Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53443

review (except, if the rate is zero or de DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Authorization must also set forth minimis, no cash deposit will be the permissible methods of taking; other required); (2) for previously reviewed or National Oceanic and Atmospheric means of effecting the least practicable investigated companies not listed above, Administration adverse impact on the species or stock the cash deposit rate will continue to be RIN 0648–XE451 and its habitat (i.e., mitigation); and the company-specific rate published for requirements pertaining to the the most recent period; (3) if the Takes of Marine Incidental to monitoring and reporting of such taking. exporter is not a firm covered in this Specified Activities; Marine NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ review, a prior review, or the less-than- Geophysical Survey in the Southeast in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an impact resulting from the specified activity that fair-value investigation, but the Pacific Ocean, 2016–2017 cannot be reasonably expected to, and is manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries not reasonably likely to, adversely affect will be the rate established for the most Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and the species or stock through effects on recent period for the manufacturer of Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ the merchandise; and (4) the cash Department of Commerce. Except with respect to certain deposit rate for all other manufacturers ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental activities not pertinent here, the MMPA or exporters is 2.40 percent.12 These harassment authorization. defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of cash deposit requirements, when pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) imposed, shall remain in effect until SUMMARY: In accordance with the has the potential to injure a marine further notice. regulations implementing the Marine or marine mammal stock in the Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has Notification to Interested Parties amended, notification is hereby given the potential to disturb a marine This notice also serves as a that NMFS has issued an incidental mammal or marine mammal stock in the harassment authorization (IHA) to preliminary reminder to importers of wild by causing disruption of behavioral Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory their responsibility under 19 CFR patterns, including, but not limited to, (Lamont-Doherty) in collaboration with migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate the National Science Foundation (NSF), feeding, or sheltering [Level B regarding the reimbursement of to incidentally take, by level B harassment]. antidumping duties prior to liquidation harassment, 44 species of marine Summary of Request of the relevant entries during this mammals, and to incidentally take, by review period. Failure to comply with Level A harassment, 26 species of On January 19, 2016, NMFS received this requirement could result in the marine mammals, during three marine an application from Lamont-Doherty Secretary’s presumption that geophysical (seismic) surveys in the requesting that NMFS issue an reimbursement of antidumping duties southeast Pacific Ocean. Authorization for the take of marine occurred and the subsequent assessment DATES: This Authorization is effective mammals, incidental to Oregon State of double antidumping duties. from August 1, 2016, through July 31, University (OSU) and University of We are issuing and publishing these 2017. Texas (UT) conducting seismic surveys in the southeast Pacific Ocean, in the results in accordance with sections FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: latter half of 2016 and/or the first half 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 Jordan Carduner, NMFS, Office of of 2017. NMFS considered the CFR 351.213(h)(1). Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427– application and supporting materials Dated: August 5, 2016. 8401. adequate and complete on March 21, Ronald K. Lorentzen, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2016. Lamont-Doherty plans to conduct Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement Background and Compliance. three two-dimensional (2-D) surveys on Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine the R/V Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth), Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as a vessel owned by NSF and operated on the Preliminary Decision Memorandum amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et its behalf by Columbia University’s seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 1. Summary to allow, upon request, the incidental, 2. Background primarily in international waters of the but not intentional, taking of small 3. Scope of the Order southeast Pacific Ocean, with a small numbers of marine mammals of a 4. Preliminary Finding of No Shipments for portion of the surveys occurring within SMTC species or population stock, by U.S. the territorial waters of Chile, which 5. Comparisons to Normal Value citizens who engage in a specified extend to nautical 12 miles (mi) (19.3 6. Product Comparisons activity (other than commercial fishing) kilometers (km)) from the coast. NMFS 7. Date of Sale within a specified geographical region cannot authorize the incidental take of 8. Export Price if, after NMFS provides a notice of a marine mammals in the territorial seas 9. Normal Value proposed authorization to the public for of foreign nations, as the MMPA does 10. Currency Conversion review and comment: (1) NMFS makes not apply in those waters. However, as 11. Recommendation certain findings; and (2) the taking is part of the analysis supporting our limited to harassment. determination under the MMPA that the [FR Doc. 2016–19136 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] An Authorization shall be granted for activity would have a negligible impact BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P the incidental taking of small numbers on the affected species, we must of marine mammals if NMFS finds that consider the level of incidental take as the taking will have a negligible impact a result of the activity in the entire on the species or stock(s), and will not activity area (including both territorial have an unmitigable adverse impact on seas and high seas). 12 See PET Film from Taiwan Amended Final the availability of the species or stock(s) Increased underwater sound Determination. for subsistence uses (where relevant). generated during the operation of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53444 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

seismic airgun array is the only aspect and buffer zones. The Commission account for the differences in tow depth of the activity that is likely to result in stated that the model is not the best between the calibration survey (6 m) the take of marine mammals. We available science because it assumes the and the proposed surveys (9 and 12 m). anticipate that take, by Level B following: Spherical spreading, constant In 2015, Lamont-Doherty explored the harassment, of 44 species of marine sound speed, and no bottom question of whether the Gulf of Mexico mammals could result from the interactions for surveys in deep water. calibration data adequately informs the specified activity. Although unlikely, In light of their concerns, the model to predict exclusion isopleths in NMFS also anticipates that a small Commission recommended that NMFS other areas by conducting a amount of take by Level A harassment require Lamont-Doherty to re-estimate retrospective sound power analysis of of 26 species of marine mammals could the exclusion and buffer zones one of the lines acquired during occur during the planned surveys. incorporating site-specific Lamont-Doherty’s seismic survey environmental (including sound speed offshore New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, Description of the Specified Activity profiles, bathymetry, and sediment 2015). NMFS presented a comparison of Lamont-Doherty plans to use one characteristics) and operational the predicted radii (i.e., modeled source vessel, the Langseth, with an (including number/type/spacing of exclusion zones) with radii based on in array of 36 airguns as the energy source airguns, tow depth, source level/ situ measurements (i.e., the upper with a total volume of approximately operating pressure, and operational bound [95th percentile] of the cross-line 6,600 cubic inches (in3). The receiving volume) parameters into their model. prediction) in a previous notice of system would consist of up to 64 ocean Response: NMFS acknowledges the issued Authorization for Lamont- bottom seismometers and a single Commission’s concerns about Lamont- Doherty (see Table 1, 80 FR 27635, May hydrophone streamer between 8 and 15 Doherty’s current modeling approach 14, 2015). km (4.9 and 9.3 mi) in length. In for estimating exclusion and buffer Briefly, Crone’s (2015) analysis, addition to the operations of the airgun zones and also acknowledges that specific to the survey site offshore New array, a multibeam echosounder (MBES) Lamont-Doherty did not incorporate Jersey, confirmed that in-situ, site and a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) would site-specific sound speed profiles, specific measurements and estimates of also be operated continuously bathymetry, and sediment the 160- and 180-dB isopleths collected throughout the proposed surveys. A characteristics of the research area in by the Langseth’s hydrophone streamer total of approximately 9,633 km (5,986 the current approach to estimate those in shallow water were smaller than the mi) of transect lines would be surveyed zones for this planned seismic survey. modeled (i.e., predicted) exclusion and in the southeast Pacific Ocean. Lamont-Doherty’s application (LGL, buffer zones proposed for use in two A detailed description of Lamont- 2016) and the NSF’s draft seismic surveys conducted offshore Doherty’s planned seismic surveys is environmental analysis (NSF, 2016) New Jersey in shallow water in 2014 provided in the Federal Register notice describe the approach to establishing and 2015. In that particular case, for the proposed IHA (81 FR 23117; mitigation exclusion and buffer zones. Crone’s (2015) results showed that April 19, 2016). Since that time, no In summary, Lamont-Doherty acquired Lamont-Doherty’s modeled exclusion changes have been made to the planned field measurements for several array (180-dB) and buffer (160-dB) zones were activities. Therefore, a detailed configurations at shallow, intermediate, approximately 28 and 33 percent description is not provided here. Please and deep-water depths during acoustic smaller, respectively, than the in situ, refer to that Federal Register notice for verification studies conducted in the site-specific measurements, thus the description of the specific activity. northern Gulf of Mexico in 2007 and confirming that Lamont-Doherty’s 2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Based on the model was conservative in that case, as Comments and Responses empirical data from those studies, emphasized by Lamont-Doherty in its NMFS published a notice of receipt of Lamont-Doherty developed a sound application and in supporting Lamont-Doherty’s application and propagation modeling approach that environmental documentation. The proposed Authorization in the Federal predicts received sound levels as a following is a summary of two Register on April 19, 2016 (81 FR function of distance from a particular additional analyses of in-situ data that 23117). During the 30-day public airgun array configuration in deep support Lamont-Doherty’s use of the comment period, NMFS received water. For this survey, Lamont-Doherty modeled exclusion and buffer zones in comment letters from the Marine developed the exclusion and buffer this particular case. Mammal Commission (Commission) zones for the airgun array based on the In 2010, Lamont-Doherty assessed the and from the Marcus Langseth Science empirically-derived measurements from accuracy of their modeling approach by Oversight Committee, as well as one the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey comparing the sound levels of the field comment from a member of the general (Appendix H of NSF’s 2011 PEIS). For measurements acquired in the Gulf of public. NMFS has posted the comments deep water (≤1000 m), Lamont-Doherty Mexico study to their model predictions online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ used the deep-water radii obtained from (Diebold et al., 2010). They reported permits/incidental. model results down to a maximum that the observed sound levels from the NMFS addresses any comments water depth of 2000 m (Figure 2 and 3 field measurements fell almost entirely specific to Lamont-Doherty’s in Appendix H of NSF’s 2011 PEIS; the below the predicted mitigation radii application related to the statutory and radii for intermediate water depths curve for deep water (greater than 1,000 regulatory requirements or findings that (100–1000 m) were derived from the m; 3280.8 ft) (Diebold et al., 2010). NMFS must make under the MMPA in deep-water ones by applying a In 2012, Lamont-Doherty used a order to issue an Authorization. The correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5, similar process to model exclusion and following is a summary of the public such that observed levels at very near buffer zones for a shallow-water seismic comments and NMFS’s responses. offsets fall below the corrected survey in the northeast Pacific Ocean mitigation curve (Fig. 16 in Appendix H offshore Washington State in 2012. Modeling Exclusion and Buffer Zones of the NSF’s 2011 PEIS); the shallow- Lamont-Doherty conducted the shallow- Comment 1: The Commission water radii were obtained by scaling the water survey using the same airgun expressed concerns regarding Lamont- empirically derived measurements from configuration planned for this seismic Doherty’s method to estimate exclusion the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey to survey (i.e., 6,600 in3) and recorded the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53445

received sound levels on both the shelf use of models for calculating buffer and density data exist as a result of and slope off Washington State using exclusion zone radii and for developing geographic differences, temporal the Langseth’s 8 km hydrophone take estimates is not a requirement of differences, or accuracy of data, and to streamer. Crone et al. (2014) analyzed the MMPA incidental take authorization encourage applicants for incidental take those received sound levels from the process. Furthermore, NMFS does not authorization to utilize this process 2012 survey and confirmed that in-situ, provide specific guidance on model when it is complete. NMFS looks site specific measurements and parameters nor prescribe a specific forward to developing this process in estimates of the 160-dB and 180-dB model for applicants as part of the collaboration with the Commission. isopleths collected by the Langseth’s MMPA incidental take authorization Monitoring and Reporting hydrophone streamer in shallow water process at this time. There is a level of were two to three times smaller than variability not only with parameters in Comment 3: The Commission Lamont-Doherty’s modeling approach the models, but also the uncertainty indicated that monitoring and reporting had predicted. While the results associated with data used in models, requirements should provide a confirmed bathymetry’s role in sound and therefore, the quality of the model reasonably accurate assessment of the propagation, Crone et al. (2014) were results submitted by applicants. NMFS types of taking and the numbers of able to confirm that the empirical considers this variability when taken by the proposed activity. measurements from the Gulf of Mexico evaluating applications and the take They recommend that NMFS and calibration survey (the same estimates and mitigation measures that Lamont-Doherty incorporate an measurements used to inform Lamont- the model informs. NMFS takes into accounting for animals at the surface but Doherty’s modeling approach for the consideration the model used, and its not detected [i.e., g(0) values] and for planned seismic survey in the southeast results, in determining the potential animals present but underwater and not Pacific Ocean) overestimated the size of impacts to marine mammals; however, available for sighting [i.e., f(0) values] the exclusion and buffer zones for the it is just one component of the analysis into monitoring efforts. In light of the shallow-water 2012 survey off during the MMPA authorization process Commission’s previous comments, they Washington State and were thus as NMFS also takes into consideration recommend that NMFS consult with the precautionary, in that particular case. other factors associated with the activity funding agency (i.e., the NSF) and The model Lamont-Doherty currently (e.g., geographic location, duration of individual applicants (e.g., Lamont- uses does not allow for the activities, context, sound source Doherty and other related entities) to consideration of environmental and site- intensity, etc.). develop, validate, and implement a specific parameters as requested by the monitoring program that provides a Commission. NMFS continues to work Uncertainty in Density Estimates scientifically sound, reasonably accurate with Lamont-Doherty and the NSF to Comment 2: The Commission assessment of the types of marine address the issue of incorporating site- expressed concern regarding uncertainty mammal takes and the actual numbers specific information to further inform in the representativeness of the marine of marine mammals taken, accounting the analysis and development of mammal density data and the for applicable g(0) and f(0) values, based mitigation measures in oceanic and assumptions used to calculate estimated in part on monitoring data collected coastal areas for future seismic surveys takes. The Commission recommended during geophysical surveys. with Lamont-Doherty. However, that NMFS adjust density estimates Response: NMFS agrees with the Lamont-Doherty’s current modeling using some measure of uncertainty Commission’s recommendation to approach (supported by the three data when available density data originate improve the post-survey reporting points discussed previously) represents from different geographic areas, requirements for NSF and Lamont- the best available information for NMFS temporal scales, and seasons, especially Doherty by accounting for takes using to reach determinations for the for actions which will occur outside the applicable g(0) and f(0) values. In Authorization. As described earlier, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) December 2015, NMFS met with comparisons of Lamont-Doherty’s model where site- and species-specific density Commission representatives to discuss results and the field data collected in estimates tend to be scant, such as ways to develop and validate a the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Washington Lamont-Doherty’s planned survey. monitoring program that provides a State, and offshore New Jersey illustrate Response: NMFS believes that, in the scientifically sound, reasonably accurate a degree of conservativeness built into absence of site-specific marine mammal assessment of the types of marine Lamont-Doherty’s model for deep water, density data in the region of Lamont- mammal takes and the actual numbers which NMFS expects to offset some of Doherty’s planned survey, the best of marine mammals taken. In July 2016, the limitations of the model to capture available information was used to NMFS solicited input from the the variability resulting from site- estimate marine mammal density data Commission regarding methodology for specific factors. Based upon the best for the project area and to calculate determining applicable g(0) and f(0) available information (i.e., the three data estimated takes. However, NMFS values. Based on this input, NMFS has points, two of which are peer-reviewed, acknowledges that the lack of site- and included a requirement in the issued discussed in this response), NMFS finds species-specific density data for certain IHA that Lamont-Doherty must provide that the exclusion and buffer zone geographic areas presents inherent an estimate of the number (by species) calculations are appropriate for use in challenges in estimating takes, and of marine mammals that may have been this particular survey. agrees with the Commission’s exposed (based on modeling results and Lamont-Doherty has conveyed to recommendation that a systematic accounting for animals at the surface but NMFS that additional modeling efforts approach to incorporating uncertainty not detected [i.e., g(0) values] and for to refine the process and conduct in density estimates when available animals present but underwater and not comparative analysis may be possible density data originate from different available for sighting [i.e., f(0) values]) with the availability of research funds geographic areas, temporal scales, and to the seismic activity at received levels and other resources. Obtaining research seasons is warranted. NMFS is actively greater than or equal to 160 dB re: 1 mPa funds is typically accomplished through working to develop a systematic process and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa for cetaceans a competitive process, including those for the use of density estimates in and 190-dB re 1 mPa for pinnipeds. submitted to U.S. Federal agencies. The authorizations when uncertainties in NMFS will provide the methodology for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53446 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

determining the applicable f(0) and g(0) comment, however, no deaths of marine the MMPA and the Endangered Species values to Lamont-Doherty. mammals are anticipated as a result of Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); The comment letter from the Marcus the project as described below, and abundance; local occurrence and range; Langseth Science Oversight Committee NMFS does not have the ability to deny and seasonality in the planned activity affirmed that there is significant support applications for authorization to area. Based on the best available from the Committee for the IHA to be incidentally take marine mammals information, NMFS expects that there issued for the proposed activity and for based on an applicant’s funding sources. may be a potential for certain cetacean the survey to be conducted. NMFS and pinniped species to occur within received one additional comment from Description of Marine Mammals in the the survey area (i.e., potentially be a private citizen that expressed concern Area of the Specified Activity taken) and have included additional that the project would result in the Table 1 in this notice provides the deaths of marine mammals and that the following: All marine mammal species information for these species in Table 1 application should be denied on the with possible or confirmed occurrence of this notice. NMFS will carry forward grounds that it would cost taxpayers too in the planned activity area; information analyses on the species listed in Table much money; NMFS considered this on those species’ regulatory status under 1 later in this document.

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

Species Regulatory Species Local occurrence Habitat status 12 abundance 3

Antarctic ( MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 515,000 North—Rare; Central/ Coastal, pelagic. bonaerensis). South—Uncommon. Blue whale (B. musculus) ...... MMPA—D; ESA—EN .. 4 10,000 North—Common; Cen- Coastal, shelf, pelagic. tral/South—Common. Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 5 43,633 North—Common; Cen- Coastal, pelagic. tral/South—Common. Common minke whale (B. acutorostrata) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 515,000 North—Rare; Central/ Coastal, pelagic. South—Uncommon. (B. physalus) ...... MMPA—D; ESA—EN .. 22,000 North—Rare; Central/ Shelf, slope, pelagic. South—Common. (Megaptera novaengliae) ...... MMPA—D; ESA—EN .. 42,000 North—Common; Cen- Coastal, shelf, pelagic. tral/South—Common. Pygmy (Caperea marginata) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL Unknown North—Unknown; Cen- Coastal, oceanic. tral/South—Rare. Sei whale (B. borealis) ...... MMPA—D; ESA—EN .. 10,000 North—Uncommon; Pelagic. Central/South—Un- common. Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) ...... MMPA—D; ESA—EN .. 12,000 North—Rare; Central/ Coastal, oceanic. South—Rare. (Physeter macrocephalus) ...... MMPA—D; ESA—EN .. 6 355,000 North—Common; Cen- Pelagic, deep seas. tral/South—Common. (Kogia sima) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 7 170,309 North—Rare; Central/ Shelf, pelagic. South—Rare. Pygmy sperm whale (K. breviceps) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 7 170,309 North—Rare; Central/ Shelf, pelagic. South—Rare. Andrew’s (Mesoplodon bowdoini) MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 25,300 North—Unknown; Cen- Pelagic. tral/South—Rare. Blainville’s beaked whale (M. densirostris) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 25,300 North—Uncommon; Pelagic. Central/South—Un- common. Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 20,000 North—Uncommon; Slope, pelagic. Central/South—Un- common. Gray’s beaked whale (M. grayi) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 25,300 North—Rare; Central/ Pelagic. South—Rare. Hector’s beaked whale (M. hectori) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 25,300 North—Unknown; Cen- Pelagic. tral/South—Rare. Pygmy beaked whale (Mesoplodon peruvianus) MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 25,300 North—Rare; Central/ Pelagic. South—Rare. Shepherd’s beaked whale (Tasmacetus MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 25,300 North—Unknown; Cen- Pelagic. shepherdi). tral/South—Rare. Spade- (Mesoplodon traversii) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 25,300 North—Unknown; Cen- Pelagic. tral/South—Rare. Strap-toothed beaked whale (M. layardii) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 25,300 North—Unknown; Cen- Pelagic. tral/South—Rare. Southern (Hyperoodon MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 9 72,000 North—Unknown; Cen- Pelagic. planifrons). tral/South—Uncom- mon. Chilean ( eutropia) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 10,000 North—Unknown; Cen- Coastal. tral/South—Uncom- mon.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53447

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

Species Species Regulatory Local occurrence Habitat status 12 abundance 3

Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 10 107,633 North—Rare; Central/ Oceanic. South—Unknown. Common (Tursiops truncatus) MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 10 335,834 North—Abundant; Cen- Coastal, pelagic, shelf. tral/South—Common. Striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 10 964,362 North—Abundant; Cen- Shelf edge, pelagic. tral/South—Common. Short-beaked (Delphinus del- MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 11 1,766,551 North—Abundant; Cen- Coastal, shelf. phis). tral/South—Abundant. Long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 12 144,000 North—Uncommon; Coastal, shelf. capensis). Central/South—Un- known. ( obscurus) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 13 25,880 North—Abundant; Cen- Shelf, slope. tral/South—Abundant. Peale’s dolphin (Lagenorhynchus australis) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL Unknown North—Unknown; Cen- Coastal. tral/South—Uncom- mon. Hourglass dolphin (Lagenorhynchus cruciger) .... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 14 144,300 North—Unknown; Cen- Pelagic. tral/South—Rare. Southern (Lissodelphis MMPA—NC; ESA—NL Unknown North—Uncommon; Pelagic. peronii). Central/South—Com- mon. Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 10 110,457 North—Common; Cen- Shelf, slope. tral/South—Uncom- mon. Pygmy (Feresa attenuate) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 38,900 North—Rare; Central/ Oceanic, pantropical. South—Uncommon. (Pseudorca crassidens) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 8 39,800 North—Uncommon; Pelagic. Central/South—Rare. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 50,000 North—Rare; Central/ Coastal, shelf, pelagic. South—Rare. Long-finned (Globicephala melas) .... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 15 200,000 North—Rare; Central/ Coastal, pelagic. South—Rare. Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 16 589,315 North—Rare; Central/ Coastal, pelagic. macrorhynchus). South—Rare. Burmeister’s ( spinipinnis) .... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL Unknown North—Coastal; Cen- Coastal. tral/South—Coastal. Juan Fernandez fur seal (Arctocephalus MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 17 32,278 North—Rare; Central/ Coastal, pelagic. philippii). South—Rare. South American fur seal (Arctocephalus MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 250,000 North—Rare; Central/ Coastal, shelf, slope. australis). South—Rare. South American sea lion (Otaria byronia) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 18 397,771 North—Abundant; Cen- Coastal, shelf. tral/South—Abundant. Southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina) ...... MMPA—NC; ESA—NL 19 640,000 North—Abundant; Cen- Coastal, pelagic. tral/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. 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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53448 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

NMFS refers the public to Lamont- planned activities are associated with NMFS reviewed Lamont-Doherty’s Doherty’s application and NSF’s elevated sound levels produced by mitigation measures and developed the environmental analysis (available online airguns. The impacts of Lamont- following additional mitigation at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/ Doherty’s planned activities on fish and measures to effect the least practicable species.htm) for further information on other marine life specifically related to adverse impact on marine mammals: the biology and local distribution of acoustic activities are expected to be (1) Expanded power down procedures these species. Please also refer to temporary in nature, negligible, and for concentrations of six or more whales NMFS’s Web site (http:// would not result in substantial impact that do not appear to be traveling (e.g., www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ to these species or to their role in the feeding, socializing, etc.). incidental/) for generalized species ecosystem. NMFS does not anticipate Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation accounts. that the planned activity would have Monitoring any habitat-related effects that could Potential Effects of the Specified Lamont-Doherty would position Activities on Marine Mammals cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine observers aboard the seismic source Operating active acoustic sources, mammals or their populations. The vessel to watch for marine mammals such as airgun arrays, has the potential potential effects of Lamont-Doherty’s near the vessel during daytime airgun for adverse effects on marine mammals. planned activities on marine mammal operations and during any start-ups at The Federal Register notice for the habitat and other marine species are night. Observers would also watch for proposed IHA (81 FR 23117; April 19, discussed in detail in the Federal marine mammals near the seismic 2016) provided a discussion of the Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine FR 23117; April 19, 2016), therefore that start of airgun operations after an extended shutdown (i.e., greater than mammals as well as a detailed information is not repeated here; please approximately eight minutes for this description of the potential effects of refer to that Federal Register notice for planned cruise). When feasible, the Lamont-Doherty’s activities on marine that information. mammals. Therefore that information is observers would conduct observations not repeated here; please refer to the Mitigation Measures during daytime periods when the Federal Register notice for the proposed In order to issue an Incidental seismic system is not operating for IHA (81 FR 23117; April 19, 2016) for Harassment Authorization under section comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without airgun that information. During 10 nm of 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must operations and between acquisition transit that may occur between surveys set forth the permissible methods of periods. Based on the observations, the (described in the Federal Register taking pursuant to such activity, and Langseth would power down or notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR other means of effecting the least shutdown the airguns when marine 23117; April 19, 2016)) the operation of practicable adverse impact on such mammals are observed within or about the MBES and SBP may occur species or stock and its habitat, paying to enter a designated exclusion zone for independent of airgun operation. The particular attention to rookeries, mating cetaceans or pinnipeds. operation of the MBES and SBP in the grounds, and areas of similar absence of airgun use was not explicitly During seismic operations, at least significance, and on the availability of described in the Federal Register notice four protected species observers would such species or stock for taking for for the proposed IHA (81 FR 23117; be aboard the Langseth. Lamont-Doherty certain subsistence uses (where April 19, 2016); though it comprises a would appoint the observers with relevant). very small portion of the total NMFS’s concurrence, and they would Lamont-Doherty has reviewed the anticipated effects of this action, it has conduct observations during ongoing following source documents and has now been included for consideration in daytime operations and nighttime ramp- the analyses. The ‘‘Estimated Take by incorporated a suite of mitigation ups of the airgun array. During the Incidental Harassment’’ section later in measures into their project description: majority of seismic operations, two this document will include a (1) Protocols used during previous observers would be on duty from the quantitative analysis of the number of Lamont-Doherty and NSF-funded observation tower to monitor marine individuals that NMFS expects to be seismic research cruises as approved by mammals near the seismic vessel. Using taken by this activity. The ‘‘Negligible us and detailed in the NSF’s 2011 PEIS two observers would increase the Impact Analysis’’ section will include and 2016 draft environmental analysis; effectiveness of detecting animals near the analysis of how this specific activity (2) Previous IHA applications and the source vessel. However, during would impact marine mammals and authorizations that NMFS has approved mealtimes and bathroom breaks, it is will consider the content of this section, and authorized; and sometimes difficult to have two the ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental (3) Recommended best practices in observers on effort, but at least one Harassment’’ section, the ‘‘Mitigation Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. observer would be on watch during Measures’’ section, and the (1998), and Weir and Dolman (2007). bathroom breaks and mealtimes. ‘‘Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal To reduce the potential for Observers would be on duty in shifts of Habitat’’ section to draw conclusions disturbance from acoustic stimuli no longer than four hours in duration. regarding the likely impacts of this associated with the activities, Lamont- Two observers on the Langseth would activity on the reproductive success or Doherty, and/or its designees plan to also be on visual watch during all survivorship of individuals and from implement the following mitigation nighttime ramp-ups of the seismic that on the affected marine mammal measures for marine mammals: airguns. A third observer would monitor populations or stocks. (1) Vessel-based visual mitigation the passive acoustic monitoring monitoring; equipment 24 hours a day to detect Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal (2) Exclusion zones; vocalizing marine mammals present in Habitat (3) Power down procedures; the action area. In summary, a typical The primary potential impacts to (4) Shutdown procedures; daytime cruise would have scheduled marine mammal habitat and other (5) Ramp-up procedures; and two observers (visual) on duty from the marine species from Lamont-Doherty’s (6) Speed and course alterations. observation tower, and an observer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53449

(acoustic) on the passive acoustic finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 monitoring system. Before the start of rangefinder or equivalent) would be minutes for species with longer dive the seismic survey, Lamont-Doherty available to assist with distance durations (mysticetes and large would instruct the vessel’s crew to estimation. They are useful in training odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy assist in detecting marine mammals and observers to estimate distances visually, sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked implementing mitigation requirements. but are generally not useful in whales). The Langseth is a suitable platform for measuring distances to animals directly. Mitigation Exclusion Zones marine mammal observations. When The user measures distances to animals stationed on the observation platform, with the reticles in the binoculars. Lamont-Doherty would use safety the eye level would be approximately Lamont-Doherty would immediately radii to designate exclusion zones and 21.5 m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the power down or shutdown the airguns to estimate take for marine mammals. observer would have a good view when observers see marine mammals Table 2 shows the distances at which around the entire vessel. During within or about to enter the designated one would expect to receive sound daytime, the observers would scan the exclusion zone. The observer(s) would levels (160-, 180-, and 190-dB,) from the area around the vessel systematically continue to maintain watch to airgun array and a single airgun. If the with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 determine when the (s) are protected species visual observer detects Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 x 150), outside the exclusion zone by visual marine mammal(s) within or about to and with the naked eye. During confirmation. Airgun operations would enter the appropriate exclusion zone, darkness, night vision devices would be not resume until the observer has the Langseth crew would immediately available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 confirmed that the animal has left the power down the airgun array, or binocular-image intensifier or zone, or if not observed after 15 minutes perform a shutdown if necessary (see equivalent), when required. Laser range- for species with shorter dive durations Shutdown Procedures).

TABLE 2—PREDICTED DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 re: 1 μPa COULD BE RECEIVED DURING THE PLANNED 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 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 Washington. NMFS reviewed this one airgun (40 in3). The continued criteria are applicable to cetaceans and information in consideration of how operation of one airgun would alert pinnipeds, respectively, as specified by these data reflect on the accuracy of marine mammals to the presence of the NMFS (2000). Lamont-Doherty used Lamont-Doherty’s current modeling seismic vessel in the area. A shutdown these levels to establish the exclusion approach and we have concluded that occurs when the Langseth suspends all zones as presented in their application. the modeling of RMS distances likely airgun activity. Lamont-Doherty used a process to results in predicted distances to If the observer detects a marine develop and confirm the acoustic thresholds (Table 2) that are mammal outside the exclusion zone and conservativeness of the mitigation radii conservative, i.e., if actual distances to the animal is likely to enter the zone, for a shallow-water seismic survey in received sound levels deviate from the northeast Pacific Ocean offshore distances predicted via modeling, actual the crew would power down the airguns Washington in 2012. Crone et al. (2014) distances are expected to be lesser, not to reduce the size of the 180-dB or 190- analyzed the received sound levels from greater, than predicted distances. dB exclusion zone before the animal enters that zone. Likewise, if a marine the 2012 survey and reported that the Power-Down Procedures actual distances to received levels that mammal is already within the zone after would constitute the exclusion and A power down involves decreasing detection, the crew would power down buffer zones were two to three times the number of airguns in use such that the airguns immediately. During a smaller than what Lamont-Doherty’s the radius of the 180-dB or 190-dB power down of the airgun array, the modeling approach had predicted. exclusion zone is smaller to the extent crew would operate a single 40-in3 While these results confirm the role that that marine mammals are no longer airgun which has a smaller exclusion bathymetry plays in propagation, they within or about to enter the exclusion zone. If the observer detects a marine also confirm that empirical zone. A power down of the airgun array mammal within or near the smaller measurements from the Gulf of Mexico can also occur when the vessel is exclusion zone around the airgun (Table survey likely over-estimated the size of moving from one seismic line to 2), the crew would shut down the single the exclusion zones for the 2012 another. During a power down for airgun (see next section). shallow-water seismic surveys in mitigation, the Langseth would operate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53450 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

Resuming Airgun Operations After a The crew would implement a Ramp-Up Procedures Power Down shutdown: (1) If an animal enters the exclusion Ramp-up of an airgun array provides Following a power-down, the a gradual increase in sound levels, and Langseth crew would not resume full zone of the single airgun after the crew involves a step-wise increase in the airgun activity until the marine mammal has initiated a power down; or (2) If an observer sees the animal is number and total volume of airguns has cleared the 180-dB or 190-dB initially within the exclusion zone of firing until the full volume of the airgun exclusion zone. The observers would the single airgun when more than one array is achieved. The purpose of a consider the animal to have cleared the airgun (typically the full airgun array) is ramp-up is to ‘‘warn’’ marine mammals exclusion zone if: operating. • The observer has visually observed in the vicinity of the airguns, and to the animal leave the exclusion zone; or Resuming Airgun Operations After a provide the time for them to leave the • An observer has not sighted the Shutdown area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their hearing abilities. animal within the exclusion zone for 15 Following a shutdown in excess of Lamont-Doherty would follow a ramp- minutes for species with shorter dive eight minutes, the Langseth crew would up procedure when the airgun array durations (i.e., small odontocetes or initiate a ramp-up with the smallest pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species airgun in the array (40-in3). The crew begins operating after an 8 minute with longer dive durations (i.e., would turn on additional airguns in a period without airgun operations or mysticetes and large odontocetes, sequence such that the source level of when shut down has exceeded that including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf the array would increase in steps not period. Lamont-Doherty has used sperm, and beaked whales); or exceeding 6 dB per five-minute period similar waiting periods (approximately The Langseth crew would resume over a total duration of approximately eight to 10 minutes) during previous operating the airguns at full power after 30 minutes. During ramp-up, the seismic surveys. 15 minutes of sighting any species with observers would monitor the exclusion Ramp-up would begin with the short dive durations (i.e., small zone, and if a marine mammal were smallest airgun in the array (40 in3). The odontocetes or pinnipeds). Likewise, the observed, the Langseth crew would crew would resume airgun operations at crew would add airguns in a sequence implement a power down or shutdown such that the source level of the array full power after 30 minutes of sighting as though the full airgun array were any species with longer dive durations would increase in steps not exceeding operational. six dB per five minute period over a (i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, During periods of active seismic total duration of approximately 30 to 35 including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf operations, there are occasions when the minutes. During ramp-up, the observers sperm, and beaked whales). Langseth crew would need to would monitor the exclusion zone, and NMFS estimates that the Langseth temporarily shut down the airguns due would transit outside the original 180- to equipment failure or for maintenance. if marine mammals are sighted, Lamont- dB or 190-dB exclusion zone after an In this case, if the airguns are inactive Doherty would implement a power- eight-minute wait period. This period is longer than eight minutes, the crew down or shutdown as though the full based on the average speed of the would follow ramp-up procedures for a airgun array were operational. Langseth while operating the airguns shutdown described earlier and the If the complete exclusion zone has not (8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph). Because the vessel observers would monitor the full been visible for at least 30 minutes prior has transited away from the vicinity of exclusion zone and would implement a to the start of operations in either the original sighting during the eight- power down or shutdown if necessary. daylight or nighttime, Lamont-Doherty minute period, implementing ramp-up If the full exclusion zone is not visible would not commence the ramp-up procedures for the full array after an to the observer for at least 30 minutes unless at least one airgun (40 in3 or extended power down (i.e., transiting prior to the start of operations in either similar) has been operating during the for an additional 35 minutes from the daylight or nighttime, the Langseth crew interruption of seismic survey location of initial sighting) would not would not commence ramp-up unless at operations. Given these provisions, it is 3 meaningfully increase the effectiveness least one airgun (40-in or similar) has likely that the crew would not ramp up of observing marine mammals been operating during the interruption the airgun array from a complete approaching or entering the exclusion of seismic survey operations. Given shutdown at night or in thick fog, zone for the full source level and would these provisions, it is likely that the because the outer part of the exclusion not further minimize the potential for vessel’s crew would not ramp up the zone for that array would not be visible take. The Langseth’s observers are airgun array from a complete shutdown during those conditions. If one airgun continually monitoring the exclusion at night or in thick fog, because the has operated during a power-down zone for the full source level while the outer part of the zone for that array period, ramp-up to full power would be mitigation airgun is firing. On average, would not be visible during those observers can observe to the horizon (10 conditions. permissible at night or in poor visibility, km; 6.2 mi) from the height of the If one airgun has operated during a on the assumption that marine Langseth’s observation deck and should power down period, ramp-up to full mammals would be alerted to the be able to say with a reasonable degree power would be permissible at night or approaching seismic vessel by the of confidence whether a marine in poor visibility, on the assumption sounds from the single airgun and could mammal would be encountered within that marine mammals would be alerted move away. Lamont-Doherty would not this distance before resuming airgun to the approaching seismic vessel by the initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if an operations at full power. sounds from the single airgun and could observer sights a marine mammal move away. The vessel’s crew would within or near the applicable exclusion Shutdown Procedures not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if zones. NMFS refers the reader to Figure The Langseth crew would shut down an observer sees the marine mammal 1, which presents a flowchart the operating airgun(s) if they see a within or near the applicable exclusion representing the ramp-up, power down, marine mammal within or approaching zones during the day or close to the and shutdown protocols described in the exclusion zone for the single airgun. vessel at night. this notice.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53451

Figure 1. Ramp-up, power down, and shut-down procedures for the Langseth.

Current Power-Down and Shut-Down Procedures for the R/V Lt~ngseth

If If

PSO observes a OR marinemamrna! near or EZ forthe single mitigation airgun?

If If

Decision Point {Yes/No} Decisio!l'l .Pomt (Yes/No) Visual confim1ation that Vi.sualconfirmationthat MM has left the EZ MM has left the EZ for the the in less than B mimltes1.

No No

1 Ra!!llil- Up Pnx:ed

Date: No11ember 2015

Special Procedures for Concentrations greater than 160 dB re: 1 mPa within the whales would consist of six or more of Large Whales 160-dB zone and would power down individuals visually sighted that do not the array, if necessary. For purposes of appear to be traveling (e.g., feeding, The Langseth would avoid exposing this survey, a concentration or group of socializing, etc.). concentrations of large whales to sounds

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES EN12AU16.044 53452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53453

The passive acoustic monitoring would enter the information regarding programs for further processing and system consists of hardware (i.e., the call into a database. Data entry archiving. hydrophones) and software. The ‘‘wet would include an acoustic encounter Results from the vessel-based end’’ of the system consists of a towed identification number, whether it was observations will provide: hydrophone array connected to the linked with a visual sighting, date, time 1. The basis for real-time mitigation vessel by a tow cable. The tow cable is when first and last heard and whenever (airgun power down or shutdown). 250 m (820.2 ft) long and the any additional information was 2. Information needed to estimate the hydrophones are fitted in the last 10 m recorded, position and water depth number of marine mammals potentially (32.8 ft) of cable. A depth gauge, when first detected, bearing if taken by harassment, which Lamont- attached to the free end of the cable, determinable, species or species group Doherty must report to the Office of typically towed at depths less than 20 (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm Protected Resources. m (65.6 ft). The Langseth crew would whale), types and nature of sounds 3. Data on the occurrence, deploy the array from a winch located heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, distribution, and activities of marine on the back deck. A deck cable would whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength mammals and turtles in the area where connect the tow cable to the electronics of signal, etc.), and any other notable Lamont-Doherty would conduct the unit in the main computer lab where the information. Acousticians record the seismic study. acoustic station, signal conditioning, acoustic detection for further analysis. 4. Information to compare the and processing system would be distance and distribution of marine located. The Pamguard software Observer Data and Documentation mammals and turtles relative to the amplifies, digitizes, and then processes Observers would record data to source vessel at times with and without the acoustic signals received by the estimate the numbers of marine seismic activity. 5. Data on the behavior and hydrophones. The system can detect mammals exposed to various received movement patterns of marine mammals marine mammal vocalizations at sound levels and to document apparent detected during non-active and active frequencies up to 250 kHz. disturbance reactions or lack thereof. seismic operations. One acoustic observer, an expert They would use the data to help better bioacoustician with primary understand the impacts of the activity Reporting Measures responsibility for the passive acoustic on marine mammals and to estimate monitoring system would be aboard the Lamont-Doherty will submit a report numbers of animals potentially ‘taken’ to NMFS and to NSF within 90 days Langseth in addition to the other visual by harassment (as defined in the observers who would rotate monitoring after the end of the cruise. The report MMPA). They will also provide will describe the operations conducted duties. The acoustic observer would information needed to order a power monitor the towed hydrophones 24 and sightings of marine mammals near down or shut down of the airguns when the operations. The report will provide hours per day during airgun operations a marine mammal is within or near the and during most periods when the full documentation of methods, results, exclusion zone. and interpretation pertaining to all Langseth is underway while the airguns When an observer makes a sighting, are not operating. However, passive monitoring. The 90-day report will they will record the following summarize the dates and locations of acoustic monitoring may not be possible information: if damage occurs to both the primary seismic operations, and all marine 1. Species, group size, age/size/sex and back-up hydrophone arrays during mammal sightings (dates, times, categories (if determinable), behavior operations. The primary passive locations, activities, associated seismic when first sighted and after initial acoustic monitoring streamer on the survey activities). sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing Langseth is a digital hydrophone The report will also include estimates and distance from seismic vessel, streamer. Should the digital streamer of the number and nature of exposures sighting cue, apparent reaction to the fail, back-up systems should include an that occurred above the harassment analog spare streamer and a hull- airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, threshold based on the observations and mounted hydrophone. approach, paralleling, etc.), and in consideration of the detectability of One acoustic observer would monitor behavioral pace. the marine mammal species observed the acoustic detection system by 2. Time, location, heading, speed, (e.g., in consideration of factors such as listening to the signals from two activity of the vessel, sea state, g(0) or f(0)). Lamont-Doherty must channels via headphones and/or visibility, and sun glare. provide an estimate of the number (by speakers and watching the real-time 3. The observer will record the data species) of marine mammals that may spectrographic display for frequency listed under (2) at the start and end of have been exposed (based on modeling ranges produced by cetaceans. The each observation watch, and during a results and accounting for animals at the observer monitoring the acoustical data watch whenever there is a change in one surface but not detected [i.e., g(0) would be on shift for one to six hours or more of the variables. values] and for animals present but at a time. The other observers would 4. Observers will record all underwater and not available for rotate as an acoustic observer, although observations and power downs or sighting [i.e., f(0) values]) to the seismic the expert acoustician would be on shutdowns in a standardized format and activity at received levels greater than or passive acoustic monitoring duty more will enter data into an electronic equal to 160 dB re: 1 mPa and/or 180 dB frequently. database. The observers will verify the re 1 mPa for cetaceans and 190-dB re 1 When the acoustic observer detects a accuracy of the data entry by mPa for pinnipeds. NMFS includes this vocalization while visual observations computerized data validity checks requirement for post-survey exposure are in progress, the acoustic observer on during data entry and by subsequent estimates in acknowledgement of the duty would contact the visual observer manual checking of the database. These uncertainty inherent in the pre-survey immediately, to alert him/her to the procedures will allow the preparation of take estimates, and these post-survey presence of cetaceans (if they have not initial summaries of data during and corrections are intended to provide a already been seen), so that the vessel’s shortly after the field program, and will relative qualitative sense of the accuracy crew can initiate a power down or facilitate transfer of the data to of the pre-survey take estimates based shutdown, if required. The observer statistical, graphical, and other on the marine mammals actually

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

observed during the survey and the • Environmental conditions (e.g., Permits and Conservation Division, factors described above. However, it is wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, important to note that these corrections, state, cloud cover, and visibility); within 24 hours of the discovery. while helpful in utilizing the most • Description of all marine mammal Lamont-Doherty would provide appropriate surrogate numbers, will observations in the 24 hours preceding photographs or video footage (if utilize values determined by species the incident; available) or other documentation of the • behavior in other areas (f(0)) and Species identification or stranded animal sighting to NMFS. detection probabilities calculated for description of the animal(s) involved; different observers in different • Fate of the animal(s); and Estimated Take by Incidental • environmental conditions (g(0)). Photographs or video footage of the Harassment Additionally, correction factors of this animal(s) (if equipment is available). Except with respect to certain nature are likely more effective over Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its more extensive targeted marine mammal activities until NMFS is able to review activities not pertinent here, section survey efforts, whereas for a shorter the circumstances of the prohibited 3(18) of the MMPA defines survey such as the one considered here, take. NMFS would work with Lamont- ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of pursuit, the patchiness of marine mammal Doherty to determine what is necessary torment, or annoyance which (i) has the occurrence makes quantitative accuracy to minimize the likelihood of further potential to injure a marine mammal or less likely. Therefore, while the prohibited take and ensure MMPA marine mammal stock in the wild [Level corrected post-survey exposure compliance. Lamont-Doherty may not A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential estimates certainly improve upon resume their activities until notified by to disturb a marine mammal or marine exposure assumptions based solely on NMFS via letter, email, or telephone. mammal stock in the wild by causing In the event that Lamont-Doherty observation, and may appropriately be disruption of behavioral patterns, discovers an injured or dead marine used to qualitatively inform future take including, but not limited to, migration, mammal, and the lead visual observer estimates, they should not be construed breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or determines that the cause of the injury as an indicator that the corrected sheltering [Level B harassment]. or death is unknown and the death is number of marine mammals equates to relatively recent (i.e., in less than a Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased the number of marine mammals moderate state of decomposition as we underwater sound) generated during the definitively taken during the survey. operation of the airgun array may have In the unanticipated event that the describe in the next paragraph), Lamont- Doherty will immediately report the the potential to result in the behavioral specified activity clearly causes the take disturbance of some marine mammals of a marine mammal in a manner not incident to the Chief Permits and Conservation Division, Office of and may have an even smaller potential permitted by the authorization (if to result in permanent threshold shift issued), such as an injury, serious Protected Resources, NMFS. The report must include the same information (non-lethal injury) of some marine injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, mammals. NMFS expects that the gear interaction, and/or entanglement), identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while mitigation and monitoring measures Lamont-Doherty shall immediately would minimize the possibility of cease the specified activities and NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with injurious or lethal takes. However, immediately report the take to the Chief NMFS cannot discount the possibility Permits and Conservation Division, Lamont-Doherty to determine whether modifications in the activities are (albeit small) that exposure to sound Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. from the planned survey could result in The report must include the following appropriate. In the event that Lamont-Doherty non-lethal injury (Level A harassment). information: Thus, NMFS authorizes take by Level B • Time, date, and location (latitude/ discovers an injured or dead marine harassment and Level A harassment longitude) of the incident; mammal, and the lead visual observer • Name and type of vessel involved; determines that the injury or death is resulting from the operation of the • Vessel’s speed during and leading not associated with or related to the sound sources for the planned seismic up to the incident; authorized activities (e.g., previously survey based upon the current acoustic • Description of the incident; wounded animal, carcass with moderate exposure criteria shown in Table 3, • Status of all sound source use in the to advanced decomposition, or subject to the limitations in take 24 hours preceding the incident; scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty described in Tables 4–7 later in this • Water depth; would report the incident to the Chief notice.

TABLE 3—NMFS’S CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Criterion Criterion definition Threshold

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

NMFS’s practice is to apply the 160 pinnipeds, respectively) received level Acknowledging Uncertainties in dB re: 1 mPa received level threshold for threshold for underwater impulse sound Estimating Take underwater impulse sound levels to levels to predict whether permanent Given the many uncertainties in predict whether behavioral disturbance threshold shift (auditory injury), which predicting the quantity and types of that rises to the level of Level B we consider as harassment (Level A), is impacts of sound on marine mammals, harassment is likely to occur. NMFS’s likely to occur. it is common practice for us to estimate practice is to apply the 180 dB or 190 how many animals are likely to be dB re: 1 mPa (for cetaceans and present within a particular distance of a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53455

given activity, or exposed to a particular known foraging area between 39° S and conditions, including occasional El level of sound. We use this information 44° S. For the remaining 31 days of the Nin˜ o and La Nin˜ a events, influence the to predict how many animals planned survey, NMFS used the density distribution and numbers of marine potentially could be taken. In practice, estimate presented in Lamont-Doherty’s mammals present in the eastern tropical depending on the amount of application (2.07/km2). NMFS considers Pacific Ocean, resulting in considerable information available to characterize Lamont-Doherty’s approach to year-to-year variation in the distribution daily and seasonal movement and calculating densities for the remaining and abundance of many marine distribution of affected marine marine mammal species in the survey mammal species. Thus, for some mammals, distinguishing between the areas as the best available information. species, the densities derived from past numbers of individuals harassed and We present the estimated densities surveys may not be representative of the the instances of harassment can be (when available) in Tables 4, 5, and 6 densities that would be encountered difficult to parse. Moreover, when one in this notice. during the planned seismic surveys. considers the duration of the activity, in Modeled Number of Instances of However, the approach used is based on the absence of information to predict the Exposures: Lamont-Doherty will the best available data. degree to which individual animals are conduct the planned seismic surveys In many cases, this estimate of likely exposed repeatedly on subsequent offshore Chile in the southeast Pacific instances of exposures is likely an days, one assumption is that entirely Ocean and presented NMFS with overestimate of the number of new animals could be exposed every estimates of the anticipated numbers of individuals that are taken, because it day, which results in a take estimate instances that marine mammals could assumes 100 percent turnover in the that in some circumstances be exposed to sound levels greater than area every day, (i.e., that each new day overestimates the number of individuals or equal to 160, 180, and 190 dB re: 1 results in takes of entirely new harassed. mPa during the planned seismic survey individuals with no repeat takes of the The following sections describe (outside the Chilean territorial sea) in same individuals over the three periods Lamont-Doherty’s and NMFS’s methods Tables 3, 4, and 5 in their application. (northern: 35 days; central: 6 days; and to estimate take by incidental NMFS independently reviewed these southern: 34 days) including harassment. We base these estimates on estimates and presents revised estimates contingency. It is difficult to quantify to the number of marine mammals that are of the anticipated numbers of instances what degree this method overestimates estimated to be exposed to seismic that marine mammals could be exposed the number of individuals potentially airgun sound levels above the Level B to sound levels greater than or equal to taken. Except as described later for a harassment threshold of 160 dB during 160, 180, and 190 dB re: 1 mPa during few specific species, NMFS uses this a total of approximately 9,633 km (5,986 the planned seismic survey (outside the number of instances as the estimate of mi) of transect lines in the southeast Chilean territorial sea) in Tables 4, 5, individuals (and authorized take). Pacific Ocean. and 6 in this notice. Table 7 presents the Take Estimates for Species with Less Density Estimates: Lamont-Doherty total numbers of instances of take that than One Instance of Exposure: Using was unable to identify any systematic NMFS authorizes. As described above, the approach described earlier, the aircraft- or ship-based surveys NMFS cannot authorize the incidental model generated instances of take for conducted for marine mammals in take of marine mammals in the some species that were less than one waters of the southeast Pacific Ocean territorial seas of foreign nations, as the over the 75 total survey days. Those offshore Chile. Lamont-Doherty used MMPA does not apply in those waters; species include: Bryde’s, dwarf sperm, densities from NMFS Southwest therefore the total numbers of instances killer, and sei whale. NMFS used data Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) of take that NMFS authorizes represents based on dedicated survey sighting cruises (Ferguson and Barlow, 2001, only the takes predicted to occur information from the Atlantic Marine 2003; Barlow 2003, 2010; Forney, 2007) outside of the Chilean territorial sea Assessment Program for Protected in the California Current, which is (Table 7). Species (AMAPPS) surveys in 2010, similar to the Humboldt Current Coastal Take Estimate Method for Species 2011, and 2013 (AMAPPS, 2010, 2011, area in which the planned surveys are with Density Information: Briefly, we 2013) to estimate take and assumed that located. Both are eastern boundary take the estimated density of marine Lamont-Doherty could potentially currents that feature narrow continental mammals within an area (animals/km2) encounter one group of each species shelves, upwelling, high productivity, and multiply that number by the daily during the planned seismic survey. and fluctuating fishery resources ensonified area (km2). The product NMFS believes it is reasonable to use (sardines and anchovies). The densities (rounded) is the number of instance of the average (mean) group size (weighted used were survey effort-weighted means take within one day. We then multiply by effort and rounded up) from the for the locations (blocks or states). In the number of instances of take within AMMAPS surveys for Bryde’s whale (2), cases where multiple density estimates one day by the number of survey days dwarf sperm whale (2), killer whale (4), existed for an area, Lamont-Doherty (plus 25 percent contingency). The and sei whale (3) to derive a reasonable used the highest density range (summer/ result is an estimate of the potential estimate of take for eruptive occurrences fall) for each species within the survey number of instances that marine of each these species only once for each area. We refer the reader to Lamont- mammals could be exposed to airgun survey. Doherty’s application for detailed sounds above the Level B harassment Take Estimates for Species with No information on how Lamont-Doherty threshold (i.e., the 160 dB ensonified Density Information: Density calculated densities for marine area minus the 180/190-dB ensonified information for the southern right mammals from the SWFSC cruises. area) and the Level A harassment whale, , Antarctic For blue whales in the southern threshold (i.e., the 180/190-dB minke whale, sei whale, dwarf sperm survey area, NMFS used the density ensonified area only) over the duration whale, Shephard’s beaked whale, (9.56/km2) reported by Galletti of each planned survey. pygmy beaked whale, southern Vernazzani et al. (2012) for There is some uncertainty about the bottlenose whale, hourglass dolphin, approximately four days of the planned representativeness of the estimated , false killer whale; southern survey to account for potential density data and the assumptions used short-finned pilot whale, Juan survey operations occurring near a in their calculations. Oceanographic Fernandez fur seal, and southern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

elephant seal in the southeast Pacific Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys in each day during the seismic survey. Ocean is data poor or non-existent. 2010, 2011, and 2013 (AMAPPS, 2010, NMFS believes it is reasonable to use When density estimates were not 2011, 2013) and from Santora (2012) to the average (mean) group size (weighted available for a particular survey leg, estimate mean group size and take for by effort and rounded up) for each NMFS used data based on dedicated these species. NMFS assumed that species multiplied by the number of survey sighting information from the Lamont-Doherty could potentially survey days to derive an estimate of take Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for encounter one group of each species from potential encounters.

TABLE 4—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 SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/ 2017 (OUTSIDE CHILEAN TERRITORIAL SEA)

Modeled number of instances of Level A Level B Species Density exposures to 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’s 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 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 CENTRAL SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017 (OUTSIDE CHILEAN TERRITORIAL SEA)

Modeled number of instances of 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 18, 0, - ...... 0 18 Pygmy right whale ...... 0 18, 0, - ...... 0 18

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53457

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 CENTRAL SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017 (OUTSIDE CHILEAN TERRITORIAL SEA)—Continued

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

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 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’s 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 SOUTHERN SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/ 2017 (OUTSIDE CHILEAN TERRITORIAL SEA)

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

Southern right whale ...... 0 102, 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 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 SOUTHERN SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/ 2017 (OUTSIDE CHILEAN TERRITORIAL SEA)—Continued

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

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 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’s 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—TAKE AUTHORIZED DURING THE NORTHERN, CENTRAL, AND SOUTHERN SEISMIC SURVEY OFF CHILE IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017 BASED ON TOTAL PREDICTED INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms (OUTSIDE CHILEAN TERRITORIAL SEA)

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

Southern right whale ...... 0 225 225 1.9% Pygmy right whale ...... 0 120 120 Unknown Humpback whale ...... 0 143 143 0.3 Common (dwarf) minke whale ...... 0 75 75 0.02 Antarctic minke whale ...... 0 150 150 0.03 Bryde’s whale ...... 0 43 43 0.1 Sei whale ...... 0 126 126 1.3 Fin whale ...... 75 293 368 1.7

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53459

TABLE 7—TAKE AUTHORIZED DURING THE NORTHERN, CENTRAL, AND SOUTHERN SEISMIC SURVEY OFF CHILE IN THE SOUTHEAST PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2016/2017 BASED ON TOTAL PREDICTED INCIDENTS OF EXPOSURE TO ≥160 AND 180 OR 190 dB re 1 μPa rms (OUTSIDE CHILEAN TERRITORIAL SEA)—Continued

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

Blue whale ...... 49 257 306 3.1 Sperm whale ...... 0 184 184 0.1 Dwarf sperm whale ...... 117 776 893 0.5 Pygmy sperm whale ...... 75 546 621 0.4 Cuvier’s beaked whale ...... 75 477 552 2.8 Shepard’s beaked whale ...... 0 120 120 0.5 Pygmy beaked whale ...... 0 143 143 0.6 Gray’s beaked whale ...... 69 294 363 1.4 Blainville’s beaked whale ...... 35 192 227 0.9 Hector’s beaked whale ...... 0 52 52 0.2 Gray’s beaked whale ...... 69 294 363 1.4 Andrew’s beaked whale ...... 0 52 52 0.2 Strap-toothed beaked whale ...... 0 52 52 0.2 Spade-toothed beaked whale ...... 0 52 52 0.2 Southern bottlenose whale ...... 0 102 102 0.1 Chilean dolphin ...... 172 958 1,130 11.3 Rough-toothed dolphin ...... 105 490 595 0.1 Common bottlenose dolphin ...... 303 1,654 1,957 0.1 Striped dolphin ...... 1,093 6,096 7,189 0.1 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... 11,581 66,723 78,304 4.4 Long-beaked common dolphin ...... 665 3,605 4,270 2.9 Dusky dolphin ...... 539 3,232 3,771 14.6 Peale’s dolphin ...... 172 958 1,130 Unknown Hourglass dolphin ...... 0 200 200 0.1 Southern right whale dolphin ...... 149 985 1,134 Unknown Risso’s dolphin ...... 557 3,093 3,650 3.3 Pygmy killer whale ...... 0 185 185 0.5 False killer whale ...... 0 279 279 0.7 Killer whale ...... 0 76 76 0.2 Short-finned pilot whale ...... 0 1,500 1,500 0.3 Long-finned pilot whale ...... 0 116 116 0.1 Burmeister’s porpoise ...... 722 4,309 5,031 Unknown Juan Fernandez fur seal ...... 0 150 150 0.5 South American fur seal ...... 998 5,760 6,758 2.7 South American sea lion ...... 10,445 59,580 70,025 17.6 Southern elephant seal ...... 0 160 160 0.04 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 Authorized Level A and B takes (used by NMFS as proxy for number of individuals exposed) expressed as the percent of the population list- ed in Table 1 in this notice. Unknown = Abundance size not available.

Lamont-Doherty did not estimate any approximately two hours of transit time marine mammals to be so low as to be additional take from sound sources based on a vessel speed of discountable, because of the vessel other than airguns. NMFS does not approximately 4.5 kt (5.1 mph), would speed and the monitoring efforts expect the sound levels produced by the be de minimis, based on the fact that the onboard the survey vessel. Therefore, echosounder and sub-bottom profiler to use of these sources may occur for only NMFS does not authorize additional exceed the sound levels produced by a portion of the 10 nm of transit, takes for entanglement. the airguns. During the estimated 10 nm resulting in a relatively brief amount of As described above, the Langseth will of transit that is expected to occur time that these sources would operate at a relatively slow speed between the three planned survey potentially be operating in the absence (typically 4.6 knots [8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph]) locations, the use of the MBES and SBP of airgun operation. Additionally, as the when conducting the survey. Protected may occur independent of seismic take estimate methodology (see species observers would monitor for airgun operation. This use of the MBES Estimated Take by Incidental marine mammals, which would trigger and SBP in the absence of airgun use Harassment) includes a 25 percent mitigation measures, including vessel was not explicitly described in the contingency for equipment failures, avoidance where safe. Therefore, NMFS Federal Register notice for the proposed resurveys, or other operational needs, does not anticipate nor do we authorize IHA (81 FR 23117; April 19, 2016). any takes that could potentially occur as takes of marine mammals as a result of While sound from MBES and SBP has a result of the MBES and SBP use in the vessel strike. the potential to result in harassment of absence of airgun operations would be There is no evidence that the planned marine mammals, any potential for accounted for in this 25 percent survey activities could result in serious takes that could occur as a result of the contingency. injury or mortality within the specified MBES and SBP within those 10 nm of As described above, NMFS considers geographic area for the requested transit, which would equate to a total of the probability for entanglement of Authorization. The required mitigation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53460 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

and monitoring measures would mortality would occur as a result of seismic surveys are being conducted minimize any potential risk for serious Lamont-Doherty’s seismic survey in the (4.5 kt; 5.1 mph). The relatively slow injury or mortality. southeast Pacific Ocean. Thus NMFS ship speed is expected to provide does not authorize any mortality. cetaceans with sufficient notice of the Analysis and Determinations NMFS’s predicted estimates for Level A oncoming vessel and thus sufficient Negligible Impact harassment take for some species are opportunity to avoid the seismic sound Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact likely overestimates of the injury that source before it reaches a level that will occur, as NMFS expects that would be potentially injurious to the resulting from the specified activity that successful implementation of the animal. However, as described above, cannot be reasonably expected to, and is mitigation measures would avoid Level Level A takes for a small group of not reasonably likely to, adversely affect A take in some instances. Also, NMFS cetacean species are authorized. the species or stock through effects on expects that some individuals would Potential impacts to marine mammal annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ avoid the source at levels expected to habitat were discussed previously in (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely result in injury, given sufficient notice this document (see the ‘‘Anticipated adverse effects on annual rates of of the Langseth’s approach due to the Effects on Habitat’’ section). Although recruitment or survival (i.e., population vessel’s relatively low speed when some disturbance is possible to food level effects) forms the basis of a conducting seismic surveys. Though sources of marine mammals, the negligible impact finding. Thus, an NMFS expects that Level A harassment impacts are anticipated to be minor estimate of the number of takes, alone, is unlikely to occur at the numbers enough as to not affect the feeding is not enough information on which to authorized, is difficult to quantify the success of any individuals long-term. base an impact determination. In degree to which the mitigation and Regarding direct effects on cetacean addition to considering estimates of the avoidance will reduce the number of feeding, based on the fact that the action number of marine mammals that might animals that might incur PTS, therefore footprint does not include any areas be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral we authorize, include in our analyses, recognized specifically for higher value harassment, NMFS must consider other the modeled number of Level A takes, feeding habitat, the mobile and factors, such as the likely nature of any which does not take the mitigation or ephemeral nature of most prey sources, responses (their intensity, duration, avoidance into consideration. However, and the size of the southeast Pacific etc.), the context of any responses because of the constant movement of the Ocean where feeding by marine (critical reproductive time or location, Langseth and of the animals, as well as mammals occurs versus the localized migration, etc.), as well as the number the fact that the vessel is not expected area of the marine survey activities, any and nature of estimated Level A to remain in any one area in which missed feeding opportunities in the harassment takes, the number of individuals would be expected to direct project area are expected to be estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, concentrate for any extended amount of minor based on the fact that other and the status of the species. time (i.e., since the duration of exposure equally valuable feeding opportunities In making a negligible impact to loud sounds will be relatively short), likely exist nearby. determination, NMFS considers: we anticipate that any PTS that may be Taking into account the planned • The number of anticipated injuries, incurred in marine mammals would be mitigation measures, effects on serious injuries, or mortalities; in the form of only a small degree of cetaceans are generally expected to be • The number, nature, and intensity, permanent threshold shift, and not total restricted to avoidance of a limited area and duration of harassment; and deafness, that would not be likely to around the survey operation and short- • The context in which the takes affect the fitness of any individuals. term changes in behavior, falling within occur (e.g., impacts to times or areas of Of the marine mammal species under the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B significance); our jurisdiction that are known to occur harassment.’’ Animals are not expected • The status of stock or species of or likely to occur in the study area, the to permanently abandon any area that is marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not following species are listed as surveyed, and based on the best depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, endangered under the ESA: Blue, fin, available information, any behaviors impact relative to the size of the humpback, sei, Southern right, and that are interrupted during the activity population); sperm whales. The other marine are expected to resume once the activity • Impacts on habitat affecting rates of mammal species that may be taken by ceases. For example, as described above, recruitment/survival; and harassment during Lamont-Doherty’s gray whales have continued to migrate • The effectiveness of monitoring and seismic survey program are not listed as annually along the west coast of North mitigation measures to reduce the threatened or endangered under the America with substantial increases in number or severity of incidental takes. ESA. the population over recent years, To avoid repetition, our analysis Cetaceans. Odontocete reactions to despite intermittent seismic exploration applies to all the species listed in Table seismic energy pulses are usually in that area for decades (Appendix A in 7, given that NMFS expects the thought to be limited to shorter Malme et al., 1984; Richardson et al., anticipated effects of the seismic airguns distances from the airgun(s) than are 1995; Allen and Angliss, 2014). to be similar in nature. Where there are those of mysticetes, in part because Similarly, bowhead whales have meaningful differences between species odontocete low-frequency hearing is continued to travel to the eastern or stocks, or groups of species, in assumed to be less sensitive to the low Beaufort Sea each summer, and their anticipated individual responses to frequency signals of these airguns than numbers have increased notably, activities, impact of expected take on that of mysticetes. NMFS generally despite seismic exploration in their the population due to differences in expects cetaceans to move away from a summer and autumn range for many population status, or impacts on habitat, noise source that is annoying prior to its years (Richardson et al., 1987; Allen and NMFS has identified species-specific becoming potentially injurious, and this Angliss, 2014). The history of factors to inform the analysis. expectation is expected to hold true in coexistence between seismic surveys Given the required mitigation and the case of the planned activities, and baleen whales suggests that brief related monitoring, NMFS does not especially given the relatively slow exposures to sound pulses from any anticipate that serious injury or travel speed of the Langseth while single seismic survey are unlikely to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53461

result in prolonged effects. Only a small seismic operations would occur on activity area, including both territorial portion of marine mammal habitat will consecutive days, the estimated seas and high seas. be affected at any time, and other areas duration of the survey would last no Based on NMFS’s analysis, the area within the southeast Pacific Ocean more than 75 days but would increase within the planned northern survey would be available for necessary sound levels in the marine environment predicted to be ensonified to the Level biological functions. Overall, the in a relatively small area surrounding B harassment threshold (160 dB re: 1 consequences of behavioral the vessel (compared to the range of mPa) within Chilean territorial seas modification are not expected to affect most of the marine mammals within the accounts for approximately 19 percent cetacean growth, survival, and/or survey area), which is constantly of the total area (including high seas and reproduction, and therefore are not travelling over distances, and some Chilean territorial seas combined) expected to be biologically significant. animals may only be exposed to and predicted to be ensonified to the Level Pinnipeds. Generally speaking, harassed by sound for less than a day. B harassment threshold; for the planned pinnipeds may react to a sound source For reasons stated previously in this central survey, the area predicted to be in a number of ways depending on their document and based on the following ensonified to the Level B harassment experience with the sound source and factors, Lamont-Doherty’s planned threshold within territorial seas what activity they are engaged in at the activities are not likely to cause long- accounts for approximately three time of the exposure, with behavioral term behavioral disturbance, serious percent of the total area predicted to be responses to sound ranging from a mild injury, or death, or other effects that ensonified to the Level B harassment orienting response, or a shifting of would be expected to adversely affect threshold in that entire survey area; and attention, to flight and panic. However, reproduction or survival of any for the planned southern survey, the research and monitoring observations individuals. They include: area predicted to be ensonified to the from activities similar to those planned • The anticipated impacts of Lamont- Level B harassment threshold within have shown that pinnipeds in the water Doherty’s survey activities on marine territorial seas accounts for are generally tolerant of anthropogenic mammals are temporary behavioral approximately 24 percent of the total noise and activity. Visual monitoring changes due, primarily, to avoidance of area predicted to be ensonified to the from seismic vessels has shown only the area around the seismic vessel; Level B harassment threshold in that slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by • The likelihood that, given the entire survey area (Table 8). pinnipeds and only slight (if any) constant movement of boat and animals We expect the impacts of Lamont- changes in behavior (Harris et al., 2001; and the nature of the survey design (not Doherty’s survey activities, including Moulton and Lawson, 2002). During concentrated in areas of high marine foraging trips, extralimital pinnipeds the impacts of takes that are expected to mammal concentration), any PTS that is may not react at all to the sound from occur within the territorial sea, to incurred would be of a low level; the survey or may alert, ignore the include temporary behavioral changes • The availability of alternate areas of stimulus, change their behavior, or due, primarily, to avoidance of the area similar habitat value for marine avoid the immediate area by swimming around the seismic vessel, with the away or diving. Behavioral effects to mammals to temporarily vacate the potential for a small degree of PTS in a sound are generally more likely to occur survey area during the operation of the limited number of animals. Effects on airgun(s) to avoid acoustic harassment; marine mammals are generally expected at higher received levels (i.e., within a • few kilometers of a sound source). The expectation that the seismic to be restricted to avoidance of a limited However, the slow speed of the survey would have no more than a area around the survey operation and Langseth while conducting seismic temporary and minimal adverse effect short-term changes in behavior, falling surveys (approximately 4.5 kt; 5.1 mph) on any fish or invertebrate species that within the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level is expected to provide ample serve as prey species for marine B harassment.’’ The slow speed of the opportunity for pinnipeds to avoid and mammals, and therefore consider the Langseth while conducting seismic keep some distance between themselves potential impacts to marine mammal surveys (approximately 4.5 kt; 5.1 mph) and the loudest sources of sound habitat minimal. is expected to provide ample associated with the planned activities. Tables 4–7 in this document describe opportunity for pinnipeds and cetaceans Additionally, underwater sound from the number of Level A and Level B to avoid and keep some distance the planned survey would not be harassment takes that we anticipate as a between themselves and the loudest audible at pinniped haulouts or result of the planned survey activities sources of sound associated with the rookeries, therefore the consequences of outside Chile’s territorial sea (12 nm). planned activities, both within and behavioral responses in these areas are Lamont-Doherty would conduct the outside the territorial sea. Additionally, expected to be minimal. Overall, the planned seismic survey within the EEZ underwater sound from the planned consequences of behavioral and territorial waters of Chile. The survey, including the portions of the modification are not expected to affect planned survey would occur primarily survey planned within the territorial pinniped growth, survival, and/or on the high seas, with a small portion sea, would not be audible at pinniped reproduction, and therefore are not occurring within Chile’s territorial sea. haulouts or rookeries, therefore the expected to be biologically significant. As described above, NMFS does not consequences of behavioral responses in Many animals perform vital functions, have authority to authorize the these areas are expected to be minimal. such as feeding, resting, traveling, and incidental take of marine mammals in Overall, taking into account the takes socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hour the territorial seas of foreign nations, expected to occur within the territorial cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise because the MMPA does not apply in sea as well as those expected to occur exposure (such as disruption of critical those waters. However, as part of the outside the territorial sea that NMFS life functions, displacement, or analysis supporting our determination authorizes, the consequences of avoidance of important habitat) are under the MMPA that the activity behavioral modification are not more likely to be significant if they last would have a negligible impact on the expected to affect growth, survival, and/ more than one diel cycle or recur on affected species, we must consider the or reproduction of cetaceans or subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). incidental take expected to occur as a pinnipeds, and therefore are not While NMFS anticipates that the result of the activity in the entire expected to be biologically significant.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 53462 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices

Marine mammals are not expected to on any fish or invertebrate species that the planned survey activities, either permanently abandon any area that is serve as prey species for marine outside or within the territorial sea, surveyed, including areas within mammals, and therefore we believe the could result in serious injury or territorial seas, and based on the best potential impacts to marine mammal mortality of marine mammals, and as available information, any behaviors habitat will be minimal. described above NMFS expects that that are interrupted during the activity As is the case for surveys outside individuals would avoid the source at are expected to resume once the activity territorial seas as described above, due levels expected to result in injury, given ceases. Although some disturbance is to constant movement of the Langseth sufficient notice of the Langseth’s possible to food sources of marine and of the animals, as well as the fact approach due to the vessel’s relatively mammals within territorial seas, the that the vessel is not expected to remain low speed when conducting seismic impacts to those marine mammals are in any one area in which individuals surveys. anticipated to be minor enough as to not would be expected to concentrate for For the reasons described above, the affect the feeding success of any any extended amount of time (i.e., since takes that would occur within the individuals long-term. Any missed the duration of exposure to loud sounds territorial sea, while not authorized by feeding opportunities in the project area will be relatively short), we anticipate NMFS,do not alter our determinations within territorial seas are expected to be that any PTS that may be incurred in above with respect to the relative minor based on the fact that other marine mammals within the territorial likelihood of the activity to cause long- equally valuable feeding opportunities sea would be in the form of only a small term behavioral disturbance, serious likely exist nearby. The portions of the degree of permanent threshold shift, and injury, or death, or other effects that seismic surveys that will occur within not total deafness, that would not be would be expected to adversely affect territorial seas would have no more than likely to affect the fitness of any reproduction or survival of any a temporary and minimal adverse effect individuals. There is no evidence that individual marine mammals.

TABLE 8—AREAS PREDICTED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CHILEAN TERRITORIAL SEAS, AND PERCENT INCREASE IN ENSONIFIED AREA PREDICTED IN TERRITORIAL SEAS VERSUS ENSONIFIED AREA PREDICTED OUTSIDE TERRITORIAL SEAS

Area ensonified to Level B Area ensonified to Level B Percent harassment threshold (160 dB harassment threshold (160 dB increase in Total area ensonified to Level re: 1 μPa) outside territorial re: 1 μPa) inside territorial ensonified Planned survey location B harassment threshold seas seas area when ter- (160 dB re: 1 μPa) (percentage of total (percentage of total ritorial sea is ensonified area in survey ensonified area in survey included in location) location) survey area

Northern ...... 61,295 km2 ...... 49,645 km2 (81%) ...... 11,650 km2 (19%) ...... 23% Central ...... 10,593 km2 ...... 10,315 km2 (97.4%) ...... 278 km2 (2.6%) ...... 3 Southern ...... 76,449 km2 ...... 58,117 km2 (76%) ...... 18,332 km2 (24%) ...... 32

Required mitigation measures, such as 15 percent for the dusky dolphin, less authorized by NMFS and the takes not special shutdowns for large whales, than 11.5 percent for Chilean dolphin, authorized by NMFS but predicted to vessel speed, course alteration, and and less than 5 percent for all other occur within the Chilean territorial sea) visual monitoring would be species (Table 7). As described above, are still small relative to the population implemented to help reduce impacts to NMFS cannot authorize the incidental sizes, with no more than 22 percent marine mammals. Based on the analysis take of marine mammals in the taken for any marine mammal species. herein of the likely effects of the territorial seas of foreign nations, but NMFS is not aware of reliable specified activity on marine mammals must consider the level of incidental abundance estimates for four species of and their habitat, and taking into take as a result of the activity in the marine mammals (Burmeister’s consideration the implementation of the entire activity area (including both porpoise, Peale’s dolphin, pygmy right whale, and southern right whale monitoring and mitigation measures, territorial seas and high seas) as part of dolphin) for which incidental take is NMFS finds that Lamont-Doherty’s the analysis supporting our planned seismic survey would have a authorized. Therefore we rely on the determination under the MMPA that the best available information on these negligible impact on the affected marine activity would have a negligible impact mammal species or stocks. species to make determinations as to on the affected species. We assume for whether the authorized take numbers Small Numbers the purposes of our analysis that the represent small numbers of the total As described previously, NMFS take predicted to occur within the populations of these species. estimates that Lamont-Doherty’s Chilean territorial sea will account for The Burmeister’s porpoise is activities could potentially affect, by approximately a 23 percent increase in distributed from the Atlantic Ocean in Level B harassment, 44 species of the northern survey area; a 3 percent southern Brazil to the Pacific Ocean in marine mammals under our jurisdiction. increase in the central survey area; and northern Peru (Reyes 2009). While there NMFS estimates that Lamont-Doherty’s a 32 percent increase in the southern are no quantitative data on abundance, activities could potentially affect, by survey area, compared to the total the best available information suggest Level A harassment, up to 26 species of number of incidental takes predicted to the species is assumed to be numerous marine mammals under our jurisdiction. occur outside of the Chilean territorial throughout South American coastal For each species, the numbers of take sea (Table 7 and Table 8). Accounting waters (Brownell Jr. and Clapham 1999), authorized are small relative to the for these additional takes, the total takes with groups estimated at approximately population sizes: Less than 18 percent predicted to result from the planned 150 individuals observed off of Peru for South American sea lion, less than survey (including both the takes (Van Waerebeek et al. 2002). In addition

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Notices 53463

the species is typically found shoreward NMFS finds that the incidental take public comments received prior to of the 60 m isobath (Hammond et al. associated with Lamont-Doherty’s finalizing our EA and deciding whether 2012), suggesting that the number of planned seismic survey would be or not to issue a Finding of No authorized takes is likely conservative limited to small numbers relative to the Significant Impact (FONSI). NMFS as the species is unlikely to be affected species or stocks. concluded that issuance of an IHA to encountered throughout the full survey Impact on Availability of Affected Lamont-Doherty would not significantly area. The species’ wide distribution and Species or Stock for Taking for affect the quality of the human apparent abundance suggest the number Subsistence Uses environment and prepared and issued a of authorized takes represents a small FONSI in accordance with NEPA and number of individuals relative to the There are no relevant subsistence uses NOAA Administrative Order 216–6. species’ total abundance. of marine mammals implicated by this NMFS’s EA and FONSI for this activity Peale’s dolphin is a coastal species action. are available on our Web site at: http:// that is known to inhabit waters very Endangered Species Act (ESA) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ near to shore, commonly within or incidental. shoreward of kelp beds, while in the There are six marine mammal species waters of southern Chile and Tierra del listed as endangered under the Authorization Fuego they appear to prefer channels, Endangered Species Act that may occur NMFS has issued an Authorization to fjords and deep bays (Goodall 2009). in the survey area. Under section 7 of Lamont-Doherty for the potential Their apparent habitat preference for the ESA, NSF initiated formal harassment of small numbers of 44 waters very near to shore suggests that consultation with the NMFS Office of marine mammal species incidental to the number of authorized takes is likely Protected Resources (OPR) Endangered conducting a seismic survey in the very conservative as the species is Species Act Interagency Cooperation Southeast Pacific Ocean, between unlikely to be encountered throughout Division on the planned seismic survey. August 1, 2016 and July 31, 2017, much of the survey area. While no We (the NMFS Office of Protected provided the previously mentioned abundance estimate exists for the Resources, Permits and Conservation mitigation, monitoring and reporting species, Peale’s dolphin is reportedly Division) also consulted internally measures. the most common cetacean found under section 7 of the ESA with the Dated: August 8, 2016. around the coast of the Falkland Islands NMFS OPR Endangered Species Act and Chile (Brownell Jr. et al. 1999). The Interagency Cooperation Division on the Donna Wieting, combination of the species’ apparent issuance of an Authorization under Director, Office of Protected Resources, abundance and the species’ apparent section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. National Marine Fisheries Service. preference for habitats that would not be In July, 2016, the NMFS OPR [FR Doc. 2016–19145 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am] surveyed by Lamont-Doherty suggests Endangered Species Act Interagency BILLING CODE 3510–22–P the number of authorized takes Cooperation Division issued a Biological represents a small number of Opinion with an Incidental Take individuals relative to the species’ total Statement to us and to the NSF, which DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE abundance. concluded that the issuance of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric The full distribution of the southern Authorization and the conduct of the right whale dolphin is not known, but seismic survey were not likely to Administration the species appears to be circumpolar jeopardize the continued existence of RIN 0648–XE799 and fairly common throughout its range. blue, fin, humpback, sei, Southern right Survey data and stranding and fishery and sperm whales. The Biological New England Fishery Management interaction data in northern Chile Opinion also concluded that the Council; Public Meeting suggest that the species may be one of issuance of the Authorization and the AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries the most common cetaceans in the conduct of the seismic survey would not Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and region (Van Waerebeek et al. 1991). The affect designated critical habitat for Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), species’ apparent abundance and its these species. Commerce. broad distribution suggest the number of National Environmental Policy Act authorized takes represents a small ACTION: Notice; public meeting. (NEPA) number of individuals relative to the SUMMARY: The New England Fishery NSF prepared an environmental species’ total abundance. Management Council (Council) is analysis titled, ‘‘Environmental Analysis The pygmy right whale has a scheduling a joint public meeting of its circumpolar distribution, between about of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the Monkfish Committee on Thursday, 30° and 55°S, with records from R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the September 1, 2016 to consider actions southern South America as well as Southeast Pacific Ocean, 2016/2017’’. affecting New England fisheries in the Africa, Australia and New Zealand NMFS independently evaluated the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). (Kemper 2009). There are no estimates environmental analysis and prepared an Recommendations from this group will of abundance for the species, but Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, be brought to the full Council for formal judging by the number of strandings in ‘‘Proposed Issuance of an Incidental consideration and action, if appropriate. Australia and New Zealand, it is likely Harassment Authorization to Lamont- to be reasonably common in that region Doherty Earth Observatory to Take DATES: This meeting will be held on (Kemper 2009), with aggregations of up Marine Mammals by Harassment Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 9:30 to approximately 80 individuals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical a.m. reported (Matsuoka 1996). The species’ Survey in the Southeast Pacific Ocean, ADDRESSES: apparent abundance and its broad 2016/2017’’. NMFS and NSF provided Meeting address: The meeting will be distribution suggest the number of relevant environmental information to held at the Radisson Airport Hotel, 2081 authorized takes would represent a the public through the Federal Register Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; small number of individuals relative to notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR telephone: (401) 739–3000; fax: (401) the species’ total abundance. 23117; April 19, 2016) and considered 732–9309.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12AUN1.SGM 12AUN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES