-boundary survey would most likely not occur bottom seismometers (OBSs) and a thrust, sediment subduction, and upper between February and April. single hydrophone streamer between 8 plate structure within the 2010 Maule NMFS refers the reader to the Detailed and 15 kilometers (km) (4.9 and 9.3 rupture segment and the 1960 Valdivia miles [mi]) in length. In addition to the rupture area. Description of Activities section later in operations of the airgun array, a this notice for more information on the Dates and Duration multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a scope of the proposed activities. sub-bottom profiler (SBP) would also be The surveys off Chile are proposed for Specified Geographic Region operated continuously throughout the 2016/2017 and would take proposed surveys. A total of approximately 60 days with the The proposed survey off northern approximately 9,633 km (5,986 mi) of potential for an additional increase in Chile would occur within the area transect lines would be surveyed in the number of days by 25 percent as a located at approximately 70.2–73.2° W., southeast Pacific Ocean. contingency for equipment failures, 18.3–22.4° S., the central proposed The primary purpose of the northern resurveys, or other operational needs. survey would occur within survey is to image the structure of the The surveys may occur at any time approximately 71.8–73.4° W., 30.1– upper and lower plates in the region during the proposed authorized period 33.9° S., and the southern proposed that slipped during the 2014 Pisagua/ of June 2016 to June 2017. The proposed survey would occur within survey off northern Chile would consist Iquique earthquake sequence and approximately 72.2–76.1° W., 33.9– of approximately 45 days of science immediately to the south, where an 44.1° S. historic seismic gap remains unruptured operations that include approximately in order to better understand how 28 days of seismic operations, Representative survey tracklines are geologic structure controlled the approximately 13 days of ocean bottom shown in Figure 1 in this notice and initiation, propagation, and termination seismometer (OBS) deployment/ described further in Lamont-Doherty’s of this rupture sequence. retrieval, and approximately four days application. Some deviation in actual The primary purpose of the central of transit and towed equipment track lines could be necessary for survey is to examine the extent and deployment/retrieval. The central reasons such as science drivers, poor location of seafloor displacement and proposed survey would involve data quality, inclement weather, or related subsurface fault movement approximately six days, including mechanical issues with the research related to the recent slip that occurred approximately five days of seismic vessel and/or equipment. Water depths during the September 16, 2015, Illapel operations and approximately one day in the proposed survey areas range from earthquake. The scientists would of equipment deployment/retrieval approximately 50 to 7,600 m (164 to compare the newly acquired data with time. The southern proposed survey 25,000 ft). The proposed seismic previously collected data to determine would involve approximately 32 days of surveys would be conducted within the where displacement occurred, how science operations including EEZ of Chile; only a small proportion of much occurred, and which sub-seafloor approximately 27 days of seismic the surveys would take place in faults were most likely active during operations, and approximately five days territorial waters (see Figure 1). this event. of transit and towed equipment The primary goal of the southern deployment/retrieval. As described Figure 1—Survey Locations and survey is to image the deep plate above, the proposed surveys may occur Sample Tracklines

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23120 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

Figure 1 -Survey locations and sample tracklines

Principal and Collaborating Centre for Ocean Research). The central Detailed Description of the Specified Investigators and southern surveys PIs are Drs. N. Activities Bangs (UT) and A. Trehu, participating Transit Activities The northern survey’s Principal with Drs. E. Contreras-Reyes and E. Investigator (PI) is Dr. A. Trehu (OSU) Vera. The Langseth would transit to and collaborating with Drs. E. Contreras- from the survey locations from either a Reyes, E. Vera, and D. Comte local port, or another research survey (Universidad de Chile) and H. Kopp and location in the region. The transit start D. Lange (Research Center for Marine and return points would be determined Geosciences, GEOMAR, Helmholtz as the project schedule becomes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES EN19AP16.000 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23121

finalized and may vary based on receive the returning acoustic signals level as the ratio of a measured sound logistics, timing, or other factors. and transfer the data to the on-board pressure and a reference pressure level. processing system. The commonly used unit for sound Vessel Specifications In addition to the operations of the pressure is dB and the commonly used The survey would involve one source airgun array, the ocean floor would be reference pressure level in underwater vessel, the R/V Langseth. The Langseth, mapped with the Kongsberg EM 122 acoustics is 1 microPascal (mPa)). owned by NSF and operated by Lamont- MBES and a Knudsen Chirp 3260 SBP. Briefly, the effective source levels for Doherty, is a seismic research vessel The proposed action will also include horizontal propagation are lower than with a quiet propulsion system that the use of an unmanned submersible source levels for downward avoids interference with the seismic vehicle for data collection. A Liquid propagation. We refer the reader to signals emanating from the airgun array. Robotics SV2 Wave Glider could be Lamont-Doherty’s Authorization The vessel is 71.5 m (235 ft) long; has used during the surveys for a period of application and NSF’s Environmental a beam of 17.0 m (56 ft); a maximum several hours to collect data from Analysis for additional information on draft of 5.9 m (19 ft); and a gross seafloor sensors. An integrated acoustic downward and horizontal sound tonnage of 3,834 pounds. It has two transceiver communicates from the propagation related to the airgun’s 3,550 horsepower (hp) Bergen BRG–6 platform to a subsea-mounted acoustic source levels. diesel engines that drive two propellers. data logger (ADL); the ADL then Each propeller has four blades and the transfers data to a station on the Additional Acoustic Data Acquisition shaft typically rotates at 750 revolutions platform, which transmits them to a Systems per minute. The vessel also has an 800- control center via satellite. The SV2 Multibeam Echosounder: The hp bowthruster, which is off during Wave Glider platform is 2.1 m long and Langseth will operate a Kongsberg EM seismic acquisition. 60 cm wide (6.9 ft by 2ft). 122 multibeam echosounder The Langseth’s speed during seismic concurrently during airgun operations operations would be approximately 4.5 Seismic Airguns to map characteristics of the ocean floor. knots (kt) (8.3 km/hour [hr]; 5.1 miles The Langseth’s full array of airguns However, as stated earlier, Lamont- per hour [mph]). The vessel’s cruising consists of four strings with 36 airguns Doherty will not operate the multibeam speed outside of seismic operations is (plus 4 spares), and a total volume of echosounder during transits to and from approximately 10 kt (18.5 km/hr; 11.5 approximately 6,600 in3. The airguns the survey areas (i.e., when the airguns mph). While the Langseth tows the are a mixture of Bolt 1500LL and Bolt are not operating). airgun array, its turning rate is limited 1900LLX airguns ranging in size from 40 The hull-mounted echosounder emits to five degrees per minute. Thus, the to 220 in3, with a firing pressure of brief pulses of sound (also called a ping) Langseth’s maneuverability is limited 1,950 pounds per square inch. The (10.5 to 13.0 kHz) in a fan-shaped beam during operations while it tows the dominant frequency components range that extends downward and to the sides streamer. from zero to 188 Hertz (Hz). The airguns of the ship. The transmitting beamwidth The vessel also has an observation are fully detailed in § 2.2.3.1 of NSF’s is 1 or 2° fore-aft and 150° athwartship tower from which protected species PEIS. and the maximum source level is 242 visual observers (observers) would During the survey, Lamont-Doherty dB re: 1 mPa. watch for marine mammals before and would plan to use the full array with Each ping consists of eight (in water during the proposed seismic acquisition most of the airguns in inactive mode. greater than 1,000 m; 3,280 ft) or four (in operations. When stationed on the The 4-string array would be towed at a water less than 1,000 m; 3,280 ft) observation platform, the observer’s eye depth of 9 to 12 m (30 to 39 ft) during successive, fan-shaped transmissions, level will be approximately 21.5 m (71 the northern proposed survey; the from two to 15 milliseconds (ms) in ft) above sea level providing the central and southern proposed surveys duration and each ensonifying a sector observer an unobstructed view around would use a tow depth of 9 m (30 ft). that extends 1° fore-aft. Continuous the entire vessel. The shot intervals would range from 25 wave pulses increase from 2 to 15 ms to 50 m (82 to 164 ft) for multi-channel long in water depths up to 2,600 m Data Acquisition Activities seismic (MCS) acquisition, 100–150 m (8,530 ft). The echosounder uses A total of approximately 9,633 km (328–492 ft) for simultaneous MCS and frequency-modulated chirp pulses up to (5,986 mi) of transect lines would be tomography acquisition, and 300 m (984 100-ms long in water greater than 2,600 surveyed in the southeast Pacific Ocean: ft) for tomography acquisition. Airguns m (8,530 ft). The successive Approximately 4,543 km (2,823 mi) off function by venting high-pressure air transmissions span an overall cross- northern Chile, approximately 791 km into the water, which creates an air track angular extent of about 150°, with (491 mi) during the central survey, and bubble. The pressure signature of an 2-ms gaps between the pulses for approximately 4,299 km (2,671 mi) individual airgun consists of a sharp successive sectors. during the southern survey. There could rise and then fall in pressure, followed Sub-bottom Profiler: The Langseth be additional seismic operations by several positive and negative will also operate a Knudsen Chirp 3260 associated with turns, airgun testing, pressure excursions caused by the sub-bottom profiler concurrently during and repeat coverage of any areas where oscillation of the resulting air bubble. airgun and echosounder operations to initial data quality is sub-standard. The oscillation of the air bubble provide information about the During the survey, the Langseth transmits sounds downward through the sedimentary features and bottom would deploy 36 airguns as an energy seafloor, and there is also a reduction in topography. As with the case of the source with a total volume of 6,600 in3. the amount of sound transmitted in the echosounder, Lamont-Doherty will not The receiving system would consist of near horizontal direction. The airgun operate the sub-bottom profiler during up to 68 OBSs deployed for the northern array also emits sounds that travel transits to and from the survey areas survey site, and a single 8- to 15-km (5– horizontally toward non-target areas. (i.e., when the airguns are not 8.3 mi) hydrophone streamer for all The nominal source levels of the operating). surveys. As the Langseth tows the airgun subarrays on the Langseth range The profiler is capable of reaching airgun array along the survey lines, the from 240 to 247 decibels (dB) re: 1 mPa depths of 10,000 m (6.2 mi). The OBSs and hydrophone streamer would (peak to peak). (We express sound pressure dominant frequency component is 3.5

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23122 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

kHz and a hull-mounted transducer on 36-kg (79-lb) iron gates and measure Hydrophone Streamer: Lamont- the vessel directs the beam downward approximately 7 by 91 by 91.5 cm (3 by Doherty would deploy the single in a 27° cone. The power output is 10 36 by 36 in). hydrophone streamer for multichannel kilowatts (kW), but the actual maximum After the Langseth completes the operations after concluding the OBS radiated power is three kilowatts or 222 proposed seismic survey, an acoustic operations. As the Langseth tows the dB re: 1 mPa. The ping duration is up signal would trigger the release of each airgun array along the survey lines, the to 64 ms with a pulse interval of one seismometer from the ocean floor. The streamer transfers the data to the on- second, but a common mode of Langseth’s acoustic release transponder, board processing system. operation is to broadcast five pulses at located on the vessel, communicates 1-s intervals followed by a 5-s pause. with the seismometer at a frequency of Description of Marine Mammals in the Ocean Bottom Seismometers: The 9 to13 kilohertz (kHz). The maximum Area of the Specified Activity Langseth would deploy a total of 50–54 source level of the release signal is 242 OBS during the northern survey at a dB re: 1 mPa with an 8-millisecond pulse Table 1 in this notice provides the nominal 15-km (9.3 mi) spacing length. The received signal activates the following: All marine mammal species interval. Lamont-Doherty proposes to seismometer’s double burn-wire release with possible or confirmed occurrence use one of two types of OBSs: The assembly which then releases the in the proposed activity area; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute seismometer from the anchor. The information on those species’ regulatory (WHOI) or the Scripps Institution of seismometer then floats to the ocean status under the MMPA and the Oceanography (SIO) OBS. The WHOI D2 surface for retrieval by the Langseth. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 OBS is approximately 0.9 m (2.9 ft) high The steel grate anchors from each of the U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); abundance; local with a maximum diameter of 50 seismometers would remain on the occurrence and range; and seasonality centimeters (cm) (20 inches [in]). An seafloor. in the proposed activity area. Based on anchor, made of a rolled steel bar grate The Langseth crew would deploy the the best available information, NMFS that measures approximately 2.5 by 30.5 seismometers one-by-one from the stern expects that there may be a potential for by 38.1 cm (1 by 12 by 15 in) and of the vessel while onboard protected certain cetacean and pinniped species to weighs 23 kilograms (kg) (51 pounds species observers will alert them to the occur within the survey area (i.e., [lbs]) would anchor the seismometer to presence of marine mammals and potentially be taken) and have included the seafloor. The SIO L-Cheapo OBS is recommend ceasing deploying or additional information for these species approximately 0.9 m (2.9 ft) high with recovering the seismometers to avoid in Table 1 of this notice. NMFS will a maximum diameter of 97 centimeters potential entanglement with marine carry forward analyses on the species (cm) (3.1 ft). The SIO anchors consist of mammal. listed in Table 1 later in this document.

TABLE 1—GENERAL INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE THREE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN

Species Regulatory Species Local occurrence Habitat status 12 abundance 3

Antarctic minke whale ( MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 515,000 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Coastal, pelagic. bonaerensis). Uncommon. Blue whale (B. musculus) ...... MMPA—D, ESA—EN .... 10,000 4 ...... North—Common, Central/ Coastal, shelf, pelagic. South—Common. Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 43,633 5 ...... North—Common, Central/ Coastal, pelagic. South—Common. Common minke whale (B. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 515,000 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Coastal, pelagic. acutorostrata). Uncommon. Fin whale (B. physalus) ...... MMPA—D, ESA—EN .... 22,000 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Shelf, slope, pelagic. Common. (Megaptera MMPA—D, ESA—EN .... 42,000 ...... North—Common, Central/ Coastal, shelf, pelagic. novaengliae). South—Common. Pygmy (Caperea MMPA—NC, ESA—NL Unknown ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Coastal, oceanic. marginata). South—Rare. Sei whale (B. borealis) ...... MMPA—D, ESA—EN .... 10,000 ...... North—Uncommon, Central/ Pelagic. South—Uncommon. Southern right whale (Eubalaena MMPA—D, ESA—EN .... 12,000 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Coastal, oceanic. australis). Rare. (Physeter MMPA—D, ESA—EN .... 355,000 6 ...... North—Common, Central/ Pelagic, deep seas. macrocephalus). South—Common. Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) ...... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 170,309 7 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Shelf, pelagic. Rare. Pygmy sperm whale (K. breviceps) .. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 170,309 7 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Shelf, pelagic. Rare. Andrew’s (Mesoplodon MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,300 8 ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Pelagic. bowdoini). South—Rare. Blainville’s beaked whale (M. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,300 8 ...... North—Uncommon, Central/ Pelagic. densirostris). South—Uncommon. Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 20,000 8 ...... North—Uncommon, Central/ Slope, pelagic. cavirostris). South—Uncommon. Gray’s beaked whale (M. grayi) ...... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,300 8 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Pelagic. Rare. Hector’s beaked whale (M. hectori) .. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,300 8 ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Pelagic. South—Rare.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23123

TABLE 1—GENERAL INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE THREE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued

Species Regulatory Species Local occurrence Habitat status 12 abundance 3

Pygmy beaked whale (Mesoplodon MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,300 8 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Pelagic. peruvianus). Rare. Shepherd’s beaked whale MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,300 8 ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Pelagic. (Tasmacetus shepherdi). South—Rare. Spade- (Mesoplodon MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,300 8 ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Pelagic. traversii). South—Rare. Strap-toothed beaked whale (M. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,300 8 ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Pelagic. layardii). South—Rare. Southern MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 72,000 9 ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Pelagic. (Hyperoodon planifrons). South—Uncommon. Chilean dolphin ( MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 10,000 ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Coastal. eutropia). South—Uncommon. Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 107,633 10 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Oceanic. bredanensis). Unknown. Common MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 335,834 10 ...... North—Abundant, Central/ Coastal, pelagic, shelf. (Tursiops truncatus). South—Common. Striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba) ...... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 964,362 10 ...... North—Abundant, Central/ Shelf edge, pelagic. South—Common. Short-beaked MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 1,766,551 11 ...... North—Abundant, Central/ Coastal, shelf. (Delphinus delphis). South—Abundant. Long-beaked common dolphin MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 144,000 12 ...... North—Uncommon, Central/ Coastal, shelf. (Delphinus capensis). South—Unknown. Dusky dolphin ( MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 25,880 13 ...... North—Abundant, Central/ Shelf, slope. obscurus). South—Abundant. Peale’s dolphin (Lagenorhynchus MMPA—NC, ESA—NL Unknown ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Coastal. australis). South—Uncommon. Hourglass dolphin (Lagenorhynchus MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 144,300 14 ...... North—Unknown, Central/ Pelagic. cruciger). South—Rare. Southern MMPA—NC, ESA—NL Unknown ...... North—Uncommon, Central/ Pelagic. (Lissodelphis peronii). South—Common. Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 110,457 10 ...... North—Common, Central/ Shelf, slope. South—Uncommon. Pygmy (Feresa attenu- MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 38,900 8 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Oceanic, pantropical. ate). Uncommon. (Pseudorca MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 39,800 8 ...... North—Uncommon, Central/ Pelagic. crassidens). South—Rare. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ...... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 50,000 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Coastal, shelf, pelagic. Rare. Long-finned MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 200,000 15 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Coastal, pelagic. (Globicephala melas). Rare. Short-finned pilot whale MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 589,315 16 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Coastal, pelagic. (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Rare. Burmeister’s ( MMPA—NC, ESA—NL Unknown ...... North—Coastal, Central/ Coastal. spinipinnis). South—Coastal. Juan Fernandez fur seal MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 32,278 17 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Coastal, pelagic. (Arctocephalus philippii). Rare. South American fur seal MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 250,000 ...... North—Rare, Central/South— Coastal, shelf, slope. (Arctocephalus australis). Rare. South American sea lion (Otaria MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 397,771 18 ...... North—Abundant, Central/ Coastal, shelf. byronia). South—Abundant. Southern elephant seal (Mirounga MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 640,000 19 ...... North—Abundant, Central/ Coastal, pelagic. leonina). South—Abundant. 1 MMPA: NC = Not classified; D = Depleted. 2 ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed. 3 Except where noted best estimate abundance information obtained from the International Whaling Commission’s whale population estimates (IWC, 2016) or from the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Red List of Threatened Species Web site (IUCN, 2016). Unknown = Abundance information does not exist for this species. 4 IUCN’s best estimate of the global population is 10,000 to 25,000. 5 Estimate from IUCN’s Web page for Bryde’s whales. Southern Hemisphere: Southern Indian Ocean (13,854); western South Pacific (16,585); and eastern South Pacific (13,194) (IWC, 1981). 6 Whitehead (2002). 7 Estimate from IUCN’s Web page for Kogia spp. Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) (150,000); Hawaii (19,172); Gulf of Mexico (742); and western Atlantic (395). 8 Wade and Gerrodette (1993). 9 South of 60° S. from the 1885/1986–1990/1991 IWC/IDCR and SOWER surveys (Branch and Butterworth, 2001). 10 ETP, line-transect survey, August–December 2006 (Gerrodette et al., 2008). 11 ETP, southern stock, 2000 survey (Gerrodette and Forcada 2002). 12 Gerrodette and Palacios (1996) estimated 55,000 within Pacific coast waters of Mexico, 69,000 in the Gulf of California, and 20,000 off South Africa. IUCN, 2016. 13 IUCN, 2016 and Markowitz, 2004. 14 Kasamatsu and Joyce, 1995.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23124 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

15 Abundance estimates for beaked, southern bottlenose, and pilot whales south of the Antarctic Convergence in January (Kasamatsu and Joyce, 1995). 16 Gerrodette and Forcada (2002). 17 2005/2006 minimum population estimate (Osman, 2008). 18 Crespo et al. (2012). Current status of the South American sea lion along the distribution range. 19 Hindell and Perrin (2009).

NMFS refers the public to Lamont- Doherty would carry out the proposed • Low frequency cetaceans (13 Doherty’s application, NSF’s draft activity, what mitigation measures species of mysticetes): Functional environmental analysis (see ADDRESSES), Lamont-Doherty would implement, and hearing estimates occur between available online at: http:// how either of those would shape the approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 25 kHz www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ anticipated impacts from this specific (extended from 22 kHz based on data species.htm for further information on activity. Operating active acoustic indicating that some mysticetes can hear the biology and local distribution of sources, such as airgun arrays, has the above 22 kHz; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi these species. potential for adverse effects on marine and Stein, 2007; Ketten and Mountain, mammals. The majority of anticipated 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012); Potential Effects of the Specified impacts would be from the use of the • Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 Activities on Marine Mammals airgun array. species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of This section includes a summary and Acoustic Impacts discussion of the ways that components beaked and bottlenose whales): (e.g., seismic airgun operations, vessel When considering the influence of Functional hearing estimates occur movement) of the specified activity may various kinds of sound on the marine between approximately 150 Hz and 160 impact marine mammals. The environment, it is necessary to kHz; ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental understand that different kinds of • High-frequency cetaceans (eight Harassment’’ section later in this marine life are sensitive to different species of true , six species of document will include a quantitative frequencies of sound. Current data river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, analysis of the number of individuals indicate that not all marine mammal and four species of cephalorhynchids): that NMFS expects to be taken by this species have equal hearing capabilities Functional hearing estimates occur activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., between approximately 200 Hz and 180 Analysis’’ section will include the 1997; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and kHz; and analysis of how this specific proposed Hastings, 2008). • Pinnipeds in water: phocid (true activity would impact marine mammals Southall et al. (2007) designated seals) functional hearing estimates occur and will consider the content of this ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ for marine between approximately 75 Hz and 100 section, the ‘‘Estimated Take by mammals based on available behavioral kHz (Hemila et al., 2006; Mulsow et al., Incidental Harassment’’ section, the data; audiograms derived from auditory 2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013) and ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ section, and the evoked potentials; anatomical modeling; otariid (seals and sea lions) functional ‘‘Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal and other data. Southall et al. (2007) hearing estimates occur between Habitat’’ section to draw conclusions also estimated the lower and upper approximately 100 Hz to 40 kHz. regarding the likely impacts of this frequencies of functional hearing for Approximately 44 marine mammals activity on the reproductive success or each group. However, are less (9 Mysticetes, 31 odontocetes, and 4 survivorship of individuals and from sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of pinnipeds) would likely occur in the that on the affected marine mammal their functional hearing range and are proposed action area. Table 2 presents populations or stocks. more sensitive to a range of frequencies the classification of these species into NMFS intends to provide a within the middle of their functional their respected functional hearing background of potential effects of hearing range. group. NMFS considers a species’ Lamont-Doherty’s activities in this The functional groups applicable to functional hearing group when section. This section does not consider this proposed survey and the associated analyzing the effects of exposure to the specific manner in which Lamont- frequencies are: sound on marine mammals.

TABLE 2—CLASSIFICATION OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN, 2016/2017, BY FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUP [Southall et al., 2007]

Low Frequency Hearing Range ...... Antarctic minke, blue, Bryde’s, common (dwarf) minke, fin, humpback, Sei, pygmy right, and Southern right whale. Mid-Frequency Hearing Range ...... Sperm whale; Cuvier’s; Andrew’s; Blainville’s, Gray’s; Hector’s; pygmy; and Shepherd’s beaked whale; strap toothed; spade toothed; Southern bottlenose whale; bottlenose; hourglass; dusky; Peale’s; rough-toothed; striped; Chilean; Risso’s; long-beaked common; short-beaked common; and Southern right whale dolphin; ; false killer whale; killer whale, long-finned pilot whale; and short-finned pilot whale. High Frequency Hearing Range ...... Dwarf sperm whale and pygmy sperm whale. Pinnipeds in Water Hearing Range ..... Southern elephant seal; Southern American sea lion; Subantarctic fur seal; and Juan Fernandez fur seal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23125

1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on differences in encounter rates (sightings among species, but include Marine Mammals per hour) for humpback and sperm communication between individuals, The effects of sounds from airgun whales according to the airgun array’s navigation, foraging, reproduction, operations might include one or more of operational status (i.e., active versus avoiding predators, and learning about the following: Tolerance, masking of silent). their environment (Erbe and Farmer, Bain and Williams (2006) examined natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, 2000; Tyack, 2000). the effects of a large airgun array The term masking refers to the temporary or permanent impairment, or (maximum total discharge volume of inability of an animal to recognize the non-auditory physical or physiological 1,100 in3) on six species in shallow occurrence of an acoustic stimulus effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon waters off British Columbia and because of interference of another et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Washington: Harbor seal (Phoca acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009). Southall et al., 2007). The effects of vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus Thus, masking is the obscuring of noise on marine mammals are highly californianus), Steller sea lion sounds of interest by other sounds, often variable, often depending on species (Eumetopias jubatus), at similar frequencies. It is a and contextual factors (based on (Eschrichtius robustus), Dall’s porpoise phenomenon that affects animals that Richardson et al., 1995). (Phocoenoides dalli), and harbor are trying to receive acoustic Tolerance porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Harbor information about their environment, porpoises showed reactions at received including sounds from other members Studies on marine mammals’ levels less than 155 dB re: 1 mPa at a of their species, predators, prey, and tolerance to sound in the natural distance of greater than 70 km (43 mi) sounds that allow them to orient in their environment are relatively rare. from the seismic source (Bain and environment. Masking these acoustic Richardson et al. (1995) defined Williams, 2006). However, the tendency signals can disturb the behavior of tolerance as the occurrence of marine for greater responsiveness by harbor individual animals, groups of animals, mammals in areas where they are porpoise is consistent with their relative or entire populations. Introduced exposed to human activities or responsiveness to boat traffic and some underwater sound may, through manmade noise. In many cases, other acoustic sources (Richardson, et masking, more specifically reduce the tolerance develops by the animal al., 1995; Southall, et al., 2007). In effective communication distance of a habituating to the stimulus (i.e., the contrast, the authors reported that gray marine mammal species if the frequency gradual waning of responses to a whales seemed to tolerate exposures to of the source is close to that used as a repeated or ongoing stimulus) sound up to approximately 170 dB re: signal by the marine mammal, and if the (Richardson, et al., 1995), but because of 1 mPa (Bain and Williams, 2006) and anthropogenic sound is present for a ecological or physiological Dall’s porpoises occupied and tolerated significant fraction of the time requirements, many marine animals areas receiving exposures of 170–180 dB (Richardson et al., 1995). may need to remain in areas where they re: 1 mPa (Bain and Williams, 2006; Evidence suggests that some marine are exposed to chronic stimuli Parsons, et al., 2009). The authors mammals may be able to compensate for (Richardson, et al., 1995). observed several gray whales that communication masking by adjusting Numerous studies have shown that moved away from the airguns toward their acoustic behavior through shifting pulsed sounds from airguns are often deeper water where sound levels were call frequencies, increasing call volume, readily detectable in the water at higher due to propagation effects and increasing vocalization rates. For distances of many kilometers. Several resulting in higher noise exposures example, blue whales were shown to studies have also shown that marine (Bain and Williams, 2006). However, it increase call rates when exposed to mammals at distances of more than a is unclear whether their movements noise from seismic surveys in the St. few kilometers from operating seismic reflected a response to the sounds (Bain Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark, vessels often show no apparent and Williams, 2006). Thus, the authors 2010). Other studies reported that some response. That is often true even in surmised that the lack of gray whale North Atlantic right whales exposed to cases when the pulsed sounds must be responses to higher received sound high shipping noise increased call readily audible to the animals based on levels were ambiguous at best because frequency (Parks et al., 2007) and some measured received levels and the one expects the species to be the most humpback whales responded to low- hearing sensitivity of the marine sensitive to the low-frequency sound frequency active sonar playbacks by mammal group. Although various emanating from the airguns (Bain and increasing song length (Miller et al., baleen whales and toothed whales, and Williams, 2006). 2000). Additionally, beluga whales (less frequently) pinnipeds have been Pirotta et al. (2014) observed short- change their vocalizations in the shown to react behaviorally to airgun term responses of harbor porpoises to a presence of high background noise pulses under some conditions, at other 2–D seismic survey in an enclosed bay possibly to avoid masking calls (Au et times marine mammals of all three types in northeast Scotland which did not al., 1985; Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele have shown no overt reactions (Stone, result in broad-scale displacement. The et al., 2005). 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Moulton harbor porpoises that remained in the Studies have shown that some baleen et al.,2005, 2006) and (MacLean and enclosed bay area reduced their buzzing and toothed whales continue calling in Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006). activity by 15 percent during the the presence of seismic pulses, and Weir (2008) observed marine mammal seismic survey (Pirotta et al., 2014). some researchers have heard these calls responses to seismic pulses from a 24 Thus, the authors suggest that animals between the seismic pulses (e.g., airgun array firing a total volume of exposed to anthropogenic disturbance Richardson et al., 1986; McDonald et al., either 5,085 in3 or 3,147 in3 in Angolan may make trade-offs between perceived 1995; Greene et al., 1999; Nieukirk et waters between August 2004 and May risks and the cost of leaving disturbed al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et 2005. Weir (2008) recorded a total of areas (Pirotta et al., 2014). al., 2005a, 2005b, 2006; and Dunn and 207 sightings of humpback whales (n = Hernandez, 2009). 66), sperm whales (n = 124), and Masking In contrast, Clark and Gagnon (2006) Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17) and Marine mammals use acoustic signals reported that fin whales in the northeast reported that there were no significant for a variety of purposes, which differ Pacific Ocean went silent for an

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23126 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

extended period starting soon after the noise that are similar in frequency to the on the degree of masking when the onset of a seismic survey in the area. sound signal in question primarily sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast Similarly, NMFS is aware of one report determine the degree of masking of that to the pronounced effect at higher that observed sperm whales ceasing signal. frequencies. Studies have noted calls when exposed to pulses from a Redundancy and context can also directional hearing at frequencies as low very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al., facilitate detection of weak signals. as 0.5–2 kHz in several marine 1994). However, more recent studies These phenomena may help marine mammals, including killer whales have found that sperm whales mammals detect weak sounds in the (Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability continued calling in the presence of presence of natural or manmade noise. may be useful in reducing masking at seismic pulses (Madsen et al., 2002; Most masking studies in marine these frequencies. In summary, high Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; mammals present the test signal and the levels of sound generated by Holst et al., 2006; and Jochens et al., masking noise from the same direction. anthropogenic activities may act to 2008). The sound localization abilities of mask the detection of weaker Risch et al. (2012) documented marine mammals suggest that, if signal biologically important sounds by some reductions in humpback whale and noise come from different marine mammals. This masking may be vocalizations in the Stellwagen Bank directions, masking would not be as more prominent for lower frequencies. National Marine Sanctuary concurrent severe as the usual types of masking For higher frequencies, such as that with transmissions of the Ocean studies might suggest (Richardson et al., used in echolocation by toothed whales, Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing 1995). The dominant background noise several mechanisms are available that (OAWRS) low-frequency fish sensor may be highly directional if it comes may allow them to reduce the effects of system at distances of 200 km (124 mi) from a particular anthropogenic source such masking. from the source. The recorded OAWRS such as a ship or industrial site. produced series of frequency modulated Directional hearing may significantly Behavioral Disturbance pulses and the signal received levels reduce the masking effects of these Marine mammals may behaviorally ranged from 88 to 110 dB re: 1 mPa sounds by improving the effective react to sound when exposed to (Risch, et al., 2012). The authors signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of anthropogenic noise. Reactions to hypothesized that individuals did not higher frequency hearing by the sound, if any, depend on species, state leave the area but instead ceased singing bottlenose dolphin, , and of maturity, experience, current activity, and noted that the duration and killer whale, empirical evidence reproductive state, time of day, and frequency range of the OAWRS signals confirms that masking depends strongly many other factors (Richardson et al., (a novel sound to the whales) were on the relative directions of arrival of 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et similar to those of natural humpback sound signals and the masking noise al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). whale song components used during (Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; Types of behavioral reactions can mating (Risch et al., 2012). Thus, the Bain et al., 1993; Bain and Dahlheim, include the following: changing novelty of the sound to humpback 1994). durations of surfacing and dives, Toothed whales and probably other whales in the study area provided a number of blows per surfacing, or marine mammals as well, have compelling contextual probability for moving direction and/or speed; the observed effects (Risch et al., 2012). additional capabilities besides reduced/increased vocal activities; However, the authors did not state or directional hearing that can facilitate changing/cessation of certain behavioral imply that these changes had long-term detection of sounds in the presence of activities (such as socializing or effects on individual animals or background noise. There is evidence feeding); visible startle response or populations (Risch et al., 2012). that some toothed whales can shift the Several studies have also reported dominant frequencies of their aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke hearing dolphins and porpoises calling echolocation signals from a frequency slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of while airguns were operating (e.g., range with a lot of ambient noise toward areas where noise sources are located; Gordon et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; frequencies with less noise (Au et al., and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds Holst et al., 2005a, b; and Potter et al., 1974, 1985; Moore and Pawloski, 1990; flushing into water from haulouts or 2007). The sounds important to small Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko rookeries). odontocete communication are and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et al., 1999). A The biological significance of many of predominantly at much higher few marine mammal species increase these behavioral disturbances is difficult frequencies than the dominant the source levels or alter the frequency to predict, especially if the detected components of airgun sounds, thus of their calls in the presence of elevated disturbances appear minor. However, limiting the potential for masking in sound levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au, 1993; one could expect the consequences of those species. Lesage et al., 1993, 1999; Terhune, 1999; behavioral modification to be Although some degree of masking is Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007, biologically significant if the change inevitable when high levels of manmade 2009; Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Holt et affects growth, survival, and/or broadband sounds are present in the al., 2009). reproduction (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, sea, marine mammals have evolved These data demonstrating adaptations 2007; Weilgart, 2007). Examples of systems and behavior that function to for reduced masking pertain mainly to behavioral modifications that could reduce the impacts of masking. the very high frequency echolocation impact growth, survival, or Odontocete conspecifics may readily signals of toothed whales. There is less reproduction include: detect structured signals, such as the information about the existence of • Drastic changes in diving/surfacing echolocation click sequences of small corresponding mechanisms at moderate patterns (such as those associated with toothed whales even in the presence of or low frequencies or in other types of beaked whale stranding related to strong background noise because their marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva exposure to military mid-frequency frequency content and temporal features et al. (1980) found that, for the tactical sonar); usually differ strongly from those of the bottlenose dolphin, the angular • Permanent habitat abandonment background noise (Au and Moore, 1988, separation between a sound source and due to loss of desirable acoustic 1990). The components of background a masking noise source had little effect environment; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23127

• Disruption of feeding or social during seismic compared with non- behavior that they could directly interaction resulting in significant seismic periods. Moreover, the authors ascribed to the use of the airguns (Dunn energetic costs, inhibited breeding, or observed that the whales swam away and Hernandez, 2009; Wilcock et al., cow-calf separation. more often from the operating seismic 2014). Further, the authors state that The onset of behavioral disturbance vessel (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Initial while the data do not permit a thorough from anthropogenic noise depends on sightings of blue and minke whales investigation of behavioral responses, both external factors (characteristics of were significantly farther from the they observed no correlation in noise sources and their paths) and the vessel during seismic operations vocalization or movement with the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, compared to non-seismic periods and concurrent airgun activity and estimated experience, demography) and is also the authors observed the same trend for that the sound levels produced by the difficult to predict (Richardson et al., fin whales (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Ewing’s airguns were approximately less 1995; Southall et al., 2007). Also, the authors observed that minke than 145 dB re: 1 mPa (Dunn and Baleen Whales whales most often swam away from the Hernandez, 2009). vessel when seismic operations were Fin Whales Studies have shown that underwater underway (Moulton and Holst, 2010). sounds from seismic activities are often Castellote et al. (2010) observed readily detectable by baleen whales in Blue Whales localized avoidance by fin whales the water at distances of many McDonald et al. (1995) tracked blue during seismic airgun events in the kilometers (Castellote et al., 2012 for fin whales relative to a seismic survey with western Mediterranean Sea and adjacent whales). Many studies have also shown a 1,600 in3 airgun array. One whale Atlantic waters from 2006–2009 and that marine mammals at distances more started its call sequence within 15 km reported that singing fin whales moved than a few kilometers away often show (9.3 mi) from the source, then followed away from an operating airgun array for no apparent response when exposed to a pursuit track that decreased its a time period that extended beyond the seismic activities (e.g., Madsen & Mohl, distance to the vessel where it stopped duration of the airgun activity. 2000 for sperm whales; Malme et al., calling at a range of 10 km (6.2 mi) Gray Whales 1983, 1984 for gray whales; and (estimated received level at 143 dB re: Richardson et al., 1986 for bowhead 1 mPa (peak-to-peak)). After that point, A few studies have documented whales). Other studies have shown that the ship increased its distance from the reactions of migrating and feeding (but marine mammals continue important whale which continued a new call not wintering) gray whales (Eschrichtius behaviors in the presence of seismic sequence after approximately one hour robustus) to seismic surveys. Malme et pulses (e.g., Dunn & Hernandez, 2009 and 10 km (6.2 mi) from the ship. The al. (1986, 1988) studied the responses of for blue whales; Greene Jr. et al., 1999 authors reported that the whale had feeding eastern Pacific gray whales to for bowhead whales; Holst and Beland, taken a track paralleling the ship during pulses from a single 100-in3 airgun off 2010; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Holst et the cessation phase but observed the St. Lawrence Island in the northern al., 2005; Nieukirk et al., 2004; whale moving diagonally away from the Bering Sea. They estimated, based on Richardson, et al., 1986; Smultea et al., ship after approximately 30 minutes small sample sizes, that 50 percent of 2004). continuing to vocalize. Because the feeding gray whales stopped feeding at Observers have seen various species whale may have approached the ship an average received pressure level of of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, fin, and intentionally or perhaps was unaffected 173 dB re: 1 mPa on an (approximate) minke whales) in areas ensonified by by the airguns, the authors concluded root mean square basis, and that 10 airgun pulses (Stone, 2003; MacLean that there was insufficient data to infer percent of feeding whales interrupted and Haley, 2004; Stone and Tasker, conclusions from their study related to feeding at received levels of 163 dB re: 2006), and have localized calls from blue whale responses (McDonald, et al., 1 mPa. Those findings were generally blue and fin whales in areas with airgun 1995). consistent with the results of operations (e.g., McDonald et al., 1995; Dunn and Hernandez (2009) tracked experiments conducted on larger Dunn and Hernandez, 2009; Castellote blue whales in the eastern tropical numbers of gray whales that were et al., 2010). Sightings by observers on Pacific Ocean near the northern East migrating along the California coast seismic vessels off the United Kingdom Pacific Rise using 25 ocean-bottom- (Malme et al., 1984; Malme and Miles, from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, during mounted hydrophones and ocean 1985), and western Pacific gray whales times of good visibility, sighting rates bottom seismometers during the feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei conduct of an academic seismic survey (Wursig et al., 1999; Gailey et al., 2007; whales) were similar when large arrays by the R/V Maurice Ewing in 1997. Johnson et al., 2007; Yazvenko et al., of airguns were shooting versus silent During the airgun operations, the 2007a, 2007b), along with data on gray (Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). authors recorded the airgun pulses whales off British Columbia (Bain and However, these whales tended to exhibit across the entire seismic array which Williams, 2006). localized avoidance, remaining they determined were detectable by Data on short-term reactions by significantly further (on average) from eight whales that had entered into the cetaceans to impulsive noises are not the airgun array during seismic area during a period of airgun activity necessarily indicative of long-term or operations compared with non-seismic (Dunn and Hernandez, 2009). The biologically significant effects. It is not periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006). authors were able to track each whale known whether impulsive sounds affect Ship-based monitoring studies of call-by-call using the B components of reproductive rate or distribution and baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei, the calls and examine the whales’ habitat use in subsequent days or years. minke, and whales) in the northwest locations and call characteristics with However, gray whales have continued to Atlantic found that overall, this group respect to the periods of airgun activity. migrate annually along the west coast of had lower sighting rates during seismic The authors tracked the blue whales North America with substantial versus non-seismic periods (Moulton from 28 to 100 km (17 to 62 mi) away increases in the population over recent and Holst, 2010). The authors observed from active air-gun operations, but did years, despite intermittent seismic that baleen whales as a group were not observe changes in call rates and exploration (and much ship traffic) in significantly farther from the vessel found no evidence of anomalous that area for decades (Appendix A in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23128 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

Malme et al., 1984; Richardson et al., swim away and less likely to swim small toothed whales near operating 1995; Allen and Angliss, 2014). The towards a vessel during seismic versus airgun arrays, but in general there is a western Pacific gray whale population non-seismic periods (Moulton and tendency for most delphinids to show did not appear affected by a seismic Holst, 2010). some avoidance of operating seismic survey in its feeding ground during a Humpback whales on their summer vessels (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; previous year (Johnson et al., 2007). feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, Similarly, bowhead whales (Balaena not exhibit persistent avoidance when 2003; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst mysticetus) have continued to travel to exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64– et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006; the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer, L (100-in3) airgun (Malme et al., 1985). Weir, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009; and their numbers have increased Some humpbacks seemed ‘‘startled’’ at Barkaszi et al., 2009; Moulton and notably, despite seismic exploration in received levels of 150 to 169 dB re: 1 Holst, 2010). Some dolphins seem to be their summer and autumn range for mPa. Malme et al. (1985) concluded that attracted to the seismic vessel and many years (Richardson et al., 1987; there was no clear evidence of floats, and some ride the bow wave of Allen and Angliss, 2014). The history of avoidance, despite the possibility of the seismic vessel even when large coexistence between seismic surveys subtle effects, at received levels up to arrays of airguns are firing (e.g., and baleen whales suggests that brief 172 re: 1 mPa. However, Moulton and Moulton and Miller, 2005). Nonetheless, exposures to sound pulses from any Holst (2010) reported that humpback there have been indications that small single seismic survey are unlikely to whales monitored during seismic toothed whales sometimes move away result in prolonged effects. surveys in the northwest Atlantic had or maintain a somewhat greater distance lower sighting rates and were most often from the vessel when a large array of Humpback Whales seen swimming away from the vessel airguns is operating than when it is McCauley et al. (1998, 2000) studied during seismic periods compared with silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; Stone and the responses of humpback whales off periods when airguns were silent. Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008, Barry et al., western Australia to a full-scale seismic Other studies have suggested that 2010; Moulton and Holst, 2010). In most survey with a 16-airgun array (2,678-in3) south Atlantic humpback whales cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids and to a single, 20-in3 airgun with wintering off Brazil may be displaced or appear to be small, on the order of one source level of 227 dB re: 1 mPa (peak- even strand upon exposure to seismic km or less, and some individuals show to-peak). In the 1998 study, the surveys (Engel et al., 2004). However, no apparent avoidance. researchers documented that avoidance the evidence for this was circumstantial Captive bottlenose dolphins exhibited reactions began at five to eight km (3.1 and subject to alternative explanations changes in behavior when exposed to to 4.9 mi) from the array, and that those (IAGC, 2004). Also, the evidence was strong pulsed sounds similar in reactions kept most pods approximately not consistent with subsequent results duration to those typically used in three to four km (1.9 to 2.5 mi) from the from the same area of Brazil (Parente et seismic surveys (Finneran et al., 2000, operating seismic boat. In the 2000 al., 2006), or with direct studies of 2002, 2005). However, the animals study, McCauley et al. (1998, 2000) humpbacks exposed to seismic surveys tolerated high received levels of sound noted localized displacement during in other areas and seasons. After (pk–pk level > 200 dB re 1 mPa) before migration of four to five km (2.5 to 3.1 allowance for data from subsequent exhibiting aversive behaviors. mi) by traveling pods and seven to 12 years, there was ‘‘no observable direct Killer Whales km (4.3 to 7.5 mi) by more sensitive correlation’’ between strandings and resting pods of cow-calf pairs. seismic surveys (IWC, 2007: 236). Observers stationed on seismic Avoidance distances with respect to the vessels operating off the United single airgun were smaller but Toothed Whales Kingdom from 1997–2000 have consistent with the results from the full Few systematic data are available provided data on the occurrence and array in terms of the received sound describing reactions of toothed whales behavior of various toothed whales levels. The mean received level for to noise pulses. However, systematic exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 2003; initial avoidance of an approaching work on sperm whales is underway Gordon et al., 2004). The studies note airgun was 140 dB re: 1 mPa for (e.g., Gordon et al., 2006; Madsen et al., that killer whales were significantly humpback pods containing females, and 2006; Winsor and Mate, 2006; Jochens et farther from large airgun arrays during at the mean closest point of approach al., 2008; Miller et al., 2009) and there periods of active airgun operations distance, the received level was 143 dB is an increasing amount of information compared with periods of silence. The re: 1 mPa. The initial avoidance response about responses of various odontocetes displacement of the median distance generally occurred at distances of five to to seismic surveys based on monitoring from the array was approximately 0.5 eight km (3.1 to 4.9 mi) from the airgun studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al., km (0.3 mi) or more. Killer whales also array and 2 km (1.2 mi) from the single 2004; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Bain appear to be more tolerant of seismic airgun. However, some individual and Williams, 2006; Holst et al., 2006; shooting in deeper water (Stone, 2003; humpback whales, especially males, Stone and Tasker, 2006; Potter et al., Gordon et al., 2004). approached within distances of 100 to 2007; Hauser et al., 2008; Holst and Sperm Whales 400 m (328 to 1,312 ft), where the Smultea, 2008; Weir, 2008; Barkaszi et maximum received level was 179 dB re: al., 2009; Richardson et al., 2009; Most studies of sperm whales exposed 1 mPa. Moulton and Holst, 2010). Reactions of to airgun sounds indicate that the whale Data collected by observers during toothed whales to large arrays of airguns shows considerable tolerance of airgun several of Lamont-Doherty’s seismic are variable and, at least for delphinids, pulses (e.g., Stone, 2003; Moulton et al., surveys in the northwest Atlantic Ocean seem to be confined to a smaller radius 2005, 2006a; Stone and Tasker, 2006; showed that sighting rates of humpback than has been observed for mysticetes. Weir, 2008). In most cases the whales do whales were significantly greater during not show strong avoidance, and they non-seismic periods compared with Delphinids continue to call. However, controlled periods when a full array was operating Seismic operators and protected exposure experiments in the Gulf of (Moulton and Holst, 2010). In addition, species observers (observers) on seismic Mexico indicate alteration of foraging humpback whales were more likely to vessels regularly see dolphins and other behavior upon exposure to airgun

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23129

sounds (Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et were relatively small, on the order of The following physiological al., 2009; Tyack, 2009). 100 m (328 ft) to a few hundred meters, mechanisms are thought to play a role and many seals remained within 100– in inducing auditory TS: Effects to Beaked Whales 200 m (328–656 ft) of the trackline as sensory hair cells in the inner ear that There are almost no specific data on the operating airgun array passed by the reduce their sensitivity, modification of the behavioral reactions of beaked animals. Seal sighting rates at the water the chemical environment within the whales to seismic surveys. Most beaked surface were lower during airgun array sensory cells, residual muscular activity whales tend to avoid approaching operations than during no-airgun in the middle ear, displacement of vessels of other types (e.g., Wursig et al., periods in each survey year except 1997. certain inner ear membranes, increased 1998). They may also dive for an Similarly, seals are often very tolerant of blood flow, and post-stimulatory extended period when approached by a pulsed sounds from seal-scaring devices reduction in both efferent and sensory vessel (e.g., Kasuya, 1986), although it is (Mate and Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and neural output (Southall et al., 2007). uncertain how much longer such dives Curry, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995). The amplitude, duration, frequency, may be as compared to dives by However, initial telemetry work temporal pattern, and energy undisturbed beaked whales, which also suggests that avoidance and other distribution of sound exposure all can are often quite long (Baird et al., 2006; behavioral reactions by two other affect the amount of associated TS and Tyack et al., 2006). species of seals to small airgun sources the frequency range in which it occurs. Based on a single observation, may at times be stronger than evident to As amplitude and duration of sound Aguilar-Soto et al. (2006) suggested a date from visual studies of pinniped exposure increase, so, generally, does reduction in foraging efficiency of reactions to airguns (Thompson et al., the amount of TS, along with the Cuvier’s beaked whales during a close 1998). recovery time. For intermittent sounds, approach by a vessel. In contrast, less TS could occur than compared to a Hearing Impairment Moulton and Holst (2010) reported 15 continuous exposure with the same sightings of beaked whales during Exposure to high intensity sound for energy (some recovery could occur seismic studies in the northwest a sufficient duration may result in between intermittent exposures Atlantic and the authors observed seven auditory effects such as a noise-induced depending on the duty cycle between of those sightings during times when at threshold shift—an increase in the sounds) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, least one airgun was operating. Because auditory threshold after exposure to 1997). For example, one short but loud sighting rates and distances were similar noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors (higher SPL) sound exposure may during seismic and non-seismic periods, that influence the amount of threshold induce the same impairment as one the authors could not correlate changes shift include the amplitude, duration, longer but softer sound, which in turn to beaked whale behavior to the effects frequency content, temporal pattern, may cause more impairment than a of airgun operations (Moulton and and energy distribution of noise series of several intermittent softer Holst, 2010). exposure. The magnitude of hearing sounds with the same total energy Similarly, other studies have observed threshold shift normally decreases over (Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS northern bottlenose whales remain in time following cessation of the noise is temporary, prolonged exposure to the general area of active seismic exposure. The amount of threshold shift sounds strong enough to elicit TTS, or operations while continuing to produce just after exposure is the initial shorter-term exposure to sound levels high-frequency clicks when exposed to threshold shift. If the threshold shift well above the TTS threshold, can cause sound pulses from distant seismic eventually returns to zero (i.e., the PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals surveys (Gosselin and Lawson, 2004; threshold returns to the pre-exposure (Kryter, 1985). Laurinolli and Cochrane, 2005; Simard value), it is a temporary threshold shift PTS is considered an auditory injury et al., 2005). (Southall et al., 2007). (Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable Pinnipeds Threshold Shift (Noise-Induced Loss of damage to the inner or outer cochlear Hearing) hair cells may cause PTS; however, Pinnipeds are not likely to show a other mechanisms are also involved, strong avoidance reaction to the airgun When animals exhibit reduced such as exceeding the elastic limits of sources proposed for use. Visual hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be certain tissues and membranes in the monitoring from seismic vessels has louder for an animal to detect them) middle and inner ears and resultant shown only slight (if any) avoidance of following exposure to an intense sound changes in the chemical composition of airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if or sound for long duration, it is referred the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., any) changes in behavior. Monitoring to as a noise-induced threshold shift 2007). work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during (TS). An animal can experience Although the published body of 1996–2001 provided considerable temporary threshold shift (TTS) or scientific literature contains numerous information regarding the behavior of permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS theoretical studies and discussion Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic can last from minutes or hours to days papers on hearing impairments that can pulses (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur with exposure to a loud sound, Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., only a few studies provide empirical usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 an animal might only have a temporary information on the levels at which airguns with total volumes of 560 to loss of hearing sensitivity between the noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity 1,500 in.3 The combined results suggest frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can occurs in non-human animals. that some seals avoid the immediate be of varying amounts (for example, an Recent studies by Kujawa and area around seismic vessels. In most animal’s hearing sensitivity might be Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011) survey years, ringed seal (Phoca reduced initially by only 6 dB or found that despite completely reversible hispida) sightings tended to be farther reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, threshold shifts that leave cochlear away from the seismic vessel when the but some recovery is possible. PTS can sensory cells intact, large threshold airguns were operating than when they also occur in a specific frequency range shifts could cause synaptic level were not (Moulton and Lawson, 2002). and amount as mentioned above for changes and delayed cochlear nerve However, these avoidance movements TTS. degeneration in mice and guinea pigs,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23130 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

respectively. NMFS notes that the high 150 in3 and 1000–2000 psi, respectively. physiological effects or injuries that level of TTS that led to the synaptic After three years and 180 sessions, the theoretically might occur in mammals changes shown in these studies is in the authors observed no significant TTS at close to a strong sound source include range of the high degree of TTS that any test frequency, for any combinations stress, neurological effects, bubble Southall et al. (2007) used to calculate of airgun volume, pressure, or proximity formation, and other types of organ or PTS levels. It is unknown whether to the dolphin during behavioral tests tissue damage. Some marine mammal smaller levels of TTS would lead to (Schlundt, et al., 2013). Schlundt et al. species (i.e., beaked whales) may be similar changes. NMFS, however, (2013) suggest that the potential for especially susceptible to injury and/or acknowledges the complexity of noise airguns to cause hearing loss in stranding when exposed to strong exposure on the nervous system, and dolphins is lower than previously pulsed sounds. will re-examine this issue as more data predicted, perhaps as a result of the Classic stress responses begin when become available. low-frequency content of airgun an animal’s central nervous system For marine mammals, published data impulses compared to the high- perceives a potential threat to its are limited to the captive bottlenose frequency hearing ability of dolphins. wellbeing. That perception triggers dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Marine mammal hearing plays a stress responses regardless of whether a Yangtze (Finneran et critical role in communication with stimulus actually threatens the animal; al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, conspecifics, and interpretation of the mere perception of a threat is 2010a, 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, environmental cues for purposes such sufficient to trigger a stress response 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., as predator avoidance and prey capture. (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; 2009a, 2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, Depending on the degree (elevation of Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery nervous system perceives a threat, it et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, time), and frequency range of TTS, and mounts a biological response or defense 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data are the context in which it is experienced, that consists of a combination of the limited to measurements of TTS in TTS can have effects on marine four general biological defense harbor seals, an elephant seal, and mammals ranging from discountable to responses: Behavioral responses; California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, serious (similar to those discussed in autonomic nervous system responses; 2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b). auditory masking, below). For example, neuroendocrine responses; or immune Lucke et al. (2009) found a threshold a marine mammal may be able to readily responses. shift (TS) of a harbor porpoise after compensate for a brief, relatively small In the case of many stressors, an exposing it to airgun noise with a amount of TTS in a non-critical animal’s first and most economical (in received sound pressure level (SPL) at frequency range that occurs during a terms of biotic costs) response is 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 mPa, which time where ambient noise is lower and behavioral avoidance of the potential corresponds to a sound exposure level there are not as many competing sounds stressor or avoidance of continued of 164.5 dB re: 1 mPa2 s after integrating present. Alternatively, a larger amount exposure to a stressor. An animal’s exposure. NMFS currently uses the root- and longer duration of TTS sustained second line of defense to stressors mean-square (rms) of received SPL at during time when communication is involves the sympathetic part of the 180 dB and 190 dB re: 1 mPa as the critical for successful mother/calf autonomic nervous system and the threshold above which permanent interactions could have more serious classic ‘‘fight or flight’’ response, which threshold shift (PTS) could occur for impacts. Also, depending on the degree includes the cardiovascular system, the cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. and frequency range, the effects of PTS gastrointestinal system, the exocrine Because the airgun noise is a broadband on an animal could range in severity, glands, and the adrenal medulla to impulse, one cannot directly determine although it is considered generally more produce changes in heart rate, blood the equivalent of rms SPL from the serious because it is a permanent pressure, and gastrointestinal activity reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, condition. Of note, reduced hearing that humans commonly associate with applying a conservative conversion sensitivity as a simple function of aging stress. These responses have a relatively factor of 16 dB for broadband signals has been observed in marine mammals, short duration and may or may not have from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., as well as humans and other taxa significant long-term effects on an 2000) to correct for the difference (Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer animal’s welfare. between peak-to-peak levels reported in that strategies exist for coping with this An animal’s third line of defense to Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the condition to some degree, though likely stressors involves its neuroendocrine or rms SPL for TTS would be not without cost. sympathetic nervous systems; the approximately 184 dB re: 1 mPa, and the Given the higher level of sound system that has received the most study received levels associated with PTS necessary to cause PTS as compared has been the hypothalamus-pituitary- (Level A harassment) would be higher. with TTS, it is considerably less likely adrenal system (also known as the HPA This is still above NMFS’ current 180 that PTS would occur during the axis in mammals or the hypothalamus- dB rms re: 1 mPa threshold for injury. proposed seismic survey. Cetaceans pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of generally avoid the immediate area some reptiles). Unlike stress responses harbor porpoises is lower than other around operating seismic vessels, as do associated with the autonomic nervous cetacean species empirically tested some other marine mammals. Some system, the pituitary hormones regulate (Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to virtually all neuroendocrine functions al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012). airguns, but their avoidance reactions affected by stress—including immune A recent study on bottlenose dolphins are generally not as strong or consistent competence, reproduction, metabolism, (Schlundt, et al., 2013) measured compared to cetacean reactions. and behavior. Stress-induced changes in hearing thresholds at multiple the secretion of pituitary hormones have frequencies to determine the amount of Non-Auditory Physical Effects been implicated in failed reproduction TTS induced before and after exposure Non-auditory physical effects might (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered to a sequence of impulses produced by occur in marine mammals exposed to metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), a seismic airgun. The airgun volume strong underwater pulsed sound. reduced immune competence (Blecha, and operating pressure varied from 40– Possible types of non-auditory 2000), and behavioral disturbance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23131

Increases in the circulation of exposures and physiological responses evidence of this upon exposure to glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, that are indicative of stress responses in airgun pulses. corticosterone, and aldosterone in humans (e.g., elevated respiration and In general, there are few data about marine mammals; see Romano et al., increased heart rates). Jones (1998) the potential for strong, anthropogenic 2004) have been equated with stress for reported on reductions in human underwater sounds to cause non- many years. performance when faced with acute, auditory physical effects in marine The primary distinction between repetitive exposures to acoustic mammals. Such effects, if they occur at stress (which is adaptive and does not disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) all, would presumably be limited to normally place an animal at risk) and reported on the physiological stress short distances and to activities that distress is the biotic cost of the responses of osprey to low-level aircraft extend over a prolonged period. The response. During a stress response, an noise while Krausman et al. (2004) available data do not allow animal uses glycogen stores that the reported on the auditory and physiology identification of a specific exposure body quickly replenishes after stress responses of endangered Sonoran level above which non-auditory effects alleviation of the stressor. In such pronghorn to military overflights. Smith can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) circumstances, the cost of the stress et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noise- or any meaningful quantitative response would not pose a risk to the induced physiological transient stress predictions of the numbers (if any) of animal’s welfare. However, when an responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e., marine mammals that might be affected animal does not have sufficient energy goldfish) that accompanied short- and in those ways. There is no definitive reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of long-term hearing losses. Welch and evidence that any of these effects occur a stress response, it diverts energy Welch (1970) reported physiological even for marine mammals in close resources from other biotic functions, and behavioral stress responses that proximity to large arrays of airguns. In which impair those functions that accompanied damage to the inner ears addition, marine mammals that show experience the diversion. For example, of fish and several mammals. behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, when mounting a stress response diverts Hearing is one of the primary senses including some pinnipeds, are unlikely energy away from growth in young marine mammals use to gather to incur non-auditory impairment or animals, those animals may experience information about their environment other physical effects. stunted growth. When mounting a stress and communicate with conspecifics. Stranding and Mortality response diverts energy from a fetus, an Although empirical information on the animal’s reproductive success and relationship between sensory When a living or dead marine fitness will suffer. In these cases, the impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic mammal swims or floats onto shore and animals will have entered a pre- masking) on marine mammals remains becomes ‘‘beached’’ or incapable of pathological or pathological state called limited, we assume that reducing a returning to sea, the event is a ‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or marine mammal’s ability to gather ‘‘stranding’’ (Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin ‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and information about its environment and and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state communicate with other members of its Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The will last until the animal replenishes its species would induce stress, based on legal definition for a stranding under the biotic reserves sufficient to restore data that terrestrial animals exhibit MMPA is that ‘‘(A) a marine mammal is normal function. Note that these those responses under similar dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of examples involved a long-term (days or conditions (NRC, 2003) and because the United States; or (ii) in waters under weeks) stress response exposure to marine mammals use hearing as their the jurisdiction of the United States stimuli. primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, (including any navigable waters); or (B) Relationships between these NMFS assumes that acoustic exposures a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on physiological mechanisms, animal sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS a beach or shore of the United States behavior, and the costs of stress would be accompanied by physiological and is unable to return to the water; (ii) responses have also been documented stress responses. More importantly, on a beach or shore of the United States fairly well through controlled marine mammals might experience and, although able to return to the experiment; because this physiology stress responses at received levels lower water, is in need of apparent medical exists in every vertebrate that has been than those necessary to trigger onset attention; or (iii) in the waters under the studied, it is not surprising that stress TTS. Based on empirical studies of the jurisdiction of the United States responses and their costs have been time required to recover from stress (including any navigable waters), but is documented in both laboratory and free- responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also unable to return to its natural habitat living animals (for examples see, assumes that stress responses could under its own power or without Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; persist beyond the time interval assistance.’’ Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., required for animals to recover from Marine mammals strand for a variety 2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens TTS and might result in pathological of reasons, such as infectious agents, et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, and pre-pathological states that would biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery 2000). Although no information has be as significant as behavioral responses interaction, ship strike, unusual been collected on the physiological to TTS. oceanographic or weather events, sound responses of marine mammals to Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and exposure, or combinations of these anthropogenic sound exposure, studies direct noise-induced bubble formations stressors sustained concurrently or in of other marine animals and terrestrial (Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in series. However, the cause or causes of animals would lead us to expect some the case of exposure to an impulsive most strandings are unknown (Geraci et marine mammals to experience broadband source like an airgun array. al., 1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et al., 1980; physiological stress responses and, If seismic surveys disrupt diving Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest perhaps, physiological responses that patterns of deep-diving species, this that the physiology, behavior, habitat would be classified as ‘‘distress’’ upon might result in bubble formation and a relationships, age, or condition of exposure to anthropogenic sounds. form of the bends, as speculated to cetaceans may cause them to strand or For example, Jansen (1998) reported occur in beaked whales exposed to might pre-dispose them to strand when on the relationship between acoustic sonar. However, there is no specific exposed to another phenomenon. These

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23132 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

suggestions are consistent with the mortality from Lamont-Doherty’s use of brief period when an individual conclusions of numerous other studies the multibeam echosounder. In 2013, an mammal is likely to be within its beam. that have demonstrated that International Scientific Review Panel Furthermore, in the case of baleen combinations of dissimilar stressors (ISRP) investigated a 2008 mass whales, the echosounder’s signals (12 commonly combine to kill an animal or stranding of approximately 100 melon- kHz) do not overlap with the dramatically reduce its fitness, even headed whales in a Madagascar lagoon predominant frequencies in the calls, though one exposure without the other system (Southall et al., 2013) associated which would avoid any significant does not produce the same result with the use of a high-frequency masking. (Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries mapping system. The report indicated Behavioral Responses et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley that the use of a 12-kHz multibeam et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, echosounder was the most plausible and Behavioral reactions of free-ranging 2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al., likely initial behavioral trigger of the marine mammals to sonars, 2004). There is no direct evidence of mass stranding event. This was the first echosounders, and other sound sources marine mammal stranding being caused time that a relatively high-frequency appear to vary by species and by seismic surveys. We have considered mapping sonar system had been circumstance. Observed reactions have the potential for the proposed seismic associated with a stranding event. included increased vocalizations and no surveys to result in marine mammal However, the report also notes that there dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell and stranding and have concluded that, were several site- and situation-specific Gordon, 1999), and strandings by based on the best available information, secondary factors that may have beaked whales. During exposure to a 21 stranding is not expected to occur. contributed to the avoidance responses to 25 kHz ‘‘whale-finding’’ sonar with a that led to the eventual entrapment and source level of 215 dB re: 1 mPa, gray 2. Potential Effects of the Multibeam mortality of the whales within the Loza whales reacted by orienting slightly Echosounder Lagoon system (e.g., the survey vessel away from the source and being Lamont-Doherty would operate the transiting in a north-south direction on deflected from their course by Kongsberg EM 122 multibeam the shelf break parallel to the shore may approximately 200 m (656 ft)(Frankel, echosounder from the source vessel have trapped the animals between the 2005). When a 38-kHz echosounder and during the planned survey. Sounds from sound source and the shore driving a 150-kHz acoustic Doppler current the multibeam echosounder are very them towards the Loza Lagoon). They profiler were transmitting during short pulses, occurring for two to 15 ms concluded that for odontocete cetaceans studies in the eastern tropical Pacific once every five to 20 s, depending on that hear well in the 10–50 kHz range, Ocean, baleen whales showed no water depth. Most of the energy in the where ambient noise is typically quite significant responses, while spotted and sound pulses emitted by this low, high-power active sonars operating spinner dolphins were detected slightly echosounder is at frequencies near 12 in this range may be more easily audible more often and beaked whales less often kHz, and the maximum source level is and have potential effects over larger during visual surveys (Gerrodette and 242 dB re: 1 mPa. The beam is narrow areas than low frequency systems that Pettis, 2005). (1 to 2°) in fore-aft extent and wide have more typically been considered in Captive bottlenose dolphins and a (150°) in the cross-track extent. Each terms of anthropogenic noise impacts beluga whale exhibited changes in ping consists of eight (in water greater (Southall, et al., 2013). However, the behavior when exposed to 1-s tonal than 1,000 m/3280 ft deep) or four (less risk may be very low given the extensive signals at frequencies similar to those than 1,000 m/3280 ft deep) successive use of these systems worldwide on a emitted by Lamont-Doherty’s fan-shaped transmissions (segments) at daily basis and the lack of direct echosounder and to shorter broadband different cross-track angles. Any given evidence of such responses previously pulsed signals. Behavioral changes mammal at depth near the trackline reported (Southall, et al., 2013). typically involved what appeared to be would be in the main beam for only one Navy sonars linked to avoidance deliberate attempts to avoid the sound or two of the segments. Also, marine reactions and stranding of cetaceans: (1) exposure (Schlundt et al., 2000; mammals that encounter the Kongsberg Generally have longer pulse duration Finneran et al., 2002; Finneran and EM 122 are unlikely to be subjected to than the Kongsberg EM 122; and (2) are Schlundt, 2004). The relevance of those repeated pulses because of the narrow often directed close to horizontally data to free-ranging odontocetes is fore-aft width of the beam and will versus more downward for the uncertain, and in any case, the test receive only limited amounts of pulse echosounder. The area of possible sounds were quite different in duration energy because of the short pulses. influence of the echosounder is much as compared with those from an Animals close to the vessel (where the smaller—a narrow band below the echosounder. beam is narrowest) are especially source vessel. Also, the duration of Hearing Impairment and Other Physical unlikely to be ensonified for more than exposure for a given marine mammal Effects one 2- to 15-ms pulse (or two pulses if can be much longer for naval sonar. in the overlap area). Similarly, Kremser During Lamont-Doherty’s operations, Given recent stranding events et al. (2005) noted that the probability the individual pulses will be very short, associated with the operation of mid- of a cetacean swimming through the and a given mammal would not receive frequency tactical sonar, there is area of exposure when an echosounder many of the downward-directed pulses concern that mid-frequency sonar emits a pulse is small. The animal as the vessel passes by the animal. The sounds can cause serious impacts to would have to pass the transducer at following section outlines possible marine mammals (see earlier close range and be swimming at speeds effects of an echosounder on marine discussion). However, the echosounder similar to the vessel in order to receive mammals. proposed for use by the Langseth is the multiple pulses that might result in quite different from sonar used for naval sufficient exposure to cause temporary Masking operations. The echosounder’s pulse threshold shift. Marine mammal communications duration is very short relative to the NMFS has considered the potential would not be masked appreciably by the naval sonar. Also, at any given location, for behavioral responses such as echosounder’s signals given the low an individual marine mammal would be stranding and indirect injury or duty cycle of the echosounder and the in the echosounder’s beam for much

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23133

less time given the generally downward 4. Potential Effects of Vessel Movement baleen whales often interrupt their orientation of the beam and its narrow and Collisions normal behavior and swim rapidly fore-aft beamwidth; navy sonar often Vessel movement in the vicinity of away. Avoidance is especially strong uses near-horizontally-directed sound. marine mammals has the potential to when a boat heads directly toward the Those factors would all reduce the result in either a behavioral response or whale. Behavioral responses to stimuli are sound energy received from the a direct physical interaction. We discuss complex and influenced to varying echosounder relative to that from naval both scenarios here. sonar. degrees by a number of factors, such as Behavioral Responses to Vessel species, behavioral contexts, 3. Potential Effects of the Sub-Bottom Movement geographical regions, source Profiler There are limited data concerning characteristics (moving or stationary, Lamont-Doherty would also operate a marine mammal behavioral responses to speed, direction, etc.), prior experience sub-bottom profiler from the source vessel traffic and vessel noise, and a of the animal, and physical status of the vessel during the proposed survey. The lack of consensus among scientists with animal. For example, studies have shown that beluga whales’ reactions profiler’s sounds are very short pulses, respect to what these responses mean or varied when exposed to vessel noise occurring for one to four ms once every whether they result in short-term or and traffic. In some cases, naive beluga second. Most of the energy in the sound long-term adverse effects. In those cases whales exhibited rapid swimming from pulses emitted by the profiler is at 3.5 where there is a busy shipping lane or ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (49.7 kHz, and the beam is directed where there is a large amount of vessel mi) away, and showed changes in downward. The sub-bottom profiler on traffic, marine mammals may surfacing, breathing, diving, and group the Langseth has a maximum source experience acoustic masking m composition in the Canadian high level of 222 dB re: 1 Pa. Kremser et al. (Hildebrand, 2005) if they are present in Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley (2005) noted that the probability of a the area (e.g., killer whales in Puget cetacean swimming through the area of et al., 1990). In other cases, beluga Sound; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., whales were more tolerant of vessels, exposure when a bottom profiler emits 2008). In cases where vessels actively a pulse is small—even for a profiler but responded differentially to certain approach marine mammals (e.g., whale vessels and operating characteristics by more powerful than that on the watching or dolphin watching boats), Langseth. If the animal was in the area, reducing their calling rates (especially scientists have documented that animals older animals) in the St. Lawrence River it would have to pass the transducer at exhibit altered behavior such as close range and be subjected to sound where vessel traffic is common (Blane increased swimming speed, erratic and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay, levels that could cause temporary movement, and active avoidance threshold shift. Alaska, beluga whales continued to feed behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; when surrounded by fishing vessels and Masking Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites and resisted dispersal even when Marine mammal communications Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania, would not be masked appreciably by the Constantine et al., 2003), reduced blow 1971). profiler’s signals given the directionality interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption In reviewing more than 25 years of of the signal and the brief period when of normal social behaviors (Lusseau, whale observation data, Watkins (1986) an individual mammal is likely to be 2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral concluded that whale reactions to vessel within its beam. Furthermore, in the activities which may increase energetic traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous case of most baleen whales, the costs (Constantine et al., 2003; 2004). A experience and current activity: profiler’s signals do not overlap with the detailed review of marine mammal Habituation often occurred rapidly, predominant frequencies in the calls, reactions to ships and boats is available attention to other stimuli or which would avoid significant masking. in Richardson et al. (1995). For each of preoccupation with other activities the marine mammal groups, sometimes overcame their interest or Behavioral Responses Richardson et al. (1995) provides the wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed Responses to the profiler are likely to following assessment regarding that over the years of exposure to ships be similar to the other pulsed sources reactions to vessel traffic: in the Cape Cod area, minke whales discussed earlier if received at the same Toothed whales: In summary, toothed changed from frequent positive interest levels. However, the pulsed signals from whales sometimes show no avoidance (e.g., approaching vessels) to generally the profiler are considerably weaker reaction to vessels, or even approach uninterested reactions; fin whales than those from the echosounder. them. However, avoidance can occur, changed from mostly negative (e.g., especially in response to vessels of avoidance) to uninterested reactions; Hearing Impairment and Other Physical types used to chase or hunt the animals. right whales apparently continued the Effects This may cause temporary same variety of responses (negative, It is unlikely that the profiler displacement, but we know of no clear uninterested, and positive responses) produces pulse levels strong enough to evidence that toothed whales have with little change; and humpbacks cause hearing impairment or other abandoned significant parts of their dramatically changed from mixed physical injuries even in an animal that range because of vessel traffic. responses that were often negative to is (briefly) in a position near the source. Baleen whales: When baleen whales reactions that were often strongly The profiler operates simultaneously receive low-level sounds from distant or positive. Watkins (1986) summarized with other higher-power acoustic stationary vessels, the sounds often that ‘‘whales near shore, even in regions sources. Many marine mammals would seem to be ignored. Some whales with low vessel traffic, generally have move away in response to the approach the sources of these sounds. become less wary of boats and their approaching higher-power sources or When vessels approach whales slowly noises, and they have appeared to be the vessel itself before the mammals and non-aggressively, whales often less easily disturbed than previously. In would be close enough for there to be exhibit slow and inconspicuous particular locations with intense any possibility of effects from the less avoidance maneuvers. In response to shipping and repeated approaches by intense sounds from the profiler. strong or rapidly changing vessel noise, boats (such as the whale-watching areas

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23134 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

of Stellwagen Bank), more and more Entanglement fish is from studies of individuals or whales had positive reactions to familiar Entanglement can occur if wildlife portions of a population. There have vessels, and they also occasionally becomes immobilized in survey lines, been no studies at the population scale. approached other boats and yachts in cables, nets, or other equipment that is The studies of individual fish have often the same ways.’’ Based on the best moving through the water column. The been on caged fish that were exposed to airgun pulses in situations not available information, we do not believe proposed seismic survey would require vessel traffic associated with the representative of an actual seismic towing approximately 8.0 km (4.9 mi) of proposed activities will result in the survey. Thus, available information equipment and cables. This size of the take of marine mammals; therefore provides limited insight on possible array generally carries a relatively low vessel traffic is not discussed further in real-world effects at the ocean or risk of entanglement for marine this document. population scale. mammals. Wildlife, especially slow Hastings and Popper (2005), Popper Vessel Strike moving animals, such as large whales, (2009), and Popper and Hastings (2009) Ship strikes of cetaceans can cause have a low probability of entanglement provided recent critical reviews of the major wounds, which may lead to the due to the low amount of slack in the known effects of sound on fish. The death of the animal. An animal at the lines, the slow speed of the survey following sections provide a general surface could be struck directly by a vessel, and onboard monitoring. synopsis of the available information on vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the Pinnipeds and odontocetes are even less the effects of exposure to seismic and bottom of a vessel, or a vessel’s likely to be entangled than large whales other anthropogenic sound as relevant propeller could injure an animal just due to their size, speed and agility. to fish. The information comprises below the surface. The severity of Lamont-Doherty has no recorded cases results from scientific studies of varying injuries typically depends on the size of entanglement of marine mammals degrees of rigor plus some anecdotal and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and during their conduct of over 12 years of information. Some of the data sources Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; seismic surveys (NSF, 2015). Based on may have serious shortcomings in Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). the best available information, we do methods, analysis, interpretation, and The most vulnerable marine mammals not believe entanglement of marine reproducibility that must be considered are those that spend extended periods of mammals will occur as a result of the when interpreting their results (see time at the surface in order to restore proposed activities; therefore Hastings and Popper, 2005). Potential oxygen levels within their tissues after entanglement is not discussed further in adverse effects of the program’s sound deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In this document. sources on marine fish are noted. addition, some baleen whales, such as Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Pathological Effects: The potential for the North Atlantic right whale, seem Habitat pathological damage to hearing generally unresponsive to vessel sound, structures in fish depends on the energy making them more susceptible to vessel The primary potential impacts to level of the received sound and the collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These marine mammal habitat and other physiology and hearing capability of the species are primarily large, slow moving marine species are associated with species in question. For a given sound whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., elevated sound levels produced by to result in hearing loss, the sound must bottlenose dolphin) move quickly airguns. This section describes the exceed, by some substantial amount, the through the water column and are often potential impacts to marine mammal hearing threshold of the fish for that seen riding the bow wave of large ships. habitat from the specified activity. sound (Popper, 2005). The Marine mammal responses to vessels Anticipated Effects on Fish as Prey consequences of temporary or may include avoidance and changes in Species permanent hearing loss in individual dive pattern (NRC, 2003). fish on a fish population are unknown; An examination of all known ship NMFS considered the effects of the however, they likely depend on the strikes from all shipping sources survey on marine mammal prey (i.e., number of individuals affected and (civilian and military) indicates vessel fish and invertebrates), as a component whether critical behaviors involving speed is a principal factor in whether a of marine mammal habitat in the sound (e.g., predator avoidance, prey vessel strike results in death (Knowlton following subsections. There are three capture, orientation and navigation, and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; types of potential effects of exposure to reproduction, etc.) are adversely Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and seismic surveys: (1) Pathological, (2) affected. Taggart, 2007). In assessing records with physiological, and (3) behavioral. There are few data about the known vessel speeds, Laist et al. (2001) Pathological effects involve lethal and mechanisms and characteristics of found a direct relationship between the temporary or permanent sub-lethal damage impacting fish by exposure to occurrence of a whale strike and the injury. Physiological effects involve seismic survey sounds. Peer-reviewed speed of the vessel involved in the temporary and permanent primary and scientific literature has presented few collision. The authors concluded that secondary stress responses, such as data on this subject. NMFS is aware of most deaths occurred when a vessel was changes in levels of enzymes and only two papers with proper traveling in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9 proteins. Behavioral effects refer to experimental methods, controls, and mph; 13 kts). During seismic operations temporary and (if they occur) permanent careful pathological investigation that the Langseth will travel at changes in exhibited behavior (e.g., implicate sounds produced by actual approximately 4.5 kts (5.1 mph); the startle and avoidance behavior). The seismic survey airguns in causing vessel’s cruising speed outside of three categories are interrelated in adverse anatomical effects. One such seismic operations is approximately 10 complex ways. For example, it is study indicated anatomical damage, and kts (11.5 mph). Based on the best possible that certain physiological and the second indicated temporary available information, we do not believe behavioral changes could potentially threshold shift in fish hearing. The marine mammals will be struck by lead to an ultimate pathological effect anatomical case is McCauley et al. vessels as a result of the proposed on individuals (i.e., mortality). (2003), who found that exposure to activities; therefore vessel strike is not The available information on the airgun sound caused observable discussed further in this document. impacts of seismic surveys on marine anatomical damage to the auditory

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23135

maculae of pink snapper (Pagrus water column and bottom found any Santulli et al., 1999; Wardle et al., 2001; auratus). This damage in the ears had dead fish. Hassel et al., 2003). Typically, in these not been repaired in fish sacrificed and For a proposed seismic survey in studies fish exhibited a sharp startle examined almost two months after Southern California, USGS (1999) response at the onset of a sound exposure. On the other hand, Popper et conducted a review of the literature on followed by habituation and a return to al. (2005) documented only temporary the effects of airguns on fish and normal behavior after the sound ceased. threshold shift (as determined by fisheries. They reported a 1991 study of The former Minerals Management auditory brainstem response) in two of the Bay Area Fault system from the Service (MMS, 2005) assessed the three fish species from the Mackenzie continental shelf to the Sacramento effects of a proposed seismic survey in River Delta. This study found that broad River, using a 10 airgun (5,828 in3) Cook Inlet, Alaska. The seismic survey whitefish (Coregonus nasus) exposed to array. Brezzina and Associates, hired by proposed using three vessels, each five airgun shots were not significantly USGS to monitor the effects of the towing two, four-airgun arrays ranging different from those of controls. During surveys, concluded that airgun from 1,500 to 2,500 in3. The Minerals both studies, the repetitive exposure to operations were not responsible for the Management Service noted that the sound was greater than what would death of any of the fish carcasses impact to fish populations in the survey have occurred during a typical seismic observed, and the airgun profiling did area and adjacent waters would likely survey. However, the substantial low- not appear to alter the feeding behavior be very low and temporary and also frequency energy produced by the of sea lions, seals, or pelicans observed concluded that seismic surveys may airguns (less than 400 Hz in the study feeding during the seismic surveys. displace the pelagic fishes from the area by McCauley et al. (2003) and less than Some studies have reported that temporarily when airguns are in use. approximately 200 Hz in Popper et al. mortality of fish, fish eggs, or larvae can However, fishes displaced and avoiding (2005)) likely did not propagate to the occur close to seismic sources the airgun noise are likely to backfill the fish because the water in the study areas (Kostyuchenko, 1973; Dalen and survey area in minutes to hours after was very shallow (approximately 9 m Knutsen, 1986; Booman et al., 1996; cessation of seismic testing. Fishes not [29.5 ft] in the former case and less than Dalen et al., 1996). Some of the reports dispersing from the airgun noise (e.g., 2 m [6.5 ft] in the latter). Water depth claimed seismic effects from treatments demersal species) may startle and move sets a lower limit on the lowest sound quite different from actual seismic short distances to avoid airgun frequency that will propagate (i.e., the survey sounds or even reasonable emissions. cutoff frequency) at about one-quarter surrogates. However, Payne et al. (2009) In general, any adverse effects on fish wavelength (Urick, 1983; Rogers and reported no statistical differences in behavior or fisheries attributable to Cox, 1988). mortality/morbidity between control seismic testing may depend on the Wardle et al. (2001) suggested that in and exposed groups of capelin eggs or species in question and the nature of the water, acute injury and death of monkfish larvae. Saetre and Ona (1996) fishery (season, duration, fishing organisms exposed to seismic energy applied a worst-case scenario, method). They may also depend on the depends primarily on two features of mathematical model to investigate the age of the fish, its motivational state, its the sound source: (1) The received peak effects of seismic energy on fish eggs size, and numerous other factors that are pressure and (2) the time required for and larvae. The authors concluded that difficult, if not impossible, to quantify at the pressure to rise and decay. mortality rates caused by exposure to this point, given such limited data on Generally, as received pressure seismic surveys were low, as compared effects of airguns on fish, particularly increases, the period for the pressure to to natural mortality rates, and suggested under realistic at-sea conditions rise and decay decreases, and the that the impact of seismic surveying on (Lokkeborg et al., 2012; Fewtrell and chance of acute pathological effects recruitment to a fish stock was not McCauley, 2012). NMFS would expect increases. According to Buchanan et al. significant. prey species to return to their pre- (2004), for the types of seismic airguns Physiological Effects: Physiological exposure behavior once seismic firing and arrays involved with the proposed effects refer to cellular and/or ceased (Lokkeborg et al., 2012; Fewtrell program, the pathological (mortality) biochemical responses of fish to and McCauley, 2012). acoustic stress. Such stress potentially zone for fish would be expected to be Anticipated Effects on Invertebrates within a few meters of the seismic could affect fish populations by source. Numerous other studies provide increasing mortality or reducing The existing body of information on examples of no fish mortality upon reproductive success. Primary and the impacts of seismic survey sound on exposure to seismic sources (Falk and secondary stress responses of fish after marine invertebrates is very limited. Lawrence, 1973; Holliday et al., 1987; exposure to seismic survey sound However, there is some unpublished La Bella et al., 1996; Santulli et al., appear to be temporary in all studies and very limited evidence of the 1999; McCauley et al., 2000a,b, 2003; done to date (Sverdrup et al., 1994; potential for adverse effects on Bjarti, 2002; Thomsen, 2002; Hassel et Santulli et al., 1999; McCauley et al., invertebrates, thereby justifying further al., 2003; Popper et al., 2005; Boeger et 2000a,b). The periods necessary for the discussion and analysis of this issue. al., 2006). biochemical changes to return to normal The three types of potential effects of The National Park Service conducted are variable and depend on numerous exposure to seismic surveys on marine an experiment of the effects of a single aspects of the biology of the species and invertebrates are pathological, 700 in3 airgun in Lake Meade, Nevada of the sound stimulus. physiological, and behavioral. Based on (USGS, 1999) to understand the effects Behavioral Effects—Behavioral effects the physical structure of their sensory of a marine reflection survey of the Lake include changes in the distribution, organs, marine invertebrates appear to Meade fault system (Paulson et al., migration, mating, and catchability of be specialized to respond to particle 1993, in USGS, 1999). The researchers fish populations. Studies investigating displacement components of an suspended the airgun 3.5 m (11.5 ft) the possible effects of sound (including impinging sound field and not to the above a school of threadfin shad in Lake seismic survey sound) on fish behavior pressure component (Popper et al., Meade and fired three successive times have been conducted on both uncaged 2001). The only information available at a 30 s interval. Neither surface and caged individuals (e.g., Chapman on the impacts of seismic surveys on inspection nor diver observations of the and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson et al., 1992; marine invertebrates involves studies of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23136 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

individuals; there have been no studies provides little evidence to support this invertebrates exhibited startle responses at the population scale. Thus, available claim. (e.g., squid in McCauley et al., 2000). In information provides limited insight on Tenera Environmental (2011) reported other cases, the authors observed no possible real-world effects at the that Norris and Mohl (1983, behavioral impacts (e.g., crustaceans in regional or ocean scale. summarized in Mariyasu et al., 2004) Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004). Moriyasu et al. (2004) and Payne et al. observed lethal effects in squid (Loligo There have been anecdotal reports of (2008) provide literature reviews of the vulgaris) at levels of 246 to 252 dB after reduced catch rates of shrimp shortly effects of seismic and other underwater 3 to 11 minutes. Another laboratory after exposure to seismic surveys; sound on invertebrates. The following study observed abnormalities in larval however, other studies have not sections provide a synopsis of available scallops after exposure to low frequency observed any significant changes in information on the effects of exposure to noise in tanks (de Soto et al., 2013). shrimp catch rate (Andriguetto-Filho et seismic survey sound on species of Andre et al. (2011) exposed four al., 2005). Similarly, Parry and Gason decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, cephalopod species (Loligo vulgaris, (2006) did not find any evidence that the two taxonomic groups of Sepia officinalis, Octopus vulgaris, and lobster catch rates were affected by invertebrates on which most such Ilex coindetii) to two hours of seismic surveys. Any adverse effects on continuous sound from 50 to 400 Hz at crustacean and cephalopod behavior or studies have been conducted. The ¥ available information is from studies 157 +/ 5 dB re: 1 mPa. They reported fisheries attributable to seismic survey with variable degrees of scientific lesions to the sensory hair cells of the sound depend on the species in soundness and from anecdotal statocysts of the exposed animals that question and the nature of the fishery information. A more detailed review of increased in severity with time, (season, duration, fishing method). the literature on the effects of seismic suggesting that cephalopods are In examining impacts to fish and survey sound on invertebrates is in particularly sensitive to low-frequency invertebrates as prey species for marine Appendix E of NSF’s 2011 sound. The received sound pressure mammals, we expect fish to exhibit a ± m Programmatic Environmental Impact level was 157 5 dB re: 1 Pa, with range of behaviors including no reaction peak levels at 175 dB re: 1 mPa. As in Statement (NSF/USGS, 2011). or habituation (Pen˜ a et al., 2013) to the McCauley et al. (2003) paper on startle responses and/or avoidance Pathological Effects: In water, lethal sensory hair cell damage in pink (Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012). We and sub-lethal injury to organisms snapper as a result of exposure to expect that the seismic survey would exposed to seismic survey sound seismic sound, the cephalopods were have no more than a temporary and appears to depend on at least two subjected to higher sound levels than minimal adverse effect on any fish or features of the sound source: (1) The they would be under natural conditions, invertebrate species. Although there is a received peak pressure; and (2) the time and they were unable to swim away potential for injury to fish or marine life required for the pressure to rise and from the sound source. in close proximity to the vessel, we decay. Generally, as received pressure Physiological Effects: Physiological expect that the impacts of the seismic increases, the period for the pressure to effects refer mainly to biochemical survey on fish and other marine life rise and decay decreases, and the responses by marine invertebrates to specifically related to acoustic activities chance of acute pathological effects acoustic stress. Such stress potentially would be temporary in nature, increases. For the type of airgun array could affect invertebrate populations by negligible, and would not result in planned for the proposed program, the increasing mortality or reducing substantial impact to these species or to pathological (mortality) zone for reproductive success. Studies have their role in the ecosystem. Based on the crustaceans and cephalopods is noted primary and secondary stress preceding discussion, NMFS does not expected to be within a few meters of responses (i.e., changes in haemolymph anticipate that the proposed activity the seismic source, at most; however, levels of enzymes, proteins, etc.) of would have any habitat-related effects very few specific data are available on crustaceans occurring several days or that could cause significant or long-term levels of seismic signals that might months after exposure to seismic survey consequences for individual marine damage these animals. This premise is sounds (Payne et al., 2007). The authors mammals or their populations. based on the peak pressure and rise/ noted that crustaceans exhibited no decay time characteristics of seismic behavioral impacts (Christian et al., Proposed Mitigation airgun arrays currently in use around 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004). The periods In order to issue an Incidental the world. necessary for these biochemical changes Harassment Authorization under section Some studies have suggested that to return to normal are variable and 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must seismic survey sound has a limited depend on numerous aspects of the set forth the permissible methods of pathological impact on early biology of the species and of the sound taking pursuant to such activity, and developmental stages of crustaceans stimulus. other means of effecting the least (Pearson et al., 1994; Christian et al., Behavioral Effects: There is increasing practicable adverse impact on such 2003; DFO, 2004). However, the impacts interest in assessing the possible direct species or stock and its habitat, paying appear to be either temporary or and indirect effects of seismic and other particular attention to rookeries, mating insignificant compared to what occurs sounds on invertebrate behavior, grounds, and areas of similar under natural conditions. Controlled particularly in relation to the significance, and on the availability of field experiments on adult crustaceans consequences for fisheries. Changes in such species or stock for taking for (Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004) behavior could potentially affect such certain subsistence uses (where and adult cephalopods (McCauley et al., aspects as reproductive success, relevant). 2000a,b) exposed to seismic survey distribution, susceptibility to predation, Lamont-Doherty has reviewed the sound have not resulted in any and catchability by fisheries. Studies following source documents and has significant pathological impacts on the investigating the possible behavioral incorporated a suite of proposed animals. It has been suggested that effects of exposure to seismic survey mitigation measures into their project exposure to commercial seismic survey sound on crustaceans and cephalopods description: activities has injured giant squid have been conducted on both uncaged (1) Protocols used during previous (Guerra et al., 2004), but the article and caged animals. In some cases, Lamont-Doherty and NSF-funded

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23137

seismic research cruises as approved by periods. Based on the observations, the area around the vessel systematically us and detailed in the NSF’s 2011 PEIS Langseth would power down or with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 and 2016 draft environmental analysis; shutdown the airguns when marine Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 x 150), (2) Previous incidental harassment mammals are observed within or about and with the naked eye. During authorizations applications and to enter a designated exclusion zone for darkness, night vision devices would be authorizations that NMFS has approved cetaceans or pinnipeds. available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 and authorized; and During seismic operations, at least binocular-image intensifier or (3) Recommended best practices in four protected species observers would equivalent), when required. Laser range- Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. be aboard the Langseth. Lamont-Doherty finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser (1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007). would appoint the observers with rangefinder or equivalent) would be To reduce the potential for NMFS’ concurrence, and they would available to assist with distance disturbance from acoustic stimuli conduct observations during ongoing estimation. They are useful in training associated with the activities, Lamont- daytime operations and nighttime ramp- observers to estimate distances visually, Doherty, and/or its designees have ups of the airgun array. During the but are generally not useful in proposed to implement the following majority of seismic operations, two measuring distances to animals directly. mitigation measures for marine observers would be on duty from the The user measures distances to animals mammals: observation tower to monitor marine with the reticles in the binoculars. (1) Vessel-based visual mitigation mammals near the seismic vessel. Using Lamont-Doherty would immediately monitoring; two observers would increase the power down or shutdown the airguns (2) Proposed exclusion zones; effectiveness of detecting animals near when observers see marine mammals (3) Power down procedures; the source vessel. However, during (4) Shutdown procedures; within or about to enter the designated mealtimes and bathroom breaks, it is (5) Ramp-up procedures; and exclusion zone. The observer(s) would (6) Speed and course alterations. sometimes difficult to have two observers on effort, but at least one continue to maintain watch to NMFS reviewed Lamont-Doherty’s determine when the animal(s) are proposed mitigation measures and has observer would be on watch during bathroom breaks and mealtimes. outside the exclusion zone by visual proposed an additional measure to confirmation. Airgun operations would effect the least practicable adverse Observers would be on duty in shifts of no longer than four hours in duration. not resume until the observer has impact on marine mammals. They are: confirmed that the animal has left the (1) Expanded power down procedures Two observers on the Langseth would zone, or if not observed after 15 minutes for concentrations of six or more whales also be on visual watch during all for species with shorter dive durations that do not appear to be traveling (e.g., nighttime ramp-ups of the seismic (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 feeding, socializing, etc.). airguns. A third observer would monitor the passive acoustic monitoring minutes for species with longer dive Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation equipment 24 hours a day to detect durations (mysticetes and large Monitoring vocalizing marine mammals present in odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy Lamont-Doherty would position the action area. In summary, a typical sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked observers aboard the seismic source daytime cruise would have scheduled whales). vessel to watch for marine mammals two observers (visual) on duty from the Proposed Mitigation Exclusion Zones near the vessel during daytime airgun observation tower, and an observer operations and during any start-ups at (acoustic) on the passive acoustic Lamont-Doherty would use safety night. Observers would also watch for monitoring system. Before the start of radii to designate exclusion zones and marine mammals near the seismic the seismic survey, Lamont-Doherty to estimate take for marine mammals. vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the would instruct the vessel’s crew to Table 3 shows the distances at which start of airgun operations after an assist in detecting marine mammals and one would expect to receive sound extended shutdown (i.e., greater than implementing mitigation requirements. levels (160-, 180-, and 190-dB,) from the approximately eight minutes for this The Langseth is a suitable platform for airgun array and a single airgun. If the proposed cruise). When feasible, the marine mammal observations. When protected species visual observer detects observers would conduct observations stationed on the observation platform, marine mammal(s) within or about to during daytime periods when the the eye level would be approximately enter the appropriate exclusion zone, seismic system is not operating for 21.5 m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the the Langseth crew would immediately comparison of sighting rates and observer would have a good view power down the airgun array, or behavior with and without airgun around the entire vessel. During perform a shutdown if necessary (see operations and between acquisition daytime, the observers would scan the Shut-down Procedures).

TABLE 3—PREDICTED DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 re: 1 μPa COULD BE RECEIVED DURING THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN

Predicted RMS distances 1 Source and volume Tow depth Water depth (m) (in3) (m) (m) 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB

Single Bolt airgun (40 in3) ...... 9 or 12 ..... <100 ...... 2 100 2 100 1,041 100 to 1,000 ...... 100 100 647 >1,000 ...... 100 100 431 36-Airgun Array (6,600 in3) ...... 9 ...... <100 ...... 591 2,060 22,580 100 to 1,000 ...... 429 1,391 8,670 >1,000 ...... 286 927 5,780

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:07 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23138 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

TABLE 3—PREDICTED DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 re: 1 μPa COULD BE RECEIVED DURING THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN—Continued

Predicted RMS distances 1 Source and volume Tow depth Water depth (m) (in3) (m) (m) 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB

36-Airgun Array (6,600 in3) ...... 12 ...... <100 ...... 710 2,480 27,130 100 to 1,000 ...... 522 1,674 10,362 >1,000 ...... 348 1,116 6,908 1 Predicted distances based on information presented in Lamont-Doherty’s application. 2 NMFS required Lamont-Doherty to expand the exclusion zone for the mitigation airgun to 100 m (328 ft) in shallow water.

The 180- or 190-dB level shutdown operation of one airgun would alert NMFS estimates that the Langseth criteria are applicable to cetaceans and marine mammals to the presence of the would transit outside the original 180- pinnipeds respectively as specified by seismic vessel in the area. A shutdown dB or 190-dB exclusion zone after an 8- NMFS (2000). Lamont-Doherty used occurs when the Langseth suspends all minute wait period. This period is based these levels to establish the exclusion airgun activity. on the average speed of the Langseth zones as presented in their application. If the observer detects a marine while operating the airguns (8.5 km/h; Lamont-Doherty used a process to mammal outside the exclusion zone and 5.3 mph). Because the vessel has develop and confirm the the animal is likely to enter the zone, transited away from the vicinity of the conservativeness of the mitigation radii the crew would power down the airguns original sighting during the 8-minute for a shallow-water seismic survey in to reduce the size of the 180-dB or 190- period, implementing ramp-up the northeast Pacific Ocean offshore dB exclusion zone before the animal procedures for the full array after an Washington in 2012. Crone et al. (2014) enters that zone. Likewise, if a mammal extended power down (i.e., transiting analyzed the received sound levels from is already within the zone after for an additional 35 minutes from the the 2012 survey and reported that the detection, the crew would power-down location of initial sighting) would not actual distances to received levels that the airguns immediately. During a meaningfully increase the effectiveness would constitute the exclusion and power down of the airgun array, the of observing marine mammals 3 buffer zones were two to three times crew would operate a single 40-in approaching or entering the exclusion smaller than what Lamont-Doherty’s airgun which has a smaller exclusion zone for the full source level and would modeling approach had predicted. zone. If the observer detects a marine not further minimize the potential for While these results confirm the role that mammal within or near the smaller take. The Langseth’s observers are bathymetry plays in propagation, they exclusion zone around the airgun (Table continually monitoring the exclusion also confirm that empirical 3), the crew would shut down the single zone for the full source level while the measurements from the Gulf of Mexico airgun (see next section). mitigation airgun is firing. On average, survey likely over-estimated the size of Resuming Airgun Operations After a observers can observe to the horizon (10 the exclusion zones for the 2012 Power Down km; 6.2 mi) from the height of the Washington shallow-water seismic Langseth’s observation deck and should Following a power-down, the be able to say with a reasonable degree surveys. NMFS reviewed this Langseth crew would not resume full preliminary information in of confidence whether a marine airgun activity until the marine mammal mammal would be encountered within consideration of how these data reflect has cleared the 180-dB or 190-dB on the accuracy of Lamont-Doherty’s this distance before resuming airgun exclusion zone. The observers would operations at full power. current modeling approach and we have consider the animal to have cleared the concluded that the modeling of RMS exclusion zone if: Shutdown Procedures distances likely results in predicted • The observer has visually observed The Langseth crew would shut down distances to acoustic thresholds (Table the animal leave the exclusion zone; or the operating airgun(s) if they see a • 3) that are conservative, i.e., if actual An observer has not sighted the marine mammal within or approaching distances to received sound levels animal within the exclusion zone for 15 the exclusion zone for the single airgun. deviate from distances predicted via minutes for species with shorter dive The crew would implement a modeling, actual distances are expected durations (i.e., small odontocetes or shutdown: to be lesser, not greater, than predicted pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species (1) If an animal enters the exclusion distances with longer dive durations (i.e., zone of the single airgun after the crew Power-Down Procedures mysticetes and large odontocetes, has initiated a power down; or including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf (2) If an observer sees the animal is A power down involves decreasing sperm, and beaked whales); or initially within the exclusion zone of the number of airguns in use such that The Langseth crew would resume the single airgun when more than one the radius of the 180-dB or 190-dB operating the airguns at full power after airgun (typically the full airgun array) is exclusion zone is smaller to the extent 15 minutes of sighting any species with operating. that marine mammals are no longer short dive durations (i.e., small within or about to enter the exclusion odontocetes or pinnipeds). Likewise, the Resuming Airgun Operations After a zone. A power down of the airgun array crew would resume airgun operations at Shutdown can also occur when the vessel is full power after 30 minutes of sighting Following a shutdown in excess of moving from one seismic line to any species with longer dive durations eight minutes, the Langseth crew would another. During a power down for (i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, initiate a ramp-up with the smallest mitigation, the Langseth would operate including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf airgun in the array (40-in3). The crew one airgun (40 in3). The continued sperm, and beaked whales). would turn on additional airguns in a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:07 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23139

sequence such that the source level of If one airgun has operated during a six dB per five minute period over a the array would increase in steps not power down period, ramp-up to full total duration of approximately 30 to 35 exceeding 6 dB per five-minute period power would be permissible at night or minutes. During ramp-up, the observers over a total duration of approximately in poor visibility, on the assumption would monitor the exclusion zone, and 30 minutes. During ramp-up, the that marine mammals would be alerted if marine mammals are sighted, Lamont- observers would monitor the exclusion to the approaching seismic vessel by the Doherty would implement a power- zone, and if he/she sees a marine sounds from the single airgun and could down or shut-down as though the full mammal, the Langseth crew would move away. The vessel’s crew would airgun array were operational. not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if implement a power down or shutdown If the complete exclusion zone has not an observer sees the marine mammal as though the full airgun array were been visible for at least 30 minutes prior operational. within or near the applicable exclusion zones during the day or close to the to the start of operations in either During periods of active seismic vessel at night. daylight or nighttime, Lamont-Doherty operations, there are occasions when the would not commence the ramp-up Langseth crew would need to Ramp-Up Procedures unless at least one airgun (40 in3 or temporarily shut down the airguns due Ramp-up of an airgun array provides similar) has been operating during the to equipment failure or for maintenance. a gradual increase in sound levels, and interruption of seismic survey In this case, if the airguns are inactive involves a step-wise increase in the operations. Given these provisions, it is longer than eight minutes, the crew number and total volume of airguns likely that the crew would not ramp up would follow ramp-up procedures for a firing until the full volume of the airgun the airgun array from a complete shut- shutdown described earlier and the array is achieved. The purpose of a down at night or in thick fog, because observers would monitor the full ramp-up is to ‘‘warn’’ marine mammals the outer part of the exclusion zone for exclusion zone and would implement a in the vicinity of the airguns, and to that array would not be visible during power down or shutdown if necessary. provide the time for them to leave the those conditions. If one airgun has area and thus avoid any potential injury operated during a power-down period, If the full exclusion zone is not visible or impairment of their hearing abilities. ramp-up to full power would be to the observer for at least 30 minutes Lamont-Doherty would follow a ramp- permissible at night or in poor visibility, prior to the start of operations in either up procedure when the airgun array on the assumption that marine daylight or nighttime, the Langseth crew begins operating after an 8 minute mammals would be alerted to the would not commence ramp-up unless at period without airgun operations or approaching seismic vessel by the least one airgun (40-in3 or similar) has when shut down has exceeded that sounds from the single airgun and could been operating during the interruption period. Lamont-Doherty has used move away. Lamont-Doherty would not of seismic survey operations. Given similar waiting periods (approximately initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if an these provisions, it is likely that the eight to 10 minutes) during previous observer sights a marine mammal vessel’s crew would not ramp up the seismic surveys. within or near the applicable exclusion airgun array from a complete shutdown Ramp-up would begin with the zones. NMFS refers the reader to Figure at night or in thick fog, because the smallest airgun in the array (40 in3). The 2, which presents a flowchart outer part of the zone for that array crew would add airguns in a sequence representing the ramp-up, power down, would not be visible during those such that the source level of the array and shut down protocols described in conditions. would increase in steps not exceeding this notice.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23140 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

Figure 2—Ramp-Up, Power Down, and Shut-Down Procedures for the Langseth

Current Power~Down and Shut~own Procedures for the

IF IF

Special Procedures for Concentrations the array, if necessary. For purposes of Speed and Course Alterations of Large Whales this proposed survey, a concentration or If during seismic data collection, The Langseth would avoid exposing group of whales would consist of six or Lamont-Doherty detects marine concentrations of large whales to sounds more individuals visually sighted that mammals outside the exclusion zone greater than 160 dB re: 1 mPa within the do not appear to be traveling (e.g., and, based on the animal’s position and 160-dB zone and would power down feeding, socializing, etc.). direction of travel, is likely to enter the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES EN19AP16.001 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23141

exclusion zone, the Langseth would above, or to reducing the severity of be affected by seismic airguns and other change speed and/or direction if this harassment takes only). active acoustic sources and the does not compromise operational safety. 5. Avoidance or minimization of likelihood of associating those Due to the limited maneuverability of adverse effects to marine mammal exposures with specific adverse effects, the primary survey vessel, altering habitat, paying special attention to the such as behavioral harassment, speed, and/or course can result in an food base, activities that block or limit temporary or permanent threshold shift; extended period of time to realign the passage to or from biologically 3. An increase in our understanding Langseth to the transect line. However, important areas, permanent destruction of how marine mammals respond to if the animal(s) appear likely to enter of habitat, or temporary destruction/ stimuli that we expect to result in take the exclusion zone, the Langseth would disturbance of habitat during a and how those anticipated adverse undertake further mitigation actions, biologically important time. effects on individuals (in different ways including a power down or shut down 6. For monitoring directly related to and to varying degrees) may impact the of the airguns. mitigation—an increase in the population, species, or stock probability of detecting marine (specifically through effects on annual Mitigation Conclusions mammals, thus allowing for more rates of recruitment or survival) through NMFS has carefully evaluated effective implementation of the any of the following methods: Lamont-Doherty’s proposed mitigation mitigation. a. Behavioral observations in the measures in the context of ensuring that Based on the evaluation of Lamont- presence of stimuli compared to we prescribe the means of effecting the Doherty’s proposed measures, as well as observations in the absence of stimuli least practicable impact on the affected other measures proposed by NMFS (i.e., (i.e., to be able to accurately predict marine mammal species and stocks and special procedures for concentrations of received level, distance from source, their habitat. Our evaluation of potential large whales), NMFS has preliminarily and other pertinent information); measures included consideration of the determined that the proposed mitigation b. Physiological measurements in the following factors in relation to one measures provide the means of effecting presence of stimuli compared to another: the least practicable impact on marine observations in the absence of stimuli • The manner in which, and the mammal species or stocks and their (i.e., to be able to accurately predict degree to which, the successful habitat, paying particular attention to received level, distance from source, implementation of the measure is rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of and other pertinent information); expected to minimize adverse impacts similar significance. c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with to marine mammals; Proposed Monitoring • The proven or likely efficacy of the concentrated stimuli versus times or In order to issue an Incidental specific measure to minimize adverse areas without stimuli; Harassment Authorization for an impacts as planned; and 4. An increased knowledge of the activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the affected species; and • The practicability of the measure MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 5. An increase in our understanding for applicant implementation. ‘‘requirements pertaining to the of the effectiveness of certain mitigation Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed monitoring and reporting of such and monitoring measures. by NMFS should be able to accomplish, taking.’’ The MMPA implementing Proposed Monitoring Measures have a reasonable likelihood of regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) accomplishing (based on current indicate that requests for Authorizations Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct science), or contribute to the must include the suggested means of marine mammal monitoring during the accomplishment of one or more of the accomplishing the necessary monitoring proposed project to supplement the general goals listed here: and reporting that will result in proposed mitigation measures that 1. Avoidance or minimization of increased knowledge of the species and include real-time monitoring (see injury or death of marine mammals of the level of taking or impacts on ‘‘Vessel-based Visual Mitigation wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may populations of marine mammals that we Monitoring’’ above), and to satisfy the contribute to this goal). expect to be present in the proposed monitoring requirements of the 2. A reduction in the numbers of action area. Authorization. Lamont-Doherty marine mammals (total number or Lamont-Doherty submitted a marine understands that NMFS would review number at biologically important time mammal monitoring plan in section XIII the monitoring plan and may require or location) exposed to airgun of the Authorization application. NMFS, refinements to the plan. operations that we expect to result in NSF, or Lamont-Doherty may modify or the take of marine mammals (this goal Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic supplement the plan based on Monitoring may contribute to 1, above, or to comments or new information received reducing harassment takes only). from the public during the public Passive acoustic monitoring would 3. A reduction in the number of times comment period. complement the visual mitigation (total number or number at biologically Monitoring measures prescribed by monitoring program, when practicable. important time or location) individuals NMFS should accomplish one or more Visual monitoring typically is not would be exposed to airgun operations of the following general goals: effective during periods of poor that we expect to result in the take of 1. An increase in the probability of visibility or at night, and even with marine mammals (this goal may detecting marine mammals, both within good visibility, is unable to detect contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the mitigation zone (thus allowing for marine mammals when they are below harassment takes only). more effective implementation of the the surface or beyond visual range. 4. A reduction in the intensity of mitigation) and during other times and Passive acoustic monitoring can exposures (either total number or locations, in order to generate more data improve detection, identification, and number at biologically important time to contribute to the analyses mentioned localization of cetaceans when used in or location) to airgun operations that we later; conjunction with visual observations. expect to result in the take of marine 2. An increase in our understanding The passive acoustic monitoring would mammals (this goal may contribute to a, of how many marine mammals would serve to alert visual observers (if on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23142 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are When the acoustic observer detects a computerized data validity checks detected. It is only useful when marine vocalization while visual observations during data entry and by subsequent mammals call, but it can be effective are in progress, the acoustic observer on manual checking of the database. These either by day or by night, and does not duty would contact the visual observer procedures will allow the preparation of depend on good visibility. The acoustic immediately, to alert him/her to the initial summaries of data during and observer would monitor the system in presence of cetaceans (if they have not shortly after the field program, and will real time so that he/she can advise the already been seen), so that the vessel’s facilitate transfer of the data to visual observers if they acoustically crew can initiate a power down or statistical, graphical, and other detect cetaceans. shutdown, if required. The observer programs for further processing and The passive acoustic monitoring would enter the information regarding archiving. system consists of hardware (i.e., the call into a database. Data entry Results from the vessel-based hydrophones) and software. The ‘‘wet would include an acoustic encounter observations will provide: end’’ of the system consists of a towed identification number, whether it was 1. The basis for real-time mitigation hydrophone array connected to the linked with a visual sighting, date, time (airgun power down or shutdown). vessel by a tow cable. The tow cable is when first and last heard and whenever 2. Information needed to estimate the 250 m (820.2 ft) long and the any additional information was number of marine mammals potentially hydrophones are fitted in the last 10 m recorded, position and water depth taken by harassment, which Lamont- (32.8 ft) of cable. A depth gauge, when first detected, bearing if Doherty must report to the Office of attached to the free end of the cable, determinable, species or species group Protected Resources. typically towed at depths less than 20 (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm 3. Data on the occurrence, m (65.6 ft). The Langseth crew would whale), types and nature of sounds distribution, and activities of marine deploy the array from a winch located heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, mammals and turtles in the area where on the back deck. A deck cable would whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength Lamont-Doherty would conduct the connect the tow cable to the electronics of signal, etc.), and any other notable seismic study. unit in the main computer lab where the information. Acousticians record the 4. Information to compare the acoustic station, signal conditioning, acoustic detection for further analysis. distance and distribution of marine and processing system would be mammals and turtles relative to the located. The Pamguard software Observer Data and Documentation source vessel at times with and without amplifies, digitizes, and then processes Observers would record data to the acoustic signals received by the estimate the numbers of marine seismic activity. hydrophones. The system can detect mammals exposed to various received 5. Data on the behavior and marine mammal vocalizations at sound levels and to document apparent movement patterns of marine mammals frequencies up to 250 kHz. disturbance reactions or lack thereof. detected during non-active and active One acoustic observer, an expert They would use the data to help better seismic operations. bioacoustician with primary understand the impacts of the activity Proposed Reporting responsibility for the passive acoustic on marine mammals and to estimate monitoring system would be aboard the numbers of animals potentially ‘taken’ Lamont-Doherty would submit a Langseth in addition to the other visual by harassment (as defined in the report to us and to NSF within 90 days observers who would rotate monitoring MMPA). They will also provide after the end of the cruise. The report duties. The acoustic observer would information needed to order a power would describe the operations monitor the towed hydrophones 24 down or shut down of the airguns when conducted and sightings of marine hours per day during airgun operations a marine mammal is within or near the mammals near the operations. The and during most periods when the exclusion zone. report would provide full Langseth is underway while the airguns When an observer makes a sighting, documentation of methods, results, and are not operating. However, passive they will record the following interpretation pertaining to all acoustic monitoring may not be possible information: monitoring. The 90-day report would if damage occurs to both the primary 1. Species, group size, age/size/sex summarize the dates and locations of and back-up hydrophone arrays during categories (if determinable), behavior seismic operations, and all marine operations. The primary passive when first sighted and after initial mammal sightings (dates, times, acoustic monitoring streamer on the sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing locations, activities, associated seismic Langseth is a digital hydrophone and distance from seismic vessel, survey activities). The report would also streamer. Should the digital streamer sighting cue, apparent reaction to the include estimates of the number and fail, back-up systems should include an airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, nature of exposures that occurred above analog spare streamer and a hull- approach, paralleling, etc.), and the harassment threshold based on the mounted hydrophone. behavioral pace. observations. One acoustic observer would monitor 2. Time, location, heading, speed, In the unanticipated event that the the acoustic detection system by activity of the vessel, sea state, specified activity clearly causes the take listening to the signals from two visibility, and sun glare. of a marine mammal in a manner not channels via headphones and/or 3. The observer will record the data permitted by the authorization (if speakers and watching the real-time listed under (2) at the start and end of issued), such as an injury, serious spectrographic display for frequency each observation watch, and during a injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, ranges produced by cetaceans. The watch whenever there is a change in one gear interaction, and/or entanglement), observer monitoring the acoustical data or more of the variables. Lamont-Doherty shall immediately would be on shift for one to six hours 4. Observers will record all cease the specified activities and at a time. The other observers would observations and power downs or immediately report the take to the Chief rotate as an acoustic observer, although shutdowns in a standardized format and Permits and Conservation Division, the expert acoustician would be on will enter data into an electronic Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. passive acoustic monitoring duty more database. The observers will verify the The report must include the following frequently. accuracy of the data entry by information:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23143

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ describe in the next paragraph), Lamont- ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of pursuit, longitude) of the incident; Doherty will immediately report the torment, or annoyance which (i) has the • Name and type of vessel involved; incident to the Chief Permits and potential to injure a marine mammal or • Vessel’s speed during and leading Conservation Division, Office of marine mammal stock in the wild [Level up to the incident; Protected Resources, NMFS. The report A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential • Description of the incident; must include the same information to disturb a marine mammal or marine • Status of all sound source use in the identified in the paragraph above this mammal stock in the wild by causing 24 hours preceding the incident; section. Activities may continue while disruption of behavioral patterns, • Water depth; • NMFS reviews the circumstances of the including, but not limited to, migration, Environmental conditions (e.g., incident. NMFS would work with breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea Lamont-Doherty to determine whether sheltering [Level B harassment]. state, cloud cover, and visibility); modifications in the activities are • Description of all marine mammal Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased appropriate. observations in the 24 hours preceding underwater sound) generated during the the incident; In the event that Lamont-Doherty operation of the airgun array may have • Species identification or discovers an injured or dead marine the potential to result in the behavioral description of the animal(s) involved; mammal, and the lead visual observer disturbance of some marine mammals • Fate of the animal(s); and determines that the injury or death is and may have an even smaller potential • Photographs or video footage of the not associated with or related to the to result in permanent threshold shift animal(s) (if equipment is available). authorized activities (e.g., previously (non-lethal injury) of some marine Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its wounded animal, carcass with moderate mammals. NMFS expects that the activities until we are able to review the to advanced decomposition, or proposed mitigation and monitoring circumstances of the prohibited take. scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty measures would minimize the We shall work with Lamont-Doherty to would report the incident to the Chief possibility of injurious or lethal takes. determine what is necessary to Permits and Conservation Division, However, NMFS cannot discount the minimize the likelihood of further Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, possibility (albeit small) that exposure prohibited take and ensure MMPA within 24 hours of the discovery. to sound from the proposed survey compliance. Lamont-Doherty may not Lamont-Doherty would provide could result in non-lethal injury (Level resume their activities until notified by photographs or video footage (if A harassment). Thus, NMFS proposes to us via letter, email, or telephone. available) or other documentation of the authorize take by Level B harassment In the event that Lamont-Doherty stranded animal sighting to NMFS. and Level A harassment resulting from discovers an injured or dead marine the operation of the sound sources for Estimated Take by Incidental mammal, and the lead visual observer the proposed seismic survey based upon Harassment determines that the cause of the injury the current acoustic exposure criteria or death is unknown and the death is Except with respect to certain shown in Table 4, subject to the relatively recent (i.e., in less than a activities not pertinent here, section limitations in take described in Tables moderate state of decomposition as we 3(18) of the MMPA defines 5–8 later in this notice.

TABLE 4—NMFS’ CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Criterion Criterion definition Threshold

Level A Harassment (Injury) ...... Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS), (Any level 180 dB re 1 microPa-m (cetaceans)/190 dB re above that which is known to cause TTS). 1 microPa-m (pinnipeds) root mean square (rms). Level B Harassment ...... Behavioral Disruption (for impulse noises) ...... 160 dB re 1 microPa-m (rms).

NMFS’ practice is to apply the 160 dB present within a particular distance of a overestimates the number of individuals re: 1 mPa received level threshold for given activity, or exposed to a particular harassed. underwater impulse sound levels to level of sound. We use this information The following sections describe predict whether behavioral disturbance to predict how many animals Lamont-Doherty and NMFS’ methods to that rises to the level of Level B potentially could be taken. In practice, estimate take by incidental harassment. harassment is likely to occur. NMFS’ depending on the amount of We base these estimates on the number practice is to apply the 180 dB or 190 information available to characterize of marine mammals that are estimated dB re: 1 mPa (for cetaceans and daily and seasonal movement and to be exposed to seismic airgun sound pinnipeds, respectively) received level distribution of affected marine levels above the Level B harassment threshold for underwater impulse sound mammals, distinguishing between the threshold of 160 dB during a total of levels to predict whether permanent numbers of individuals harassed and approximately 9,633 km (5,986 mi) of threshold shift (auditory injury), which the instances of harassment can be transect lines in the southeast Pacific we consider as harassment (Level A), is difficult to parse. Moreover, when one Ocean. likely to occur. considers the duration of the activity, in Density Estimates: Lamont-Doherty Acknowledging Uncertainties in the absence of information to predict the was unable to identify any systematic Estimating Take degree to which individual animals are aircraft- or ship-based surveys Given the many uncertainties in likely exposed repeatedly on subsequent conducted for marine mammals in predicting the quantity and types of days, one assumption is that entirely waters of the southeast Pacific Ocean impacts of sound on marine mammals, new animals could be exposed every offshore Chile. Lamont-Doherty used it is common practice for us to estimate day, which results in a take estimate densities from NMFS’ Southwest how many animals are likely to be that in some circumstances Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23144 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

cruises (Ferguson and Barlow, 2001, the total numbers of instances of take Take Estimates for Species with Less 2003; Barlow 2003, 2010; Forney, 2007) that NMFS proposes to authorize. than One Instance of Exposure: Using in the California Current which is Take Estimate Method for Species the approach described earlier, the similar to the Humboldt Current Coastal with Density Information: Briefly, we model generated instances of take for area in which the proposed surveys are take the estimated density of marine some species that were less than one located. Both are eastern boundary mammals within an area (animals/km2) over the 75 total survey days. Those currents that feature narrow continental and multiply that number by the daily species include: Bryde’s, dwarf sperm, shelves, upwelling, high productivity, ensonified area (km2). The product killer, and sei whale. NMFS used data and fluctuating fishery resources (rounded) is the number of instance of based on dedicated survey sighting (sardines and anchovies). The densities take within one day. We then multiply information from the Atlantic Marine used were survey effort-weighted means the number of instances of take within Assessment Program for Protected for the locations (blocks or states). In one day by the number of survey days Species (AMAPPS) surveys in 2010, cases where multiple density estimates (plus 25 percent contingency). The 2011, and 2013 (AMAPPS, 2010, 2011, existed for an area, Lamont-Doherty result is an estimate of the potential 2013) to estimate take and assumed that used the highest density range (summer/ number of instances that marine Lamont-Doherty could potentially fall) for each species within the survey mammals could be exposed to airgun encounter one group of each species area. We refer the reader to Lamont- sounds above the Level B harassment during the proposed seismic survey. Doherty’s application for detailed threshold (i.e., the 160 dB ensonified NMFS believes it is reasonable to use information on how Lamont-Doherty area minus the 180/190-dB ensonified the average (mean) group size (weighted calculated densities for marine area) and the Level A harassment by effort and rounded up) from the mammals from the SWFSC cruises. threshold (i.e., the 180/190-dB For blue whales in the southern AMMAPS surveys for Bryde’s whale (2), ensonified area only) over the duration dwarf sperm whale (2), killer whale (4), survey area, NMFS used the density of each proposed survey. (9.56/km2) reported by Galletti and sei whale (3) to derive a reasonable There is some uncertainty about the Vernazzani et al. (2012) for estimate of take for eruptive occurrences representativeness of the estimated approximately four days of the proposed of each these species only once for each density data and the assumptions used southern survey to account for potential survey. in their calculations. Oceanographic survey operations occurring near a Take Estimates for Species with No known foraging area between 39° S. and conditions, including occasional El Nin˜ o and La Nin˜ a events, influence the Density Information: Density 44° S. For the remaining 31 days of the information for the southern right proposed survey, NMFS used the distribution and numbers of marine mammals present in the eastern tropical whale, , Antarctic density estimate presented in Lamont- minke whale, sei whale, dwarf sperm Doherty’s application (2.07/km2). NMFS Pacific Ocean, resulting in considerable year-to-year variation in the distribution whale, Shephard’s beaked whale, considers Lamont-Doherty’s approach to pygmy beaked whale, southern calculating densities for the remaining and abundance of many marine mammal species. Thus, for some bottlenose whale, hourglass dolphin, marine mammal species in the survey pygmy killer whale, false killer whale; areas as the best available information. species, the densities derived from past surveys may not be representative of the short-finned pilot whale, Juan We present the estimated densities Fernandez fur seal, and southern (when available) in Tables 5, 6, and 7 densities that would be encountered elephant seal in the southeast Pacific in this notice. during the proposed seismic surveys. Ocean is data poor or non-existent. Modeled Number of Instances of However, the approach used is based on When density estimates were not Exposures: Lamont-Doherty would the best available data. conduct the proposed seismic surveys In many cases, this estimate of available for a particular survey leg, offshore Chile in the southeast Pacific instances of exposures is likely an NMFS used data based on dedicated Ocean and presents estimates of the overestimate of the number of survey sighting information from the anticipated numbers of instances that individuals that are taken, because it Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for marine mammals could be exposed to assumes 100 percent turnover in the Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys in sound levels greater than or equal to area every day, (i.e., that each new day 2010, 2011, and 2013 (AMAPPS, 2010, 160, 180, and 190 dB re: 1 mPa during results in takes of entirely new 2011, 2013) and from Santora (2012) to the proposed seismic survey in Tables 3, individuals with no repeat takes of the estimate mean group size and take for 4, and 5 in their application. NMFS has same individuals over the three periods these species. NMFS assumed that independently reviewed these estimates (northern: 35 days; central: 6 days; and Lamont-Doherty could potentially and presents revised estimates southern: 34 days) including encounter one group of each species (described in the following subsections) contingency. It is difficult to quantify to each day during the seismic survey. of the anticipated numbers of instances what degree this method overestimates NMFS believes it is reasonable to use that marine mammals could be exposed the number of individuals potentially the average (mean) group size (weighted to sound levels greater than or equal to taken. Except as described later for a by effort and rounded up) for each 160, 180, and 190 dB re: 1 mPa during few specific species, NMFS uses this species multiplied by the number of the proposed seismic survey in Tables 5, number of instances as the estimate of survey days to derive an estimate of take 6, and 7 in this notice. Table 8 presents individuals (and authorized take). from potential encounters.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23145

TABLE 5—DENSITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS AND ESTIMATES OF INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms PREDICTED DURING THE NORTHERN PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017

Modeled number of instances of Proposed Proposed Species Density exposures to Level A Level B estimate 1 sound levels take 3 take ≥160, 180, and 190 dB 2

Southern right whale ...... 0 105, 0, - 0 105 Humpback whale ...... 0.32 35, 0, - 0 35 Common (dwarf) minke whale ...... 0.34 35, 0 - 0 35 Antarctic minke whale ...... 0 70, 0, - 0 70 Bryde’s whale ...... 0.47 35, 0, 0 0 35 Sei whale ...... 0 105, 0, - 0 105 Fin whale ...... 1.4 105, 35, - 35 105 Blue whale ...... 0.54 35, 0, - 0 35 Sperm whale ...... 1.19 70, 0, - 0 70 Dwarf sperm whale ...... 8.92 630, 105, - 105 630 Pygmy sperm whale ...... 2.73 210, 35, - 35 210 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... 2.36 175, 35, - 35 175 Pygmy beaked whale ...... 0.7 35, 0, - 0 35 Gray’s beaked whale ...... 1.95 140, 35, - 35 140 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... 1.95 140, 35, - 35 140 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... 7.05 490, 105, - 105 490 Common bottlenose dolphin ...... 18.4 1,330, 245, - 245 1,330 Striped dolphin ...... 61.4 4,410, 805, - 805 4,410 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... 356.3 25,515, 4,725, - 4,725 25,515 Long-beaked common dolphin ...... 50.3 3,605, 665, - 665 3,605 Dusky dolphin ...... 13.7 980, 175, - 175 980 Southern right whale dolphin ...... 3.34 245, 35, - 35 245 Risso’s dolphin ...... 29.8 2,135, 385, - 385 2,135 Pygmy killer whale ...... 1.31 105, 0, - 0 105 False killer whale ...... 0.63 35, 0, - 0 35 Killer whale ...... 0.23 4, 0, - 0 4 Short-finned pilot whale ...... 0 700, 0, - 0 700 Long-finned pilot whale ...... 1.09 70, 0, - 0 70 Burmeister’s porpoise ...... 5.15 385, 70, - 70 385 Juan Fernandez fur seal ...... 0 70, -, 0 0 70 South American fur seal ...... 37.9 2,730, -, 490 490 2,730 South American sea lion ...... 393 28,140, -, 5,215 5,215 28,140 1 Densities shown (when available) are 1,000 animals per km2. See Lamont-Doherty’s application and text in this notice for a summary of how Lamont-Doherty derived density estimates for certain species. For species without density estimates, see text in this notice for an explanation of NMFS’ methodology to derive take estimates. 2 Take modeled using a daily method for calculating ensonified area: Estimated density multiplied by the daily ensonified area to derive in- stances of take in one day (rounded) multiplied by the number of survey days with 25 percent contingency (35) Level B take = modeled in- stances of exposure within the 160-dB ensonified area minus the 180-dB or 190-dB ensonified area. Level A take = modeled instances of expo- sures within the 180-dB or 190-dB ensonified area only. Modeled instances of exposures include adjustments for species with no density infor- mation or with species having less than one instance of exposure (see text for sources). 3 The Level A estimates are overestimates of predicted impacts to marine mammals as the estimates do not take into consideration the re- quired mitigation measures for shutdowns or power downs if a marine mammal is likely to enter the 180 or 190 dB exclusion zone while the airguns are active.

TABLE 6—DENSITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS AND ESTIMATES OF INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms PREDICTED DURING THE CENTRAL PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017

Modeled number of instances of Proposed Proposed Density exposures to Species 1 Level A Level B estimate sound levels 3 ≥160, 180, and take take 190 dB 2

Southern right whale ...... 0 18, 0, - 0 18 Pygmy right whale ...... 0 18, 0, - 0 18 Humpback whale ...... 0.43 6, 0, - 0 6 Common (dwarf) minke whale ...... 0.34 6, 0, - 0 6 Antarctic minke whale ...... 0 12, 0, - 0 12 Bryde’s whale ...... 0.41 6, 0, - 0 6 Sei whale ...... 0 18, 0, - 0 18 Fin whale ...... 1.96 18, 6, - 6 18 Blue whale ...... 2.1 18, 6, - 6 18 Sperm whale ...... 1.22 12, 0, - 0 12

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23146 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

TABLE 6—DENSITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS AND ESTIMATES OF INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms PREDICTED DURING THE CENTRAL PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017—Continued

Modeled number of instances of Proposed Proposed Species Density exposures to Level A Level B estimate 1 sound levels take 3 take ≥160, 180, and 190 dB 2

Dwarf sperm whale ...... 7.98 78, 12, - 12 78 Pygmy sperm whale ...... 2.98 30, 6, - 6 30 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... 3.02 30, 6, - 6 30 Shepard’s beaked whale ...... 0 18, 0, - 0 18 Hector’s beaked whale ...... 1.54 18, 0, - 0 18 Pygmy beaked whale ...... 0.55 6, 0, - 0 6 Gray’s beaked whale ...... 1.54 18, 0, - 0 18 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... 1.54 18, 0, - 0 18 Andrew’s beaked whale ...... 1.54 18, 0, - 0 18 Strap-toothed beaked whale ...... 1.54 18, 0, - 0 18 Spade-toothed beaked whale ...... 1.54 18, 0, - 0 18 Chilean dolphin ...... 21.2 210, 36, - 36 210 Common bottlenose dolphin ...... 12.3 120, 24, - 24 120 Striped dolphin ...... 46.7 462, 84, - 84 462 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... 503.5 4,998, 908, - 906 4,998 Dusky dolphin ...... 14.8 144, 24, - 24 144 Peale’s dolphin ...... 21.2 210, 36, - 36 210 Hourglass dolphin ...... 0 30, 0, - 0 30 Southern right whale dolphin ...... 6.07 60, 12, - 12 60 Risso’s dolphin ...... 21.2 210, 36, - 36 210 Pygmy killer whale ...... 0 12, 0, - 0 12 False killer whale ...... 0.54 6, 0, - 0 6 Killer whale ...... 0.28 4, 0, - 0 4 Short-finned pilot whale ...... 0 120, 0, - 0 120 Long-finned pilot whale ...... 0.94 12, 0, - 0 12 Burmeister’s porpoise ...... 4.92 48, 6, - 6 48 Juan Fernandez fur seal ...... 0 12, -, 0 0 12 South American fur seal ...... 37.9 378, -, 66 66 378 South American sea lion ...... 393 3,900, -, 708 708 3,900 Southern elephant seal ...... 0 24, -, 0 0 24 1 Densities shown (when available) are 1,000 animals per km2. See Lamont-Doherty’s application and text in this notice for a summary of how Lamont-Doherty derived density estimates for certain species. For species without density estimates, see text in this notice for an explanation of NMFS’ methodology to derive take estimates. 2 Take modeled using a daily method for calculating ensonified area: Estimated density multiplied by the daily ensonified area to derive in- stances of take in one day (rounded) multiplied by the number of survey days with 25 percent contingency (35) Level B take = modeled in- stances of exposure within the 160-dB ensonified area minus the 180-dB or 190-dB ensonified area. Level A take = modeled instances of expo- sures within the 180-dB or 190-dB ensonified area only. Modeled instances of exposures include adjustments for species with no density infor- mation or with species having less than one instance of exposure (see text for sources). 3 The Level A estimates are overestimates of predicted impacts to marine mammals as the estimates do not take into consideration the re- quired mitigation measures for shutdowns or power downs if a marine mammal is likely to enter the 180 or 190 dB exclusion zone while the airguns are active.

TABLE 7—DENSITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS AND ESTIMATES OF INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms PREDICTED DURING THE SOUTHERN PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017

Modeled number of in- Proposed Proposed Species Density stances of exposures to Level A Level B estimate 1 sound levels ≥160, 180, take 3 take and 190 dB 2

Southern right whale ...... 0 102, 0, - 0 102 Pygmy right whale ...... 0 102, 0, - 0 102 Humpback whale ...... 1.22 102, 0, - 0 102 Common (dwarf) minke whale ...... 0.61 34, 0, - 0 34 Antarctic minke whale ...... 0 68, 0, - 0 68 Bryde’s whale ...... 0.03 2, 0, - 0 2 Sei whale ...... 0.02 3, 0, - 0 3 Fin whale ...... 2.43 170, 34, - 34 170 Blue whale (Feb–Apr) ...... 9.56 80, 12, - 12 80 Blue whale (May–Jan) ...... 2.07 124, 31, - 31 124 Sperm whale ...... 1.32 102, 0, - 0 102 Dwarf sperm whale ...... 0 68, 0, - 0 68 Pygmy sperm whale ...... 4.14 306, 34, - 34 306 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... 4.02 272, 34, - 34 272

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23147

TABLE 7—DENSITIES OF MARINE MAMMALS AND ESTIMATES OF INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms PREDICTED DURING THE SOUTHERN PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017—Continued

Modeled number of in- Proposed Proposed Species Density stances of exposures to Level A Level B estimate 1 sound levels ≥160, 180, take 3 take and 190 dB 2

Shepard’s beaked whale ...... 0 102, 0, - 0 102 Hector’s beaked whale ...... 0.31 34, 0, - 0 34 Pygmy beaked whale ...... 0 102, 0, - 0 102 Gray’s beaked whale ...... 1.95 136, 34, - 34 136 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... 0.31 34, 0, - 0 34 Andrew’s beaked whale ...... 0.31 34, 0, - 0 34 Strap-toothed beaked whale ...... 0.31 34, 0, - 0 34 Spade-toothed beaked whale ...... 0.31 34, 0, - 0 34 Southern bottlenose whale ...... 0 102, 0, - 0 102 Chilean dolphin ...... 10.9 748, 136, 0 136 748 Common bottlenose dolphin ...... 2.72 204, 34, - 34 204 Striped dolphin ...... 17.7 1,224, 204, - 204 1,224 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... 516.9 36,210, 5,950, - 5,950 36,210 Dusky dolphin ...... 29.9 2,108, 340, - 340 2,108 Peale’s dolphin ...... 10.9 748, 136, - 136 748 Hourglass dolphin ...... 0 170, 0, - 0 170 Southern right whale dolphin ...... 9.79 680, 102, - 102 680 Risso’s dolphin ...... 10.9 748, 136, - 136 748 Pygmy killer whale ...... 0 68, 0, - 0 68 False killer whale ...... 0 238, 0, - 0 238 Killer whale ...... 0.73 68, 0, - 0 68 Short-finned pilot whale ...... 0 680, 0, - 0 680 Long-finned pilot whale ...... 0.53 34, 0, - 0 34 Burmeister’s porpoise ...... 55.4 3,876, 646, - 646 3,876 Juan Fernandez fur seal ...... 0 68, -, 0 0 68 South American fur seal ...... 37.9 2,652, -, 442 442 2,652 South American sea lion ...... 393 27,540, -, 4,522 4,522 27,540 Southern elephant seal ...... 0 136, -, 0 0 136 1 Densities shown (when available) are 1,000 animals per km2. See Lamont-Doherty’s application and text in this notice for a summary of how Lamont-Doherty derived density estimates for certain species. For species without density estimates, see text in this notice for an explanation of NMFS’ methodology to derive take estimates. 2 Take modeled using a daily method for calculating ensonified area: Estimated density multiplied by the daily ensonified area to derive in- stances of take in one day (rounded) multiplied by the number of survey days with 25 percent contingency (35) Level B take = modeled in- stances of exposure within the 160-dB ensonified area minus the 180-dB or 190-dB ensonified area. Level A take = modeled instances of expo- sures within the 180-dB or 190-dB ensonified area only. Modeled instances of exposures include adjustments for species with no density infor- mation or with species having less than one instance of exposure (see text for sources). 3 The Level A estimates are overestimates of predicted impacts to marine mammals as the estimates do not take into consideration the re- quired mitigation measures for shutdowns or power downs if a marine mammal is likely to enter the 180 or 190 dB exclusion zone while the airguns are active.

TABLE 8—TAKE ESTIMATES BASED ON TOTAL PREDICTED INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms DURING THE NORTHERN, CENTRAL, AND SOUTHERN PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY OFF CHILE IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017

Proposed Proposed Total Species Level A Level B proposed Percent of population 2 take 1 take take

Southern right whale ...... 0 225 225 1.875 Pygmy right whale ...... 0 120 120 Unknown Humpback whale ...... 0 143 143 0.340 Common (dwarf) minke whale ...... 0 75 75 0.015 Antarctic minke whale ...... 0 41 41 0.008 Bryde’s whale ...... 0 43 43 0.099 Sei whale ...... 0 126 126 1.260 Fin whale ...... 75 293 368 1.673 Blue whale ...... 49 257 306 3.060 Sperm whale ...... 0 184 184 0.051 Dwarf sperm whale ...... 117 776 893 0.524 Pygmy sperm whale ...... 75 546 621 0.365 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... 75 477 552 2.760 Shepard’s beaked whale ...... 0 120 120 0.474 Pygmy beaked whale ...... 0 143 143 0.565 Gray’s beaked whale ...... 69 294 363 1.435 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... 35 192 227 0.897 Hector’s beaked whale ...... 0 52 52 0.206 Gray’s beaked whale ...... 69 294 363 1.435

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:08 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23148 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

TABLE 8—TAKE ESTIMATES BASED ON TOTAL PREDICTED INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms DURING THE NORTHERN, CENTRAL, AND SOUTHERN PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY OFF CHILE IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017—Continued

Proposed Proposed Total Species Level A Level B proposed Percent of population 2 take 1 take take

Andrew’s beaked whale ...... 0 52 52 0.206 Strap-toothed beaked whale ...... 0 52 52 0.206 Spade-toothed beaked whale ...... 0 52 52 0.206 Southern bottlenose whale ...... 0 102 102 0.142 Chilean dolphin ...... 172 958 1,130 11.300 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... 105 490 595 0.553 Common bottlenose dolphin ...... 303 1,654 1,957 0.583 Striped dolphin ...... 1,093 6,096 7,189 0.745 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... 11,581 66,723 78,304 4.433 Long-beaked common dolphin ...... 665 3,605 4,270 2.965 Dusky dolphin ...... 539 3,232 3,771 14.571 Peale’s dolphin ...... 172 958 1,130 Unknown Hourglass dolphin ...... 0 200 200 0.139 Southern right whale dolphin ...... 149 985 1,134 Unknown Risso’s dolphin ...... 557 3,093 3,650 3.304 Pygmy killer whale ...... 0 185 185 0.476 False killer whale ...... 0 279 279 0.701 Killer whale ...... 0 76 76 0.152 Short-finned pilot whale ...... 0 1,500 1,500 0.255 Long-finned pilot whale ...... 0 116 116 0.058 Burmeister’s porpoise ...... 722 4,309 5,031 Unknown Juan Fernandez fur seal ...... 0 150 150 0.465 South American fur seal ...... 998 5,760 6,758 2.703 South American sea lion ...... 10,445 59,580 70,025 17.604 Southern elephant seal ...... 0 160 160 0.040 1 The Level A estimates are overestimates of predicted impacts to marine mammals as the estimates do not take into consideration the re- quired mitigation measures for shutdowns or power downs if a marine mammal is likely to enter the 180 or 190 dB exclusion zone while the airguns are active. 2 Proposed authorized Level A and B takes (used by NMFS as proxy for number of individuals exposed) expressed as the percent of the popu- lation listed in Table 1 in this notice. Unknown = Abundance size not available.

Lamont-Doherty did not estimate any would minimize any potential risk for estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, additional take from sound sources serious injury or mortality. and the status of the species. other than airguns. NMFS does not In making a negligible impact Preliminary Analysis and expect the sound levels produced by the determination, NMFS considers: Determinations echosounder and sub-bottom profiler to • The number of anticipated injuries, exceed the sound levels produced by Negligible Impact serious injuries, or mortalities; the airguns. • The number, nature, and intensity, As described above, NMFS considers Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact and duration of harassment; and the probability for entanglement of resulting from the specified activity that • The context in which the takes marine mammals to be so low as to be cannot be reasonably expected to, and is occur (e.g., impacts to areas of discountable, because of the vessel not reasonably likely to, adversely affect significance, impacts to local speed and the monitoring efforts the species or stock through effects on populations, and cumulative impacts onboard the survey vessel. Therefore, annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ when taking into account successive/ NMFS does not propose to authorize (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely contemporaneous actions when added additional takes for entanglement. adverse effects on annual rates of to baseline data); As described above, the Langseth will recruitment or survival (i.e., population • The status of stock or species of operate at a relatively slow speed level effects) forms the basis of a marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not (typically 4.6 knots [8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph]) negligible impact finding. Thus, an depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, when conducting the survey. Protected estimate of the number of takes, alone, impact relative to the size of the species observers would monitor for is not enough information on which to population); marine mammals, which would trigger base an impact determination. In • Impacts on habitat affecting rates of mitigation measures, including vessel addition to considering estimates of the recruitment/survival; and avoidance where safe. Therefore, NMFS number of marine mammals that might • The effectiveness of monitoring and does not anticipate nor do we propose be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral mitigation measures to reduce the to authorize takes of marine mammals harassment, NMFS must consider other number or severity of incidental takes. as a result of vessel strike. factors, such as the likely nature of any To avoid repetition, our analysis There is no evidence that the planned responses (their intensity, duration, applies to all the species listed in Table survey activities could result in serious etc.), the context of any responses 8, given that NMFS expects the injury or mortality within the specified (critical reproductive time or location, anticipated effects of the seismic airguns geographic area for the requested migration, etc.), as well as the number to be similar in nature. Where there are proposed Authorization. The required and nature of estimated Level A meaningful differences between species mitigation and monitoring measures harassment takes, the number of or stocks, or groups of species, in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23149

anticipated individual responses to those of mysticetes, in part because 1995; Allen and Angliss, 2014). activities, impact of expected take on odontocete low-frequency hearing is Similarly, bowhead whales have the population due to differences in assumed to be less sensitive to the low continued to travel to the eastern population status, or impacts on habitat, frequency signals of these airguns than Beaufort Sea each summer, and their NMFS has identified species-specific that of mysticetes. NMFS generally numbers have increased notably, factors to inform the analysis. expects cetaceans to move away from a despite seismic exploration in their Given the required mitigation and noise source that is annoying prior to its summer and autumn range for many related monitoring, NMFS does not becoming potentially injurious, and this years (Richardson et al., 1987; Allen and anticipate that serious injury or expectation is expected to hold true in Angliss, 2014). The history of mortality would occur as a result of the case of the proposed activities, coexistence between seismic surveys Lamont-Doherty’s proposed seismic especially given the relatively slow and baleen whales suggests that brief survey in the southeast Pacific Ocean. travel speed of the Langseth while exposures to sound pulses from any Thus the proposed authorization does seismic surveys are being conducted single seismic survey are unlikely to not authorize any mortality. NMFS’ (4.5 kt; 5.1 mph). The relatively slow result in prolonged effects. Only a small predicted estimates for Level A ship speed is expected to provide portion of marine mammal habitat will harassment take for some species are cetaceans with sufficient notice of the be affected at any time, and other areas likely overestimates of the injury that oncoming vessel and thus sufficient within the southeast Pacific Ocean will occur, as NMFS expects that opportunity to avoid the seismic sound would be available for necessary successful implementation of the source before it reaches a level that biological functions. Overall, the proposed mitigation measures would would be potentially injurious to the consequences of behavioral avoid Level A take in some instances. animal. However, as described above, modification are not expected to affect Also, NMFS expects that some Level A takes for a small group of cetacean growth, survival, and/or individuals would avoid the source at cetacean species are proposed for reproduction, and therefore are not levels expected to result in injury, given authorization here. expected to be biologically significant. sufficient notice of the Langseth’s Potential impacts to marine mammal Pinnipeds. Generally speaking, approach due to the vessel’s relatively habitat were discussed previously in pinnipeds may react to a sound source low speed when conducting seismic this document (see the ‘‘Anticipated in a number of ways depending on their surveys. Though NMFS expects that Effects on Habitat’’ section). Although experience with the sound source and Level A harassment is unlikely to occur some disturbance is possible to food at the numbers proposed to be sources of marine mammals, the what activity they are engaged in at the authorized, is difficult to quantify the impacts are anticipated to be minor time of the exposure, with behavioral degree to which the mitigation and enough as to not affect the feeding responses to sound ranging from a mild avoidance will reduce the number of success of any individuals long-term. orienting response, or a shifting of animals that might incur PTS, therefore Regarding direct effects on cetacean attention, to flight and panic. However, we propose to authorize, and have feeding, based on the fact that the action research and monitoring observations included in our analyses, the modeled footprint does not include any areas from activities similar to those proposed number of Level A takes, which does recognized specifically for higher value have shown that pinnipeds in the water not take the mitigation or avoidance into feeding habitat, the mobile and are generally tolerant of anthropogenic consideration. However, because of the ephemeral nature of most prey sources, noise and activity. Visual monitoring constant movement of the Langseth and and the size of the southeast Pacific from seismic vessels has shown only of the animals, as well as the fact that Ocean where feeding by marine slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by the vessel is not expected to remain in mammals occurs versus the localized pinnipeds and only slight (if any) any one area in which individuals area of the marine survey activities, any changes in behavior (Harris et al., 2001; would be expected to concentrate for missed feeding opportunities in the Moulton and Lawson, 2002). During any extended amount of time (i.e., since direct project area are expected to be foraging trips, extralimital pinnipeds the duration of exposure to loud sounds minor based on the fact that other may not react at all to the sound from will be relatively short), we anticipate equally valuable feeding opportunities the proposed survey or may alert, ignore that any PTS that may be incurred in likely exist nearby. the stimulus, change their behavior, or marine mammals would be in the form Taking into account the planned avoid the immediate area by swimming of only a small degree of permanent mitigation measures, effects on away or diving. Behavioral effects to threshold shift, and not total deafness, cetaceans are generally expected to be sound are generally more likely to occur that would not be likely to affect the restricted to avoidance of a limited area at higher received levels (i.e., within a fitness of any individuals. around the survey operation and short- few kilometers of a sound source). Of the marine mammal species under term changes in behavior, falling within However, the slow speed of the our jurisdiction that are known to occur the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B Langseth while conducting seismic or likely to occur in the study area, the harassment.’’ Animals are not expected surveys (approximately 4.5 kt; 5.1 mph) following species are listed as to permanently abandon any area that is is expected to provide ample endangered under the ESA: Blue, fin, surveyed, and based on the best opportunity for pinnipeds to avoid and humpback, sei, Southern right, and available information, any behaviors keep some distance between themselves sperm whales. The other marine that are interrupted during the activity and the loudest sources of sound mammal species that may be taken by are expected to resume once the activity associated with the proposed activities. harassment during Lamont-Doherty’s ceases. For example, as described above, Additionally, underwater sound from seismic survey program are not listed as gray whales have continued to migrate the proposed survey would not be threatened or endangered under the annually along the west coast of North audible at pinniped haulouts or ESA. America with substantial increases in rookeries, therefore the consequences of Cetaceans. Odontocete reactions to the population over recent years, behavioral responses in these areas are seismic energy pulses are usually despite intermittent seismic exploration expected to be minimal. Overall, the thought to be limited to shorter in that area for decades (Appendix A in consequences of behavioral distances from the airgun(s) than are Malme et al., 1984; Richardson et al., modification are not expected to affect

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23150 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

pinniped growth, survival, and/or marine mammals. Based on the analysis near to shore, commonly within or reproduction, and therefore are not herein of the likely effects of the shoreward of kelp beds, while in the expected to be biologically significant. specified activity on marine mammals waters of southern Chile and Tierra del Many animals perform vital functions, and their habitat, and taking into Fuego they appear to prefer channels, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and consideration the implementation of the fjords and deep bays (Goodall 2009). socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hour proposed monitoring and mitigation Their apparent habitat preference for cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise measures, NMFS finds that Lamont- waters very near to shore suggests that exposure (such as disruption of critical Doherty’s proposed seismic survey the number of proposed authorized life functions, displacement, or would have a negligible impact on the takes is likely very conservative as the avoidance of important habitat) are affected marine mammal species or species is unlikely to be encountered more likely to be significant if they last stocks. throughout much of the survey area. more than one diel cycle or recur on Small Numbers While no abundance estimate exists for subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). the species, Peale’s dolphin is While NMFS anticipates that the As mentioned previously, NMFS reportedly the most common cetacean seismic operations would occur on estimates that Lamont-Doherty’s found around the coast of the Falkland consecutive days, the estimated activities could potentially affect, by Islands and Chile (Brownell Jr. et al. duration of the survey would last no Level B harassment, 44 species of 1999). The combination of the species’ more than 75 days but would increase marine mammals under our jurisdiction. apparent abundance and the species’ sound levels in the marine environment NMFS estimates that Lamont-Doherty’s apparent preference for habitats that in a relatively small area surrounding activities could potentially affect, by would not be surveyed by Lamont- the vessel (compared to the range of Level A harassment, up to 26 species of Doherty suggests the proposed number most of the marine mammals within the marine mammals under our jurisdiction. of authorized takes would represent a For each species, the numbers of take proposed survey area), which is small number of individuals relative to being proposed for authorization are constantly travelling over distances, and the species’ total abundance. some animals may only be exposed to small relative to the population sizes: Less than 18 percent for South The full distribution of the southern and harassed by sound for less than a right whale dolphin is not known, but day. American sea lion, less than 15 percent for the dusky dolphin, less than 11.5 the species appears to be circumpolar For reasons stated previously in this and fairly common throughout its range. document and based on the following percent for Chilean dolphin, and less than 5 percent for all other species Survey data and stranding and fishery factors, Lamont-Doherty’s proposed interaction data in northern Chile activities are not likely to cause long- (Table 8). NMFS is not aware of reliable suggest that the species may be one of term behavioral disturbance, serious the most common cetaceans in the injury, or death, or other effects that abundance estimates for four species of marine mammals (Burmeister’s region (Van Waerebeek et al. 1991). The would be expected to adversely affect species’ apparent abundance and its reproduction or survival of any porpoise, Peale’s dolphin, pygmy right whale, and southern right whale broad distribution suggest the proposed individuals. They include: number of authorized takes would • The anticipated impacts of Lamont- dolphin) for which incidental take represent a small number of individuals Doherty’s survey activities on marine authorization is proposed. Therefore we relative to the species’ total abundance. mammals are temporary behavioral rely on the best available information on The pygmy right whale has a changes due, primarily, to avoidance of these species to make determinations as to whether the proposed authorized take circumpolar distribution, between about the area around the seismic vessel; ° ° • The likelihood that, given the numbers represent small numbers of the 30 and 55 S., with records from constant movement of boat and animals total populations of these species. southern South America as well as and the nature of the survey design (not The Burmeister’s porpoise is Africa, Australia and New Zealand concentrated in areas of high marine distributed from the Atlantic Ocean in (Kemper 2009). There are no estimates mammal concentration), any PTS that is southern Brazil to the Pacific Ocean in of abundance for the species, but incurred would be of a low level; northern Peru (Reyes 2009). While there judging by the number of strandings in • The availability of alternate areas of are no quantitative data on abundance, Australia and New Zealand, it is likely similar habitat value for marine the best available information suggest to be reasonably common in that region mammals to temporarily vacate the the species is assumed to be numerous (Kemper 2009), with aggregations of up survey area during the operation of the throughout South American coastal to approximately 80 individuals airgun(s) to avoid acoustic harassment; waters (Brownell Jr. and Clapham 1999), reported (Matsuoka 1996). The species’ • The expectation that the seismic with groups estimated at approximately apparent abundance and its broad survey would have no more than a 150 individuals observed off of Peru distribution suggest the proposed temporary and minimal adverse effect (Van Waerebeek et al. 2002). In addition number of authorized takes would on any fish or invertebrate species that the species is typically found shoreward represent a small number of individuals serve as prey species for marine of the 60 m isobath (Hammond et al. relative to the species’ total abundance. mammals, and therefore consider the 2012), suggesting that the proposed NMFS finds that the proposed potential impacts to marine mammal number of authorized takes is likely incidental take described in Table 8 for habitat minimal. conservative as the species is unlikely to the proposed activity would be limited Tables 5–8 in this document outlines be encountered throughout the full to small numbers relative to the affected the number of requested Level A and survey area. The species’ wide species or stocks. Level B harassment takes that we distribution and apparent abundance Impact on Availability of Affected anticipate as a result of these activities. suggest the proposed number of Species or Stock for Taking for Required mitigation measures, such as authorized takes would represent a Subsistence Uses special shutdowns for large whales, small number of individuals relative to vessel speed, course alteration, and the species’ total abundance. There are no relevant subsistence uses visual monitoring would be Peale’s dolphin is a coastal species of marine mammals implicated by this implemented to help reduce impacts to that is known to inhabit waters very action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23151

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Incidental Harassment Authorization 4. Reporting Prohibited Take There are six marine mammal species We hereby authorize the Lamont- The Holder of this Authorization must listed as endangered under the Doherty Earth Observatory (Lamont- report the taking of any marine mammal Endangered Species Act that may occur Doherty), Columbia University, P.O. Box in a manner prohibited under this in the proposed survey area. Under 1000, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, New York Authorization immediately to the Office section 7 of the ESA, NSF has initiated 10964–8000, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of Protected Resources, National Marine formal consultation with NMFS on the of the Marine Mammal Protection Act Fisheries Service, at 301–427–8401 and/ proposed seismic survey. NMFS (i.e., (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) and or by email to the Chief, Permits and National Marine Fisheries Service, 50 CFR 216.107, to incidentally harass Conservation Division. Office of Protected Resources, Permits small numbers of marine mammals 5. Cooperation and Conservation Division) will also incidental to a marine geophysical consult internally with NMFS on the survey conducted by the R/V Marcus G. We require the Holder of this proposed issuance of an Authorization Langseth (Langseth) marine geophysical Authorization to cooperate with the under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the survey in the Southeast Pacific Ocean Office of Protected Resources, National MMPA. NMFS and the NSF will between June 2016 and June 2017. Marine Fisheries Service, and any other conclude the consultation prior to a Federal, state, or local agency determination on the proposed issuance 1. Effective Dates monitoring the impacts of the activity of the Authorization. This Authorization is valid between on marine mammals. National Environmental Policy Act June 2016 and June 2017. 6. Mitigation and Monitoring (NEPA) 2. Specified Geographic Region Requirements NSF has prepared a draft This Authorization is valid only for We require the Holder of this environmental analysis titled, Draft specified activities associated with the Authorization to implement the Environmental Analysis of a Marine R/V Marcus G. Langseth’s (Langseth) following mitigation and monitoring Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus seismic operations as specified in requirements when conducting the G. Langseth in the Southeast Pacific Lamont-Doherty’s Incidental specified activities to achieve the least Ocean, 2016/2017. NMFS has posted Harassment Authorization practicable adverse impact on affected this document on our Web site (Authorization) application and marine mammal species or stocks: concurrently with the publication of environmental analysis in the following Visual Observers this notice. NMFS has independently specified geographic area: a. Utilize two, National Marine evaluated the draft environmental a. In the Southeast Pacific Ocean, Fisheries Service-qualified, vessel-based analysis and has prepared a draft located approximately within the Protected Species Visual Observers Environmental Assessment (DEA) titled, exclusive economic zone of Chile, (visual observers) to watch for and Proposed Issuance of an Incidental between 18° and 44° S. as specified in monitor marine mammals near the Harassment Authorization to Lamont- Lamont-Doherty’s application and the seismic source vessel during daytime Doherty Earth Observatory to Take National Science Foundation’s airgun operations (from nautical Marine Mammals by Harassment environmental analysis. Incidental to a Marine Geophysical twilight-dawn to nautical twilight-dusk) Survey in the Southeast Pacific Ocean, 3. Species Authorized and Level of and before and during start-ups of 2016/2017. Information in Lamont- Takes airguns day or night. i. At least one visual observer will be Doherty’s application, NSF’s draft a. This authorization limits the on watch during meal times and environmental analysis, NMFS’ DEA incidental taking of marine mammals, restroom breaks. and this notice collectively provide the by harassment only, to the species in the ii. Observer shifts will last no longer environmental information related to area described in Tables 5–8 in this than four hours at a time. proposed issuance of an Authorization notice. for public review and comment. NMFS iii. Visual observers will also conduct i. During the seismic activities, if the will review all comments submitted in monitoring while the Langseth crew Holder of this Authorization encounters response to this notice as we complete deploy and recover the airgun array and any marine mammal species that are not the NEPA process, including a decision streamers from the water. listed in Condition 3(a) for authorized of whether to sign a Finding of No iv. When feasible, visual observers taking and are likely to be exposed to Significant Impact (FONSI), prior to a will conduct observations during sound pressure levels greater than or final decision on the proposed daytime periods when the seismic equal to 160 decibels (dB) re: 1 mPa, Authorization request. system is not operating for comparison then the Holder must alter speed or of sighting rates and behavioral Proposed Authorization course or shut-down the airguns to reactions during, between, and after As a result of these preliminary avoid take. airgun operations. determinations, NMFS proposes issuing b. The taking by serious injury or v. The Langseth’s vessel crew will an Authorization to Lamont-Doherty for death of any of the species listed in also assist in detecting marine conducting a seismic survey in the Condition 3(a) or the taking of any kind mammals, when practicable. Visual Southeast Pacific Ocean, between June of any other species of marine mammal observers will have access to reticle 2016 and June 2017, provided they is prohibited and may result in the binoculars (7x50 Fujinon), and big-eye incorporate the proposed mitigation, modification, suspension, or revocation binoculars (25x150). monitoring, and reporting requirements. of this Authorization. c. This Authorization limits the Exclusion Zones Draft Proposed Authorization methods authorized for taking by b. Establish a 180-decibel (dB) or 190- This section contains the draft text for harassment to the following acoustic dB exclusion zone for cetaceans and the proposed Authorization. NMFS sources: pinnipeds, respectively, before starting proposes to include this language in the i. A sub-airgun array with a total the airgun subarray (6,660 in3); and a Authorization if issued. capacity of 6,600 in3 (or smaller); 180-dB or 190-dB exclusion zone for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23152 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively mammal so a power-down or shut-down practicable, or if after alteration the for the single airgun (40 in3). Observers can be initiated, if required; marine mammal still appears likely to will use the predicted radius distance ii. enter the information regarding the enter the exclusion zone, the Holder of for the 180-dB or 190-dB exclusion vocalization into a database. The data to this Authorization will implement zones for cetaceans and pinnipeds. be entered include an acoustic further mitigation measures, such as a encounter identification number, shutdown. Visual Monitoring at the Start of Airgun whether it was linked with a visual Operations sighting, date, time when first and last Power-Down Procedures c. Monitor the entire extent of the heard and whenever any additional j. Power down the airguns if a visual exclusion zones for at least 30 minutes information was recorded, position, observer detects a marine mammal (day or night) prior to the ramp-up of water depth when first detected, bearing within, approaching, or entering the airgun operations after a shutdown. if determinable, species or species group relevant exclusion zones. A power- d. Delay airgun operations if the (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm down means reducing the number of visual observer sees a cetacean within whale, monk seal), types and nature of operating airguns to a single operating the 180-dB exclusion zone for cetaceans sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, 40 in3 airgun. This would reduce the or 190-dB exclusion zone for pinnipeds sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, exclusion zone to the degree that the until the marine mammal(s) has left the strength of signal, etc.), and any other animal(s) is outside of it. area. notable information. Resuming Airgun Operations After a i. If the visual observer sees a marine Ramp-Up Procedures Power-Down mammal that surfaces, then dives below the surface, the observer shall wait 30 g. Implement a ‘‘ramp-up’’ procedure k. Following a power-down, if the minutes. If the observer sees no marine when starting the airguns at the marine mammal approaches the smaller mammals during that time, he/she beginning of seismic operations or any designated exclusion zone, the airguns should assume that the animal has time after the entire array has been must then be completely shut-down. moved beyond the 180-dB exclusion shutdown, which means start the Airgun activity will not resume until the zone for cetaceans or 190-dB exclusion smallest gun first and add airguns in a observer has visually observed the zone for pinnipeds. sequence such that the source level of marine mammal(s) exiting the exclusion ii. If for any reason the visual observer the array will increase in steps not zone and is not likely to return, or has cannot see the full 180-dB exclusion exceeding approximately 6 dB per 5- not been seen within the exclusion zone zone for cetaceans or the 190-dB minute period. During ramp-up, the for 15 minutes for species with shorter exclusion zone for pinnipeds for the observers will monitor the exclusion dive durations (small odontocetes) or 30 entire 30 minutes (i.e., rough seas, fog, zone, and if marine mammals are minutes for species with longer dive darkness), or if marine mammals are sighted, a course/speed alteration, durations (mysticetes and large near, approaching, or within zone, the power-down, or shutdown will be odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy Langseth may not resume airgun implemented as though the full array sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked operations. were operational. whales). l. Following a power-down and iii. If one airgun is already running at Recording Visual Detections subsequent animal departure, the m a source level of at least 180 dB re: 1 Pa h. Visual observers must record the Langseth may resume airgun operations m or 190 dB re: 1 Pa, the Langseth may following information when they have at full power. Initiation requires that the start the second gun–and subsequent sighted a marine mammal: observers can effectively monitor the airguns–without observing relevant i. Species, group size, age/size/sex full exclusion zones described in exclusion zones for 30 minutes, categories (if determinable), behavior Condition 6(b). If the observer sees a provided that the observers have not when first sighted and after initial marine mammal within or about to enter seen any marine mammals near the sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing the relevant zones then the Langseth relevant exclusion zones (in accordance and distance from seismic vessel, will implement a course/speed with Condition 6(b)). sighting cue, apparent reaction to the alteration, power-down, or shutdown. Passive Acoustic Monitoring airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc., and Shutdown Procedures e. Utilize the passive acoustic including responses to ramp-up), and m. Shutdown the airgun(s) if a visual monitoring (PAM) system, to the behavioral pace; and observer detects a marine mammal maximum extent practicable, to detect ii. Time, location, heading, speed, within, approaching, or entering the and allow some localization of marine activity of the vessel (including number relevant exclusion zone. A shutdown mammals around the Langseth during of airguns operating and whether in means that the Langseth turns off all all airgun operations and during most state of ramp-up or shut-down), operating airguns. periods when airguns are not operating. Beaufort sea state and wind force, Resuming Airgun Operations After a One visual observer and/or visibility, and sun glare; and bioacoustician will monitor the PAM at iii. The data listed under 6(f)(ii) at the Shutdown all times in shifts no longer than 6 start and end of each observation watch n. Following a shutdown, if the hours. A bioacoustician shall design and and during a watch whenever there is a observer has visually confirmed that the set up the PAM system and be present change in one or more of the variables. animal has departed the 180-dB zone for to operate or oversee PAM, and cetaceans or the 190-dB zone for available when technical issues occur Speed or Course Alteration pinnipeds within a period of less than during the survey. i. Alter speed or course during or equal to 8 minutes after the f. Do and record the following when seismic operations if a marine mammal, shutdown, then the Langseth may an observer detects an animal by the based on its position and relative resume airgun operations at full power. PAM: motion, appears likely to enter the o. If the observer has not seen the i. Notify the visual observer relevant exclusion zone. If speed or animal depart the 180-dB zone for immediately of a vocalizing marine course alteration is not safe or cetaceans or the 190-dB zone for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices 23153

pinnipeds, the Langseth shall not i. Dates, times, locations, heading, Lamont-Doherty shall immediately resume airgun activity until 15 minutes speed, weather, sea conditions cease the specified activities and has passed for species with shorter dive (including Beaufort sea state and wind immediately report the take to the Chief, times (i.e., small odontocetes and force), and associated activities during Permits and Conservation Division, pinnipeds) or 30 minutes has passed for all seismic operations and marine Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at species with longer dive durations (i.e., mammal sightings. 301–427–8401 and/or by email. The mysticetes and large odontocetes, ii. Species, number, location, distance report must include the following including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf from the vessel, and behavior of any information: sperm, killer, and beaked whales). The marine mammals, as well as associated • Time, date, and location (latitude/ Langseth will follow the ramp-up seismic activity (number of shutdowns), longitude) of the incident; procedures described in Conditions 6(g). observed throughout all monitoring • Name and type of vessel involved; activities. • Vessel’s speed during and leading Survey Operations at Night iii. An estimate of the number (by up to the incident; p. The Langseth may continue marine species) of marine mammals with • Description of the incident; • geophysical surveys into night and low- known exposures to the seismic activity Status of all sound source use in the light hours if the Holder of the (based on visual observation) at received 24 hours preceding the incident; levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re: • Water depth; Authorization initiates these segment(s) • of the survey when the observers can 1 mPa and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa for Environmental conditions (e.g., view and effectively monitor the full cetaceans and 190-dB re 1 mPa for wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea relevant exclusion zones. pinnipeds and a discussion of any state, cloud cover, and visibility); • Description of all marine mammal q. This Authorization does not permit specific behaviors those individuals exhibited. observations in the 24 hours preceding the Holder of this Authorization to iv. An estimate of the number (by the incident; initiate airgun array operations from a species) of marine mammals with • Species identification or shut-down position at night or during estimated exposures (based on modeling description of the animal(s) involved; low-light hours (such as in dense fog or results and accounting for animals at the • Fate of the animal(s); and heavy rain) when the visual observers surface but not detected [i.e., g(0) • Photographs or video footage of the cannot view and effectively monitor the values] and for animals present but animal(s) (if equipment is available). full relevant exclusion zones. underwater and not available for Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its Mitigation Airgun sighting [i.e., f(0) values]) to the seismic activities until we are able to review the activity at received levels greater than or circumstances of the prohibited take. s. The Langseth may operate a small- equal to 160 dB re: 1 mPa and/or 180 dB We shall work with Lamont-Doherty to volume airgun (i.e., mitigation airgun) re 1 mPa for cetaceans and 190-dB re 1 determine what is necessary to during turns and maintenance at mPa for pinnipeds with a discussion of minimize the likelihood of further approximately one shot per minute. The the nature of the probable consequences prohibited take and ensure MMPA Langseth would not operate the small- of that exposure on the individuals. compliance. Lamont-Doherty may not volume airgun for longer than three v. A description of the resume their activities until notified by hours in duration during turns. During implementation and effectiveness of the: us via letter, email, or telephone. turns or brief transits between seismic (A) Terms and conditions of the 9. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine tracklines, one airgun would continue to Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take Mammal With an Unknown Cause of operate. Statement (attached); and (B) mitigation Death Special Procedures for Concentrations measures of the Incidental Harassment of Large Whales Authorization. For the Biological In the event that Lamont-Doherty Opinion, the report will confirm the discovers an injured or dead marine t. The Langseth will power-down the implementation of each Term and mammal, and the lead visual observer array and avoid concentrations of large Condition, as well as any conservation determines that the cause of the injury whales if possible (i.e., avoid exposing recommendations, and describe their or death is unknown and the death is concentrations of these animals to effectiveness, for minimizing the relatively recent (i.e., in less than a sounds greater than 160 dB re: 1 mPa). adverse effects of the action on moderate state of decomposition as we For purposes of the survey, a Endangered Species Act listed marine describe in the next paragraph), Lamont- concentration or group of whales will mammals. Doherty will immediately report the consist of six or more individuals b. Submit a final report to the Chief, incident to the Chief, Permits and visually sighted that do not appear to be Permits and Conservation Division, Conservation Division, Office of traveling (e.g., feeding, socializing, etc.). Office of Protected Resources, National Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– The Langseth will follow the procedures Marine Fisheries Service, within 30 427–8401 and/or by email. The report described in Conditions 6(k) for days after receiving comments from us must include the same information resuming operations after a power on the draft report. If we decide that the identified in the paragraph above this down. draft report needs no comments, we will section. Activities may continue while 7. Reporting Requirements consider the draft report to be the final NMFS reviews the circumstances of the report. incident. NMFS would work with This Authorization requires the Lamont-Doherty to determine whether 8. Reporting Prohibited Take Holder of this Authorization to: modifications in the activities are a. Submit a draft report on all In the unanticipated event that the appropriate. activities and monitoring results to the specified activity clearly causes the take Office of Protected Resources, National of a marine mammal in a manner not 10. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Fisheries Service, within 90 permitted by the authorization (if Marine Mammal Unrelated to the days of the completion of the Langseth’s issued), such as an injury, serious Activities cruise. This report must contain and injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, In the event that Lamont-Doherty summarize the following information: gear interaction, and/or entanglement), discovers an injured or dead marine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 23154 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 2016 / Notices

mammal, and the lead visual observer 11. Endangered Species Act Biological Request for Public Comments determines that the injury or death is Opinion and Incidental Take Statement NMFS invites comments on our not associated with or related to the analysis, the draft authorization, and authorized activities (e.g., previously Lamont-Doherty is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the any other aspect of the Notice of wounded animal, carcass with moderate proposed Authorization for Lamont- to advanced decomposition, or Incidental Take Statement corresponding to the Endangered Doherty’s activities. Please include any scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty supporting data or literature citations would report the incident to the Chief, Species Act Biological Opinion issued to the National Science Foundation and with your comments to help inform our Permits and Conservation Division, final decision on Lamont-Doherty’s NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at request for an application. Permits and Conservation Division. A 301–427–8401 and/or by email, within copy of this Authorization and the Dated: April 12, 2016. 24 hours of the discovery. Lamont- Incidental Take Statement must be in Donna Wieting, Doherty would provide photographs or the possession of all contractors and Director, Office of Protected Resources, video footage (if available) or other protected species observers operating National Marine Fisheries Service. documentation of the stranded animal under the authority of this Incidental [FR Doc. 2016–09008 Filed 4–18–16; 8:45 am] sighting to NMFS. Harassment Authorization. BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:45 Apr 18, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19APN2.SGM 19APN2 asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES