sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dwarf sperm whale, Kogiidae, Scott Islands

19580 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and will generally be posted online at (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) National Oceanic and Atmospheric incidental-take-authorizations-under- 216–6A, NMFS must review our Administration marine--protection-act without proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an change. All personal identifying incidental harassment authorization) [RTID 0648–XR074] information (e.g., name, address) with respect to potential impacts on the Takes of Marine Incidental to voluntarily submitted by the commenter human environment. Specified Activities; Taking Marine may be publicly accessible. Do not Accordingly, NMFS plans to adopt Mammals Incidental to a Marine submit confidential business the National Science Foundation’s Geophysical Survey in the Northeast information or otherwise sensitive or (NSF’s) Environmental Assessment Pacific Ocean protected information. (EA), as we have preliminarily FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: determined that it includes adequate AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Amy Fowler, Office of Protected information analyzing the effects on the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. human environment of issuing the IHA. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Electronic copies of the application and NSF’s EA is available at https:// Commerce. supporting documents, as well as a list www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/. ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental of the references cited in this document, We will review all comments harassment authorization; request for may be obtained online at: https:// submitted in response to this notice comments on proposed authorization www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ prior to concluding our NEPA process and possible renewal. incidental-take-authorizations-under- or making a final decision on the IHA marine-mammal-protection-act. In case request. SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request of problems accessing these documents, Summary of Request from the Lamont-Doherty Earth please call the contact listed above. Observatory of Columbia University (L– On November 8, 2019, NMFS received SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEO) for authorization to take marine a request from L–DEO for an IHA to take mammals incidental to a marine Background marine mammals incidental to a marine geophysical survey in the northeast geophysical survey of the Cascadia The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine Subduction Zone off the coasts of marine mammals, with certain Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS Washington, Oregon, and British exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and is requesting comments on its proposal Columbia, . The application was (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et to issue an incidental harassment deemed adequate and complete on seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce authorization (IHA) to incidentally take March 6, 2020. L–DEO’s request is for (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon marine mammals during the specified take of small numbers of 31 species of request, the incidental, but not activities. NMFS is also requesting marine mammals by Level A and Level intentional, taking of small numbers of comments on a possible one-year B harassment. Neither L–DEO nor marine mammals by U.S. citizens who renewal that could be issued under NMFS expects serious injury or engage in a specified activity (other than certain circumstances and if all mortality to result from this activity commercial fishing) within a specified requirements are met, as described in and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. geographical region if certain findings Request for Public Comments at the end NMFS has previously issued IHAs to are made and either regulations are of this notice. NMFS will consider L–DEO for similar surveys in the issued or, if the taking is limited to public comments prior to making any northeast Pacific (e.g., 84 FR 35073, July harassment, a notice of a proposed final decision on the issuance of the 22, 2019; 77 FR 41755, July 16, 2012). incidental take authorization may be requested MMPA authorizations and L–DEO complied with all the provided to the public for review. agency responses will be summarized in requirements (e.g., mitigation, Authorization for incidental takings the final notice of our decision. monitoring, and reporting) of the shall be granted if NMFS finds that the previous IHAs and information DATES: Comments and information must taking will have a negligible impact on regarding their monitoring results may be received no later than May 7, 2020. the species or stock(s) and will not have be found in the Description of Marine ADDRESSES: Comments should be an unmitigable adverse impact on the Mammals in the Area of Specified addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, availability of the species or stock(s) for Activities section. Permits and Conservation Division, taking for subsistence uses (where Office of Protected Resources, National relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe Description of Proposed Activity Marine Fisheries Service. Physical the permissible methods of taking and Overview comments should be sent to 1315 East- other ‘‘means of effecting the least West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 practicable adverse impact’’ on the Researchers from L–DEO, Woods Hole and electronic comments should be sent affected species or stocks and their Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and to [email protected]. habitat, paying particular attention to the University of Texas at Austin Instructions: NMFS is not responsible rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of Institute of Geophysics (UTIG), with for comments sent by any other method, similar significance, and on the funding from the NSF, and in to any other address or individual, or availability of the species or stocks for collaboration with researchers from received after the end of the comment taking for certain subsistence uses Dalhousie University and Simon Fraser period. Comments received (referred to in shorthand as University (SFU) propose to conduct a electronically, including all ‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements high-energy seismic survey from the attachments, must not exceed a 25- pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring Research Vessel (R/V) Marcus G megabyte file size. Attachments to and reporting of the takings are set forth. Langseth (Langseth) in the northeast electronic comments will be accepted in Pacific Ocean beginning in June 2020. Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF National Environmental Policy Act The seismic survey would be conducted file formats only. All comments To comply with the National at the Cascadia Subduction Zone off the received are a part of the public record Environmental Policy Act of 1969 coasts of Oregon, Washington, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19581

British Columbia, Canada. The proposed The deformation and topography of the mechanical issues with the research two-dimensional (2–D) seismic survey incoming plate; (2) the depth, vessel and/or equipment. The survey is would occur within the Exclusive topography, and reflectivity of the proposed to occur within the EEZs of Economic Zones (EEZs) of Canada and megathrust; (3) sediment properties and the United States and Canada, as well as the United States, including U.S. state amount of sediment subduction; and (4) in U.S. state waters and Canadian waters and Canadian territorial waters. the structure and evolution of the territorial waters, ranging in depth 60– The survey would use a 36-airgun accretionary wedge, including geometry 4400 meters (m). A maximum of 6,890 towed array with a total discharge and reflectivity of fault networks, and km of transect lines would be surveyed. volume of ∼6,600 cubic inches (in3) as how these properties vary along strike, Most of the survey (63.2 percent) would an acoustic source, acquiring return spanning the full length of the margin occur in deep water (>1,000 m), 26.4 signals using both a towed streamer as and down dip across what may be the percent would occur in intermediate well ocean bottom seismometers (OBSs) full width of the Cascadia Subduction water (100–1,000 m deep), and 10.4 and ocean bottom nodes (OBNs). Zone. percent would take place in shallow The proposed study would use 2–D Dates and Duration water <100 m deep. Approximately 4 percent of the transect lines (295 km) seismic surveying and OBSs and OBNs The proposed survey is expected to to investigate the Cascadia Subduction last for 40 days, with 37 days of seismic would be undertaken in Canadian Zone and provide data necessary to operations, 2 days of equipment territorial waters (from 0–12 nautical illuminate the depth, geometry, and deployment, and 1 day of transit. R/V miles (22.2 km) from shore), with most physical properties of the seismogenic Langseth would likely leave out of and effort in intermediate waters. NMFS portion and updip extent of the return to port in Astoria, Oregon, during cannot authorize the incidental take of megathrust zone between the June–July 2020. marine mammals in the territorial seas subducting Juan de Fuca plate and the of foreign nations, as the MMPA does overlying accretionary wedge/North Specific Geographic Region not apply in those waters. However, American plate. These data would The proposed survey would occur NMFS has still calculated the level of provide essential constraints for within ∼42–51° N, ∼124–130° W. incidental take in the entire activity area earthquake and tsunami hazard Representative survey tracklines are (including Canadian territorial waters) assessment in this heavily populated shown in Figure 1. Some deviation in as part of the analysis supporting our region of the Pacific Northwest. The actual track lines, including the order of preliminary determination under the primary objectives of the survey survey operations, could be necessary MMPA that the activity will have a proposed by researchers from L–DEO, for reasons such as science drivers, poor negligible impact on the affected WHOI, and UTIG is to characterize: (1) data quality, inclement weather, or species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19582 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

Detailed Description of Specific Activity with volumes of 180 to 360 in3 and 16 Oceanus, which is owned by NSF and Bolt 1900LLX airguns with volumes of operated by Oregon State University, The procedures to be used for the 40 to 120 in3. The airgun array would be used to deploy the OBSs and proposed surveys would be similar to configuration is illustrated in Figure 2– OBNs. As the airguns are towed along those used during previous seismic 11 of NSF and USGS’s Programmatic the survey lines, the hydrophone surveys by L–DEO and would use Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS; streamer would transfer the data to the conventional seismic methodology. The NSF–USGS, 2011). The vessel speed on-board processing system, and the surveys would involve one source during seismic operations would be OBSs and OBNs would receive and vessel, R/V Langseth, which is owned approximately 4.2 knots (∼7.8 km/hour) store the returning acoustic signals by NSF and operated on its behalf by L– during the survey and the airgun array internally for later analysis. DEO. R/V Langseth would deploy an would be towed at a depth of 12 m. The Long 15-km-offset multichannel array of 36 airguns as an energy source receiving system would consist of one seismic (MCS) data would be acquired with a total volume of ∼6,600 in3. The 15-kilometer (km) long hydrophone along numerous 2–D profiles oriented array consists of 20 Bolt 1500LL airguns streamer, OBSs, and OBNs. R/V perpendicular to the margin and located

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 EN07AP20.000 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19583

to provide coverage in areas inferred to internal batteries; all data is recorded Description of Marine Mammals in the be rupture patches during past and stored internally. The nodes weigh Area of Specified Activities earthquakes and their boundary zones. 21 kg in air (9.5 kg in water). As the The survey would also include several OBNs are small (330 millimeters (mm) Sections 3 and 4 of the application strike lines including one continuous x 289 mm x 115 mm), compact, not summarize available information line along the continental shelf centered buoyant, and lack an anchor-release regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior roughly over gravity-inferred fore-arc mechanism, they cannot be deployed by and life history, of the potentially basins to investigate possible free-fall as with the OBSs. The nodes affected species. Additional information segmentation near the down-dip limit of would be deployed and retrieved using regarding population trends and threats the seismogenic zone. The margin a remotely operated vehicle (ROV); the ∼ may be found in NMFS’s Stock normal lines would extend 50 km ROV would be deployed from R/V Assessment Reports (SARs; https:// seaward of the deformation front to Oceanus. OBNs would be deployed 17 image the region of subduction bend www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ days prior to the start of the R/V marine-mammal-protection/marine- faulting in the incoming oceanic plate, Langseth cruise. The ROV would be and landward of the deformation front mammal-stock-assessments) and more fitted with a skid with capacity for 32 general information about these species to as close to the shoreline as can be units, lowered to the seafloor, and safely maneuvered. It is proposed that (e.g., physical and behavioral towed at a speed of 0.6 knots at 5–10 m the southern transects off Oregon are descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s above the seafloor between deployment acquired first, followed by the profiles website (https:// sites. After the 32 units are deployed, off Washington and , www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). the ROV would be retrieved, the skid . Table 1 lists all species with expected would be reloaded with another 32 The OBSs would consist of short- potential for occurrence in the survey units, and sent back to the seafloor for period multi-component OBSs from the area and summarizes information deployment, and so on. The ROV would Ocean Bottom Seismometer Instrument related to the population or stock, recover the nodes 3 days after the Center (OBSIC) and a large-N array of including regulatory status under the completion of the R/V Langseth cruise. OBNs from a commercial provider to MMPA and ESA and potential ∼ record shots along 11 MCS margin- The nodes would be recovered one by biological removal (PBR), where known. perpendicular profiles. OBSs would be one by a suction mechanism. Take of For , we follow Committee on ∼ deployed at 10-km spacing along 11 marine mammals is not expected to Taxonomy (2019). PBR is defined by the profiles from Vancouver Island to occur incidental to L–DEO’s use of MMPA as the maximum number of Oregon, and OBNs would be deployed OBSs and OBNs. , not including natural at a 500-m spacing along a portion of In addition to the operations of the mortalities, that may be removed from a two profiles off Oregon. Two OBS airgun array, a multibeam echosounder stock while allowing deployments would occur with a total of (MBES), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP), that stock to reach or maintain its 115 instrumented locations. 60 OBSs and an Acoustic Doppler Current optimum sustainable population (as would be deployed to instrument seven Profiler (ADCP) would be operated from described in NMFS’s SARs). While no profiles off Oregon, followed by a R/V Langseth continuously during the mortality is anticipated or authorized second deployment of 55 OBSs to seismic surveys, but not during transit here, PBR and annual serious injury and instrument four profiles off Washington to and from the survey area. All planned mortality from anthropogenic sources and Vancouver Island. The first geophysical data acquisition activities are included here as gross indicators of deployment off Oregon would occur would be conducted by L–DEO with on- the status of the species and other prior to the start of the proposed survey, board assistance by the scientists who threats. after which R/V Langseth would acquire have proposed the studies. The vessel Marine mammal abundance estimates data in the southern portion of the study would be self-contained, and the crew area. R/V Oceanus would start presented in this document represent would live aboard the vessel. Take of recovering the OBSs from deployment 1, the total number of individuals that marine mammals is not expected to and then re-deploy 55 OBSs off make up a given stock or the total occur incidental to use of the MBES, Washington and Vancouver Island, so number estimated within a particular SBP, or ADCP because they will be that R/V Langseth can acquire data in study or survey area. NMFS’s stock the northern portion of the survey area. operated only during seismic abundance estimates for most species The OBSs have a height and diameter of acquisition, and it is assumed that, represent the total estimate of ∼1 m, and an ∼80 kilogram (kg) anchor. during simultaneous operations of the individuals within the geographic area, To retrieve OBSs, an acoustic release airgun array and the other sources, any if known, that comprises that stock. For transponder (pinger) is used to marine mammals close enough to be some species, this geographic area may interrogate the instrument at a affected by the MBES, SBP, and ADCP extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed frequency of 8–11 kHz, and a response would already be affected by the stocks in this region are assessed in is received at a frequency of 11.5–13 airguns. However, whether or not the NMFS’s U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs kHz. The burn-wire release assembly is airguns are operating simultaneously (Caretta et al., 2019; Muto et al., 2019). then activated, and the instrument is with the other sources, given their All MMPA stock information presented released to float to the surface from the characteristics (e.g., narrow downward- in Table 1 is the most recent available anchor, which is not retrieved. directed beam), marine mammals would at the time of publication and is A total of 350 OBNs would be experience no more than one or two available in the 2018 SARs (Caretta et deployed: 229 nodes along one transect brief ping exposures, if any exposure al., 2019; Muto et al., 2019) and draft off northern Oregon, and 121 nodes were to occur. Proposed mitigation, 2019 SARs (available online at: https:// along a second transect off central monitoring, and reporting measures are www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ Oregon. The nodes are not connected to described in detail later in this marine-mammal-protection/draft- each other; each node is independent document (please see Proposed marine-mammal-stock-assessment- from each other, and there are no cables Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and reports). Where available, abundance attached to them. Each node has Reporting). and status information is also presented

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19584 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

for marine mammals in Canadian waters in British Columbia. TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA

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

Order Cetartiodactyla——Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen )

Family Eschrichtiidae: Gray ...... Eschrichtius robustus ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... -/-; N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 ...... 138. 2016). Family Balaenopteridae (): ...... Megaptera novaeangliae California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; Y 2,900 (0.05, 2,784, 2014) 16.7 ...... >42.1. ington. Central North Pacific ...... -/-; Y 10,103 (0.30, 7,891, 83 ...... 25. 2006). Minke whale ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 636 (0.72, 369, 2014) ..... 3.5 ...... >1.3. acutorostrata. ington. Sei whale ...... Balaenoptera borealis ..... Eastern North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 519 (0.4, 374, 2014) ...... 0.75 ...... >0.2. Fin whale ...... Balaenoptera physalus ... California/Oregon/Wash- E/D; Y 9,029 (0.12, 8,127, 2014) 81 ...... >2.0. ington. Northeast Pacific ...... E/D; Y 3,168 (0.26, 2,554, 2013) 5.1 ...... 0.4. Blue whale ...... Balaenoptera musculus .. Eastern North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 1,496 (0.44, 1,050, 2014) 1.2 ...... >19.4.

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and )

Family Physeteridae: ...... Physeter macrocephalus California/Oregon/Wash- E/D; Y 1,997 (0.57, 1,270, 2014) 2.5 ...... 0.4. ington. Family : breviceps ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 4,111 (1.12, 1,924, 2014) 19 ...... 0. ington. ... Kogia sima ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N Unknown (Unknown, Un- Undetermined .... 0. ington. known, 2014). Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales): Cuvier’s beaked Ziphius cavirostris ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 3,274 (0.67, 2,059, 2014) 21 ...... <0.1. whale. ington. Baird’s beaked whale bairdii ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 2,697 (0.6, 1,633, 2014) 16 ...... 0 ington. Blainville’s beaked Mesoplodon densirostris California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 3,044 (0.54, 1,967, 2014) 20 ...... 0.1. whale. ington. Hubbs’ Mesoplodon carlshubbi. Stejneger’s beaked Mesoplodon stejnegeri. whale. Family Delphinidae: .... Tursiops truncatus ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 1,924 (0.54, 1,255, 2014) 11 ...... >1.6. ington offshore. Striped dolphin ...... coeruleoalba ..... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 29,211 (0.2, 24,782, 238 ...... >0.8. ington. 2014). ...... Delphinus delphis ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 969,861 (0.17, 839,325, 8,393 ...... >40. ington. 2014). Pacific white-sided California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 26,814 (0.28, 21,195, 191 ...... 7.5. dolphin. obliquidens. ington. 2014). British Columbia 4 ...... N/A 22,160 (unknown, Unknown ...... Unknown. 16,522, 2008). Northern Lissodelphis borealis ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 26,556 (0.44, 18,608, 179 ...... 3.8. dolphin. ington. 2014). Risso’s dolphin ...... Grampus griseus ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 6,336 (0.32, 4,817, 2014) 46 ...... >3.7. ington. False ...... Pseudorca crassidens ..... N/A ...... N/A N/A ...... N/A ...... N/A. Killer whale ...... Orcinus orca ...... Offshore ...... -/-; N 300 (0.1, 276, 2012) ...... 2.8 ...... 0. Southern Resident ...... E/D; Y 75 (N/A, 75, 2018) ...... 0.13 ...... 0. Northern Resident ...... -/-; N 302 (N/A, 302, 2018) ...... 2.2 ...... 0.2. West Coast Transient ..... -/-; N 243 (N/A, 243, 2009) ...... 2.4 ...... 0. Short-finned pilot Globicephala California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 836 (0.79, 466, 2014) ..... 4.5 ...... 1.2. whale. macrorhynchus. ington. Family Phocoenidae (por- poises): Harbor ...... phocoena ...... Northern Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 21,487 (0.44, 15,123, 151 ...... >3.0. ington Coast. 2011). Northern California/ -/-; N 35,769 (0.52, 23,749, 475 ...... >0.6. Southern Oregon. 2011). British Columbia 4 ...... N/A 8,091 (unknown, 4,885, Unknown ...... Unknown. 2008). Dall’s porpoise ...... Phocoenoides dalli ...... California/Oregon/Wash- -/-; N 25,750 (0.45, 17,954, 172 ...... 0.3. ington. 2014). British Columbia 4 ...... N/A 5,303 (unknown, 4,638, Unknown ...... Unknown. 2008).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19585

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

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

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions):. Northern fur seal ...... Callorhinus ursinus ...... Eastern Pacific ...... -/D; Y 620,660 (0.2, 525,333, 11,295 ...... 399. 2016). California ...... -/D; N 14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 451 ...... 1.8. 2013). California sea lion ..... Zalophus californianus .... U.S...... -/-; N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 14,011 ...... >321. 2014). Steller sea lion ...... Eumetopias jubatus ...... Eastern U.S...... -/-; N 43,201 (see SAR, 2,592 ...... 113. 43,201, 2017). British Columbia 4 ...... N/A 4,037 (unknown, 1,100, Unknown ...... Unknown. 2008). Guadalupe fur seal ... Arctocephalus philippii Mexico to California ...... T/D; Y 34,187 (N/A, 31,019, 1,062 ...... >3.8. townsendi. 2013). Family Phocidae (earless seals): Harbor seal ...... Phoca vitulina ...... Oregon/Washington -/-; N Unknown (Unknown, Un- Undetermined .... 10.6. Coastal. known, 1999). British Columbia 4 ...... N/A 24,916 (Unknown, Unknown ...... Unknown. 19,666, 2008). Northern elephant Mirounga angustirostris ... California Breeding ...... -/-; N 179,000 (N/A, 81,368, 4,882 ...... 8.8. seal. 2010). 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assess- ments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fish- eries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4 Best et al. (2015) total abundance estimates for animals in British Columbia based on surveys of the Strait of Georgia, Johnstone Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait, and Dixon Entrance.

All species that could potentially likelihood that the proposed survey their feeding grounds in the western occur in the proposed survey areas are would encounter a North Pacific right North Pacific at the time of the proposed included in Table 1. However, whale is discountable. survey. NMFS expects that any gray additional species have been recorded In addition, the Northern sea otter whales encountered by L–DEO during in the specified geographic region but (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) may be found the proposed survey would be from the are considered sufficiently rare that take in coastal waters of the survey area. Eastern North Pacific DPS only, and is is not anticipated. The temporal and/or However, sea otters are managed by the not proposing to authorize take of the spatial occurrence of North Pacific right U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are endangered Western North Pacific DPS; whales (Eubalaena japonica) is such not considered further in this document. therefore, the Western North Pacific that take is not expected to occur, and DPS will not be discussed further in this they are not discussed further beyond document. the explanation provided here. Only 82 Two separate populations for gray The eastern North Pacific gray whale sightings of right whales in the entire whales have been recognized in the breeds and winters in Baja California, eastern North Pacific were reported North Pacific: The eastern North Pacific and migrates north to summer feeding from 1962 to 1999, with the majority of and the western North Pacific (or grounds in the northern Bering Sea, these occurring in the Bering Sea and Korean-Okhotsk) stocks (LeDuc et al., Chukchi Sea, and western Beaufort Sea adjacent areas of the Aleutian Islands 2002; Weller et al., 2013). However, the (Rice and Wolman 1971; Rice 1998; (Brownell et al., 2001). Most sightings in distinction between these two Jefferson et al., 2015). The northward the past 20 years have occurred in the populations has been recently debated migration occurs from late February to southeastern Bering Sea, with a few in owing to evidence that whales from the June (Rice and Wolman 1971), with a the Gulf of Alaska (Wade et al., 2011). western feeding area also travel to peak in the Gulf of Alaska during mid- Despite many miles of systematic aerial breeding areas in the eastern North April (Braham 1984). Instead of and ship-based surveys for marine Pacific (Weller et al., 2012, 2013; Mate migrating to arctic and sub-arctic mammals off the coasts of Washington, et al., 2015). Thus it is possible that waters, some individuals spend the Oregon and California over several whales from either the ESA listed summer months scattered along the years, only seven documented sightings endangered Western North Pacific coast from California to southeast of right whales were made from 1990 to distinct population segment (DPS) or Alaska (Rice and Wolman 1971; Nerini 2000 (Waite et al., 2003), and NMFS is the delisted Eastern North Pacific DPS 1984; Darling et al., 1998; Calambokidis not aware of any documented sightings could occur in the survey area, although and Quan 1999; Dunham and Duffus in the area since then. Because of the it is unlikely that a gray whale from the 2001, 2002; Calambokidis et al., 2002, small population size and the fact that Western North Pacific DPS would be 2015, 2017). There is genetic evidence North Pacific right whales spend the encountered during the time of the indicating the existence of this Pacific summer feeding in high latitudes, the survey as they are expected to be in Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) is a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19586 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

distinct local subpopulation (Frasier et Preliminary findings in several of the time as the MMPA stock delineations al., 2011; Lang et al., 2014) and the whales have shown evidence of are reviewed in light of the DPS United States and Canada recognize it as emaciation. These findings are not designations, NMFS considers the such (COSEWIC 2017; Caretta et al., consistent across all of the whales existing humpback whale stocks under 2019a). However, the status of the PCFG examined, so more research is needed. the MMPA to be endangered and as a separate stock is currently The UME is ongoing, and NMFS depleted for MMPA management unresolved (Weller et al., 2013). For the continues to investigate the cause(s). purposes (e.g., selection of a recovery purposes of abundance estimates, the Additional information about the UME factor, stock status). PCFG is defined as occurring between is available at https:// Within the proposed survey area, 41° N to 52° N from June 1 to November www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ three current DPSs may occur: The 30 (IWC 2012). The 2015 abundance marine-life-distress/2019-2020-gray- Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS estimate for the PCFG was 243 whales whale-unusual-mortality-event-along- (threatened), and Central America DPS (Calambokidis et al., 2017); west-coast. (endangered). According to Wade et al. approximately 100 of those may occur (2017), the probability that whales Humpback Whale in British Columbia during summer encountered in Oregon and California (Ford 2014). In British Columbia, most The humpback whale is found waters are from a given DPS are as summer resident gray whales are found throughout all of the oceans of the follows: Mexico DPS, 32.7 percent; in Clayoquot Sound, Barkley Sound, world (Clapham 2009). The worldwide Central America DPS, 67.2 percent; and along the southwestern shore of population of humpbacks is divided Hawaii DPS, 0 percent. The probability Vancouver Island, and near Cape into northern and southern ocean that humpback whales encountered in Caution on mainland British Columbia populations, but genetic analyses Washington and British Columbia (Ford 2014). During surveys in British suggest some gene flow (either past or waters are as follows: Mexico DPS, 27.9 Columbia waters during summer, most present) between the North and South percent; Central America DPS, 8.7 sightings of gray whales were made Pacific (e.g., Baker et al. 1993; Caballero percent; Hawaii DPS, 63.5 percent. within 10 km of shore and in water et al. 2001). Geographical overlap of Humpback whales are the most shallower than 100 m (Ford et al., these populations has been documented common species of large cetacean 2010a). Two sightings of three gray only off Central America (Acevedo and reported off the coasts of Oregon and whales were seen from R/V Northern Smultea 1995; Rasmussen et al. 2004, Washington from May to November Light during a survey off southern 2007). Although considered to be (Green et al., 1992; Calambokidis et al., Washington in July 2012 (RPS 2012a). mainly a coastal species, humpback 2000; 2004). The highest numbers have Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) whales often traverse deep pelagic areas been reported off Oregon during May for feeding gray whales along the coasts while migrating (Clapham and Mattila and June and off Washington during of Washington, Oregon, and California 1990; Norris et al. 1999; Calambokidis et July–September. Humpbacks occur have been identified, including northern al. 2001). primarily over the continental shelf and Puget Sound, Northwestern Humpback whales migrate between slope during the summer, with few Washington, and Grays Harbor in summer feeding grounds in high reported in offshore pelagic waters Washington, Depoe Bay and Cape latitudes and winter calving and (Green et al., 1992; Calambokidis et al., Blanco and Orford Reef in Oregon, and breeding grounds in tropical waters 2004, 2015; Becker et al., 2012; Barlow Point St. George in California; most of (Clapham and Mead 1999). North 2016). Six humpback whale sightings (8 these areas are of importance from late Pacific humpback whales summer in animals) were made off Washington/ spring through early fall (Calambokidis feeding grounds along the Pacific Rim Oregon during the June–July 2012 L– et al., 2015). BIAs have also been and in the Bering and Okhotsk seas DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey. identified for migrating gray whales (Pike and MacAskie 1969; Rice 1978; There were 98 humpback whale along the entire coasts of Washington, Winn and Reichley 1985; Calambokidis sightings (213 animals) made during the Oregon, and California; although most et al. 2000, 2001, 2008). Humpback in July 2012 L–DEO seismic survey off whales travel within 10 km from shore, the north Pacific winter in four different southern Washington (RPS 2012a), and the BIAs were extended out to 47 km breeding areas: (1) Along the coast of 11 sightings (23 animals) during the July from the coastline (Calambokidis et al., Mexico; (2) along the coast of Central 2012 L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon 2015). The proposed surveys would America; (3) around the main Hawaiian (RPS 2012c). occur during the late spring/summer Islands; and (4) in the western Pacific, Humpback whales are common in the feeding season, when most individuals particularly around the Ogasawara and waters of British Columbia, where they from the eastern North Pacific stock Ryukyu islands in southern Japan and occur in inshore, outer coastal, and occur farther north. Nonetheless, the northern Philippines (Calambokidis continental shelf waters, as well as individual gray whales, particularly et al. 2008; Bettridge et al. 2015). offshore (Ford 2014). Williams and those from the PCFG could be Prior to 2016, humpback whales were Thomas (2007) estimated an abundance encountered in nearshore waters of the listed under the ESA as an endangered of 1,310 humpback whales in inshore proposed project area. species worldwide. Following a 2015 coastal waters of British Columbia based On May 30, 2019, NMFS declared an global status review (Bettridge et al., on surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005. unusual mortality event (UME) for gray 2015), NMFS established 14 distinct Best et al. (2015) provided an estimate whales after elevated numbers of population segments (DPS) with of 1,029 humpbacks in British Columbia strandings occurred along the U.S. west different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; based on surveys during 2004–2008. In coast. As of February 8, 2020, a total of September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. British Columbia, humpbacks are 236 stranded gray whales have been The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do typically seen within 20 km from the reported, including 124 in the United not necessarily equate to the existing coast, in water less than 500 m deep States (48 in Alaska, 35 in Washington, stocks designated under the MMPA and (Ford et al., 2010a). The greatest 6 in Oregon, and 35 in California), 101 shown in Table 1. Because MMPA numbers of humpbacks are seen in in Mexico, and 11 in Canada. Full or stocks cannot be portioned, i.e., parts British Columbia between April and partial necropsy examinations were managed as ESA-listed while other parts November, although humpbacks are conducted on a subset of the whales. managed as not ESA-listed, until such known to occur there throughout the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19587

year (Ford et al., 2010a; Ford 2014). autumn (Stewart and Leatherwood bathymetric relief such as seamounts Humpback whales in British Columbia 1985). In the North Pacific, the summer and canyons (Kenney and Winn 1987; are thought to belong to at least two range of the minke whale extends to the Gregr and Trites 2001). On feeding distinct feeding stocks; those identified Chukchi Sea; in the winter, the whales grounds, sei whales associate with off southern British Columbia show move farther south to within 2° of the oceanic frontal systems (Horwood 1987) little interchange with those seen off Equator (Perrin and Brownell 2009). such as the cold eastern currents in the northern British Columbia The International Whaling North Pacific (Perry et al. 1999a). Sei (Calambokidis et al., 2001, 2008). Commission (IWC) recognizes three whales migrate from temperate zones Humpback whales identified in stocks of minke whales in the North occupied in winter to higher latitudes in southern British Columbia show a low Pacific: The Sea of Japan/East China the summer, where most feeding takes Sea, the rest of the western Pacific west level of interchange with those seen off place (Gambell 1985a). During summer of 180° N, and the remainder of the California/Oregon/Washington in the North Pacific, the sei whale can (Calambokidis et al., 2001). Pacific (Donovan 1991). Minke whales BIAs for feeding humpbacks along the are relatively common in the Bering and be found from the Bering Sea to the Gulf coasts of Oregon and Washington, Chukchi seas and in the Gulf of Alaska, of Alaska and down to southern which have been described from May to but are not considered abundant in any California, as well as in the western November, are all within approximately other part of the eastern Pacific Pacific from Japan to Korea. Its winter ∼ ° 80 km from shore, and include the (Brueggeman et al. 1990). In the far distribution is concentrated at 20 N waters off northern Washington, and north, minke whales are thought to be (Rice 1998). Stonewall and Heceta Bank, Oregon migratory, but they are believed to be Sei whales are rare in the waters off (Calambokidis et al., 2015). On October year-round residents in coastal waters California, Oregon, and Washington 9, 2019, NMFS issued a proposed rule off the west coast of the United States (Brueggeman et al., 1990; Green et al., to designate critical habitat in nearshore (Dorsey et al. 1990). 1992; Barlow 1994, 1997). Less than 20 waters of the North Pacific Ocean for the Sightings of minke whales have been confirmed sightings were reported in endangered Central America DPS and reported off Oregon and Washington in that region during extensive surveys the threatened Mexico DPS of shelf and deeper waters (Green et al., between 1991 and 2014 (Green et al., humpback whale (NMFS 2019b). 1992; Adams et al., 2014; Barlow 2016; 1992, 1993; Hill and Barlow 1992; Caretta et al., 2019a). There were no Critical habitat for the Central America Caretta and Forney 1993; Mangels and sightings of minke whales off DPS and Mexico DPS was proposed Gerrodette 1994; Von Saunder and within the California Current Ecosystem Washington/Oregon during the June– Barlow 1999; Barlow 2003, 2010, 2014; (CCE) off the coasts California, Oregon, July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca plate Forney 2007; Carretta et al., 2019a). Two and Washington, representing areas of seismic survey or during the July 2012 key foraging habitat. Off Washington L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon (RPS sightings of four individuals were made and northern Oregon, the critical habitat 2012b,c). One minke whale was seen during the June–July 2012 L–DEO Juan would extend from the 50-m isobath out during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic de Fuca plate seismic survey off to the 1200-m isobath; off southern survey off southern Washington (RPS Washington/Oregon (RPS 2012b). No sei Oregon (south of 42°10′ N), it would 2012a). Minke whales are sighted whales were sighted during the July extend out to the 2000-m isobath (NMFS regularly in nearshore waters of British 2012 L–DEO seismic surveys off Oregon 2019b). Columbia, but they are not considered and Washington (RPS 2012a,c). Critical habitat for humpbacks has abundant (COSEWIC 2006). They are The patterns of seasonal abundance been designated in four locations in most frequently sighted around the Gulf found in whaling records suggested that British Columbia (DFO 2013), including Islands and off northeastern Vancouver the whales were caught as they migrated in the waters of the proposed survey Island (Ford 2014). They are also to summer feeding grounds, with the area off southwestern Vancouver Island. regularly seen off the east coast of peak of the migration in July and The other three locations are located Moresby Island, and in Dixon Entrance, offshore movement in summer, from north of the proposed survey area at Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, ∼25 km to ∼100 km from shore (Gregr et Haida Gwaii (Langara Island and and the west coast of Vancouver Island al., 2000). Historical whaling data show Southeast Moresby Island) and at Gil were they occur in shallow and deeper that sei whales used to be distributed Island (DFO 2013). These areas show water (Ford et al., 2010a; Ford 2014). along the continental slope of British persistent aggregations of humpback Williams and Thomas (2007) estimated Columbia and over a large area off the whales and have features such as prey minke whale abundance for inshore northwest coast of Vancouver Island availability, suitable acoustic coastal waters of British Columbia at (Gregr and Trites 2001). Sei whales are environment, water quality, and 388 individuals based on surveys now considered rare in Pacific waters of physical space that allow for feeding, conducted in 2004 and 2005 while Best the United States and Canada; in British foraging, socializing, and resting (DFO et al. (2015) provided an estimate of 522 Columbia there were no sightings in the 2013). Two of the proposed transect minke whales based on surveys during late 1900s after whaling ceased (Gregr et lines intersect the critical habitat on 2004–2008. Swiftsure and La Pe´rouse Banks. al., 2006). Ford (2014) only reported two Sei Whale sightings for British Columbia, both of Minke Whale The distribution of the sei whale is those far offshore from Haida Gwaii. The minke whale has a cosmopolitan not well known, but it is found in all Possible sei whale vocalizations were distribution that spans from tropical to oceans and appears to prefer mid- detected off the west coast of Vancouver polar regions in both hemispheres latitude temperate waters (Jefferson et Island during spring and summer 2006 (Jefferson et al. 2015). In the Northern al. 2015). The sei whale is pelagic and and 2007 (Ford et al., 2010b). Gregr and Hemisphere, the minke whale is usually generally not found in coastal waters Trites (2001) proposed that the area off seen in coastal areas, but can also be (Jefferson et al. 2015). It is found in northwestern Vancouver Island and the seen in pelagic waters during its deeper waters characteristic of the continental slope may be critical habitat northward migration in spring and continental shelf edge region (Hain et al. for sei whales because of favorable summer and southward migration in 1985) and in other regions of steep feeding conditions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19588 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

Fin Whale common cetacean sighted during DFO (Becker et al., 2012; Calambokidis et al., The fin whale is widely distributed in surveys in 2002–2008 (Ford et al., 2015). all the world’s oceans (Gambell 1985b), 2010a). They appear to be more Sightings of blue whales in offshore waters of British Columbia are rare but typically occurs in temperate and common in northern British Columbia, (Ford 2014; DFO 2017) and there is no polar regions from 20–70° north and but sightings have been made along the abundance estimate for British south of the Equator (Perry et al. 1999b). shelf edge and in deep waters off Columbia waters (Nichol and Ford Northern and southern fin whale western Vancouver Island (Ford et al., 2012). During surveys of British populations are distinct and are 1994, 2010a; Calambokidis et al., 2003; Columbia from 2002–2013, 16 sightings recognized as different subspecies Ford 2014). Acoustic detections have of blue whales were made, all of which (Aguilar 2009). Fin whales occur in been made throughout the year in pelagic waters west of Vancouver Island occurred just to the south or west of coastal, shelf, and oceanic waters. (Edwards et al., 2015). Gregr and Trites Haida Gwaii during June, July, and Sergeant (1977) suggested that fin (2001) proposed that the area off August (Ford 2014). There have also whales tend to follow steep slope northwestern Vancouver Island and the been sightings off Vancouver Island contours, either because they detect continental slope may be critical habitat during summer and fall (Calambokidis them readily or because biological for fin whales because of favorable et al., 2004b; Ford 2014), with the most productivity is high along steep feeding conditions. recent one reported off southwestern contours because of tidal mixing and Haida Gwaii in July 2019 (CBC 2019). perhaps current mixing. Stafford et al. Blue Whale (2009) noted that sea-surface The blue whale has a cosmopolitan Sperm Whale temperature is a good predictor variable distribution and tends to be pelagic, The sperm whale is the largest of the for fin whale call detections in the only coming nearshore to feed and toothed whales, with an extensive North Pacific. possibly to breed (Jefferson et al. 2015). worldwide distribution (Rice 1989). Fin whales appear to have complex Although it has been suggested that Sperm whale distribution is linked to seasonal movements and are seasonal there are at least five subpopulations of social structure: Mixed groups of adult migrants; they mate and calve in blue whales in the North Pacific (NMFS females and juvenile animals of both temperate waters during the winter and 1998), analysis of blue whale calls sexes generally occur in tropical and migrate to feed at northern latitudes monitored from the U.S. Navy Sound subtropical waters, whereas adult males during the summer (Gambell 1985b). Surveillance System (SOSUS) and other are commonly found alone or in same- The North Pacific population summers offshore hydrophones (see Stafford et sex aggregations, often occurring in from the Chukchi Sea to California and al., 1999, 2001, 2007; Watkins et al., higher latitudes outside the breeding winters from California southwards 2000a; Stafford 2003) suggests that there season (Best 1979; Watkins and Moore (Gambell 1985b). Aggregations of fin are two separate populations: One in the 1982; Arnbom and Whitehead 1989; whales are found year-round off eastern and one in the western North Whitehead and Waters 1990). Males can southern and central California (Dohl et Pacific (Sears and Perrin 2009). Broad- migrate north in the summer to feed in al. 1980, 1983; Forney et al. 1995; scale acoustic monitoring indicates that the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Barlow 1997) and in the summer off blue whales occurring in the northeast waters around the Aleutian Islands Oregon (Green et al. 1992; Edwards et Pacific during summer and fall may (Kasuya and Miyashita 1988). Mature al. 2015). Vocalizations from fin whales winter in the eastern tropical Pacific male sperm whales migrate to warmer have also been detected year-round off (Stafford et al., 1999, 2001). waters to breed when they are in their northern California, Oregon, and The distribution of the species, at late twenties (Best 1979). Washington (Moore et al. 1998, 2006; least during times of the year when Sperm whales generally are Watkins et al. 2000a,b; Stafford et al. feeding is a major activity, occurs in distributed over large areas that have 2007, 2009; Edwards et al. 2015). areas that provide large seasonal high secondary productivity and steep Eight fin whale sightings (19 animals) concentrations of euphausiids (Yochem underwater topography, in waters at were made off Washington/Oregon and Leatherwood 1985). The eastern least 1000 m deep (Jaquet and during the June–July 2012 L–DEO Juan North Pacific stock feeds in California Whitehead 1996; Whitehead 2009). de Fuca plate seismic survey; sightings waters from June–November They are often found far from shore, but were made in waters 2,369–3,940 m (Calambokidis et al., 1990; Mate et al., can be found closer to oceanic islands deep (RPS 2012b). Fourteen fin whale 1999). There are nine BIAs for feeding that rise steeply from deep ocean waters sightings (28 animals) were made during blue whales off the coast of California (Whitehead 2009). Adult males can the July 2012 L–DEO seismic surveys off (Calambokidis et al., 2015), and core occur in water depths <100 m and as southern Washington (RPS 2012a). No areas have also been identified there shallow as 40 m (Whitehead et al., 1992; fin whales were sighted during the July (Irvine et al., 2014). Scott and Sadove 1997). They can dive 2012 L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon Blue whales are considered rare off as deep as ∼2 km and possibly deeper (RPS 2012c). Fin whales were also seen Oregon, Washington, and British on rare occasions for periods of over 1 off southern Oregon during July 2012 in Columbia (Buchanan et al., 2001; Gregr h; however, most of their foraging water >2000 m deep during surveys by et al., 2006; Ford 2014), although occurs at depths of ∼300–800 m for 30– Adams et al. (2014). satellite-tracked individuals have been 45 min (Whitehead 2003). Whaling records indicate fin whale reported off the coast (Bailey et al., Sperm whales are distributed widely occurrence off the west coast of British 2009). Based on modeling of the across the North Pacific (Rice 1989). Off Columbia increased gradually from dynamic topography of the region, blue California, they occur year-round (Dohl March to a peak in July, then decreased whales could occur in relatively high et al., 1983; Barlow 1995; Forney et al., rapidly in September and October densities off Oregon during summer and 1995), with peak abundance from April (Gregr et al., 2000). Fin whales occur fall (Pardo et al., 2015: Hazen et al., to mid-June and from August to mid- throughout British Columbia waters 2017). Densities along the U.S. west November (Rice 1974). Off Oregon, near and past the continental shelf coast, including Oregon, were predicted sperm whales are seen in every season break, as well as in inshore waters (Ford to be highest in shelf waters, with lower except winter (Green et al., 1992). 2014). Fin whales were the second most densities in deeper offshore areas Sperm whales were sighted during

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19589

surveys off Oregon in October 2011 and 2009). They are difficult to sight at sea, strandings and strands more commonly off Washington in June 2011 (Adams et perhaps because of their avoidance than any other beaked whale (Heyning al., 2014). Sperm whale sightings were reactions to ships and behavior changes 1989). Its inconspicuous blows, deep- also made off Oregon and Washington in relation to survey aircraft (Wu¨ rsig et diving behavior, and tendency to avoid during the 2014 SWFSC vessel survey al. 1998). The two species are difficult vessels all help to explain the infrequent (Barlow 2016). A single sperm whale to distinguish from one another when sightings (Barlow and Gisiner 2006). was sighted during a 2009 survey to the sighted (McAlpine 2009). The population in the California Current west of the proposed survey area (Holst Both Kogia species are sighted Large Marine Ecosystem seems to be 2017). primarily along the continental shelf declining (Moore and Barlow 2013). Oleson et al. (2009) noted a significant edge and slope and over deeper waters MacLeod et al. (2006) reported diel pattern in the occurrence of sperm off the shelf (Hansen et al. 1994; Davis numerous sightings and strandings whale clicks at offshore and inshore et al. 1998). Several studies have along the Pacific coast of the U.S. monitoring locations off Washington, suggested that pygmy sperm whales live Cuvier’s beaked whale is the most whereby clicks were more commonly mostly beyond the continental shelf common beaked whale off the U.S. West heard during the day at the offshore site edge, whereas dwarf sperm whales tend Coast (Barlow 2010), and it is the and were more common at night at the to occur closer to shore, often over the beaked whale species that has stranded inshore location, suggesting possible continental shelf (Rice 1998; Wang et al. most frequently on the coasts of Oregon diel movements up and down the slope 2002; MacLeod et al. 2004). Barros et al. and Washington. From 1942–2010, there in search of prey. Sperm whale acoustic (1998), on the other hand, suggested that were 23 reported Cuvier’s beaked whale detections were also reported at the dwarf sperm whales could be more strandings in Oregon and Washington inshore site from June through January pelagic and dive deeper than pygmy (Moore and Barlow 2013). Most (75 2009, with an absence of calls during sperm whales. It has also been suggested percent) Cuvier’s beaked whale February to May (Sˆ irovic´ et al., 2012). In that the pygmy sperm whale is more strandings reported occurred in Oregon addition, sperm whales were sighted temperate and the dwarf sperm whale (Norman et al. 2004). Records of during surveys off Washington in June more tropical, based at least partially on Cuvier’s beaked whale in British 2011 and off Oregon in October 2011 live sightings at sea from a large Columbia are scarce, although 20 (Adams et al. 2014). database from the eastern tropical strandings, one incidental catch, and Whaling records report large numbers Pacific (Wade and Gerrodette 1993). five sightings have been reported, of sperm whales taken in April, with a This idea is also supported by the including off western Vancouver Island peak in May. Analysis of data on catch distribution of strandings in South (Ford 2014). Most strandings have been locations, sex of the catch, and fetus American waters (Mun˜ oz-Hincapie´ et al. reported in summer (Ford 2014). lengths indicated that males and 1998). females were both 50–80 km from shore Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are Baird’s Beaked Whale while mating in April and May, and that rarely sighted off Oregon and Baird’s beaked whale has a fairly by July and August, adult females had Washington, with only one sighting of extensive range across the North Pacific, moved to waters >100 km offshore to an unidentified Kogia spp. beyond the with concentrations occurring in the Sea calve), and adult males had moved to U.S. EEZ, during the 1991–2014 NOAA of Okhotsk and Bering Sea (Rice 1998; within ∼25 km of shore (Gregr et al., vessel surveys (Carretta et al., 2019a). Kasuya 2009). In the eastern Pacific, 2000). At least in the whaling era, Norman et al. (2004) reported eight Baird’s beaked whale is reported to females did not travel north of confirmed stranding records of pygmy occur as far south as San Clemente Vancouver Island whereas males were sperm whales for Oregon and Island, California (Rice 1998; Kasuya observed in deep water off Haida Gwaii Washington, five of which occurred 2009). Two forms of Baird’s beaked (Gregr et al., 2000). After the whaling during autumn and winter. There are whales have been recognized, the era, sperm whales have been sighted several unconfirmed sighting reports of common slate-gray form and a smaller, and detected acoustically in British the pygmy sperm whale from the rare black form (Morin et al., 2017). The Columbia waters throughout the year, Canadian west coast (Baird et al., 1996). gray form is seen off Japan, in the with a peak during summer (Ford 2014). There is a stranding record of a pygmy Aleutians, and on the west coast of Acoustic detections at La Pe´rouse Bank sperm whale for northeastern North America, whereas the black form off southwestern Vancouver Island have Vancouver Island (Ford 2014), and there has been reported for northern Japan been recorded during spring and is a single dwarf sperm whale stranding and the Aleutians (Morin et al., 2017). summer (Ford et al., 2010b). Sightings record for southwestern Vancouver Recent genetic studies suggest that the west of Vancouver Island and Haida Island in September 1981 (Ford 2014). black form could be a separate species Gwaii indicate that this species still Willis and Baird (1998) state that the (Morin et al., 2017). Baird’s beaked occurs in British Columbia in small dwarf sperm whale is likely found in whales are currently divided into three numbers (Ford et al., 1994; Ford 2014). British Columbia waters more distinct stocks: Sea of Japan, Okhotsk Based on whaling data, Gregr and Trites frequently than recognized, but Ford Sea, and Bering Sea/eastern North (2001) proposed that the area off (2014) suggested that the presence of Pacific (Balcomb 1989; Reyes 1991). northwestern Vancouver Island and the Kogia spp. in British Columbia waters is Baird’s beaked whales are occasionally continental slope may be critical habitat extralimital. seen close to shore, but their primary for male sperm whales because of habitat is in waters 1,000–3,000 m deep Cuvier’s Beaked Whale favorable feeding conditions. (Jefferson et al., 2015). Cuvier’s beaked whale is probably the Along the U.S. west coast, Baird’s Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales most widespread of the beaked whales, beaked whales have been sighted The pygmy and dwarf sperm whales although it is not found in polar waters primarily along the continental slope are distributed widely throughout (Heyning 1989). Cuvier’s beaked whale (Green et al., 1992; Becker et al., 2012; tropical and temperate seas, but their appears to prefer steep continental slope Caretta et al., 2019a) from late spring to precise distributions are unknown as waters (Jefferson et al. 2015) and is most early fall (Green et al., 1992). In the most information on these species common in water depths >1000 m eastern North Pacific, Baird’s beaked comes from strandings (McAlpine (Heyning 1989). It is mostly known from whales apparently spend the winter and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19590 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

spring far offshore, and in June move recorded in Quinault Canyon off dolphins exhibit a range of movement onto the continental slop, where peak Washington in waters 1,400 m deep patterns including seasonal migration, numbers occur during September and during 2011 (Baumann-Pickering et al., year-round residency, and a October. Green et al. (1992) noted that 2014). combination of long-range movements Baird’s beaked whales on the U.S. west and repeated local residency (Wells and Hubbs’ Beaked Whale coast were most abundant in the Scott 2009). summer, and were not sighted in the fall Hubbs’ beaked whale occurs in Bottlenose dolphins occur frequently or winter. temperate waters of the North Pacific off the coast of California, and sightings Green et al. (1992) sighted five groups (Mead 1989). Its distribution appears to have been made as far north as 41° N, during 75,050 km of aerial survey effort be correlated with the deep subarctic but few records exist for Oregon and in 1989–1990 off Washington/Oregon current (Mead et al. 1982). Numerous Washington (Caretta et al., 2019a). spanning coastal to offshore waters: two stranding records have been reported for Three sightings and one stranding of in slope waters and three in offshore the U.S. West Coast (MacLeod et al. bottlenose dolphins have been waters. Two groups were sighted during 2006). Most of the records are from documented in Puget Sound since 2004 summer/fall 2008 surveys off California, but it has been sighted as far (Cascadia Research 2011 in Navy 2015). Washington/Oregon, in waters >2000 m north as Prince Rupert, British During surveys off the U.S. West Coast, deep (Barlow 2010). Acoustic Columbia (Mead 1989). Two strandings offshore bottlenose dolphins were monitoring offshore Washington are known from Washington/Oregon generally found at distances greater than detected Baird’s beaked whale pulses (Norman et al. 2004). There have been 1.86 miles (3 km) from the coast and during January through November 2011, no confirmed live sightings of Hubb’s were most abundant off southern with peaks in February and July (Sˆ irovic´ beaked whales in British Columbia. California (Barlow, 2010, 2016). Based et al. 2012b in USN 2015). Baird’s Stejneger’s Beaked Whale on sighting data collected by SWFSC beaked whales were detected during systematic surveys in the acoustically near the planned survey Stejneger’s beaked whale occurs in Northeast Pacific between 1986 and area in August 2016 during a SWFSC subarctic and cool temperate waters of 2005, there were few sightings of study using drifting acoustic recorders the North Pacific Ocean (Mead 1989). In offshore bottlenose dolphins north of (Keating et al. 2018). the eastern North Pacific Ocean, it is about 40° N (Hamilton et al., 2009). There are whaler’s reports of Baird’s distributed from Alaska to southern Bottlenose dolphins occur frequently off beaked whales off the west coast of California (Mead et al. 1982; Mead the coast of California, and sightings Vancouver Island throughout the 1989). Most stranding records are from have been made as far north as 41° N, whaling season (May–September), Alaskan waters, and the Aleutian but few records exist for Oregon/ especially in July and August (Reeves Islands appear to be its center of Washington (Carretta et al. 2017). It is and Mitchell 1993). Twenty-four distribution (MacLeod et al. 2006). After possible that bottlenose dolphins from sightings have been made in British Cuvier’s beaked whale, Stejneger’s the California/Oregon/Washington Columbia since the whaling era, beaked whale was the second most Offshore stock may range as far north as including off the west coast of commonly stranded beaked whale the proposed survey area during warm- Vancouver Island (Ford 2014). Three species in Oregon and Washington water periods (Caretta et al., 2019a). strandings have also been reported, (Norman et al. 2004). Stejneger’s beaked Adams et al. (2014) recorded one including one on northeastern Haida whale calls were detected during sighting off Washington in September Gwaii and two on the west coast of acoustic monitoring off of Washington 2012. There are no confirmed records of Vancouver Island. between January and June 2011, with an bottlenose dolphins in British absence of calls from mid-July through Blainville’s Beaked Whale Columbia, though an unconfirmed November 2011 (Sˆ irovic´ et al., 2012b in record exists for offshore waters (Baird Blainville’s beaked whale is found in Navy 2015). Analysis of these data et al., 1993). tropical and warm temperate waters of suggest that this species could be more all oceans (Pitman 2009). It has the than twice as prevalent in this area as Striped Dolphin widest distribution throughout the Baird’s beaked whale (Baumann- The striped dolphin has a world of all mesoplodont species and Pickering et al., 2014). At least five cosmopolitan distribution in tropical to appears to be relatively common stranding records exist for British warm temperate waters (Perrin et al. (Pitman 2009). Like other beaked Columbia (Houston 1990b; Willis and 1994) and is generally seen south of 43° whales, Blainville’s beaked whale is Baird 1998; Ford 2014), including two N (Archer 2009). However, in the generally found in waters 200–1400 m strandings on the west coast of Haida eastern North Pacific, its distribution deep (Gannier 2000; Jefferson et al. Gwaii and two strandings on the west extends as far north as Washington 2015). Blainville’s beaked whale coast of Vancouver Island (Ford 2014). (Jefferson et al., 2015). The striped occurrences in cooler, higher-latitude A possible sighting has been reported on dolphin is typically found in waters waters are presumably related to warm- the east coast of Vancouver Island (Ford outside the continental shelf and is water incursions (Reeves et al. 2002). 2014). often associated with convergence zones MacLeod et al. (2006) reported and areas of (Archer 2009). stranding and sighting records in the Bottlenose Dolphin However, it has also been observed eastern Pacific ranging from 37.3° N to The bottlenose dolphin is distributed approaching shore where there is deep 41.5° S. However, none of the 36 beaked worldwide in coastal and shelf waters of water close to the coast (Jefferson et al. whale stranding records in Oregon and tropical and temperate oceans (Jefferson 2015). Washington during 1930–2002 included et al. 2015). There are two distinct Striped dolphins regularly occur off Blainville’s beaked whale (Norman et al. bottlenose dolphin types: a shallow California (Becker et al., 2012), 2004). One Blainville’s beaked whale water type, mainly found in coastal including as far offshore as ∼300 nmi was found stranded (dead) on the waters, and a deep water type, mainly (Caretta et al., 2019a). Striped dolphin Washington coast in November 2016 found in oceanic waters (Duffield et al. encounters increase in deep, relatively (COASST 2016). There was one acoustic 1983; Hoelzel et al. 1998; Walker et al. warmer waters off the U.S. West Coast, detection of Blainville’s beaked whales 1999). Coastal common bottlenose and their abundance decreases north of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19591

about 42°N (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker narrow distribution between 38° N and Pacific white-sided dolphins are et al., 2012b; Becker et al., 2016; Forney 47° N (Brownell et al., 1999). In the common throughout the waters of et al., 2012). However, few sightings eastern North Pacific Ocean, including British Columbia, including Dixon have been made off Oregon, and no waters off Oregon, the Pacific white- Entrance, Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte sightings have been reported for sided dolphin is one of the most Sound, the west coast of Haida Gwaii, Washington (Caretta et al., 2019a) but common cetacean species, occurring as well as western Vancouver Island, strandings have occurred along the primarily in shelf and slope waters and the mainland coast (Ford 2014). coasts of both Washington and Oregon (Green et al., 1993; Barlow 2003, 2010). Stacey and Baird (1991a) compiled 156 (Caretta et al., 2016). Striped dolphins It is known to occur close to shore in published and unpublished records to are rare and considered extralimital in certain regions, including (seasonally) 1988 of the Pacific white-sided dolphin British Columbia (Ford 2014). There are southern California (Brownell et al., within the Canadian 320-km extended a total of 14 confirmed records of 1999). EEZ. These dolphins move inshore and stranded individuals or remains for Results of aerial and shipboard offshore seasonally (Stacey and Baird Vancouver Island (Ford 2014). A single surveys strongly suggest seasonal north– 1991a). There were inshore records for confirmed sighting was made in south movements of the species all months except July, and offshore September 2019 in the Strait of Juan de between California and Oregon/ records from all months except Fuca (Pacific Whale Watch Association Washington; the movements apparently December. Offshore sightings were 2019). are related to oceanographic influences, much more common than inshore particularly water temperature (Green et sightings, especially in June–October; Common Dolphin ∼ al., 1993; Forney and Barlow 1998; the mean water depth was 1,100 m. The common dolphin is found in Buchanan et al., 2001). During winter, Ford et al. (2011b) reported that most tropical and warm temperate oceans this species is most abundant in sightings occur in water depths <500 m around the world (Perrin 2009). It California slope and offshore areas; as and within 20 km from shore. ranges as far south as 40° S in the northern waters begin to warm in the Pacific Ocean, is common in coastal Northern spring, it appears to move north to slope waters 200–300 m deep and is also The northern right whale dolphin is and offshore waters off Oregon/ associated with prominent underwater found in cool temperate and sub-arctic Washington (Green et al., 1992, 1993; topography, such as seamounts (Evans waters of the North Pacific, from the Forney 1994; Forney et al., 1995; 1994). Common dolphins have been Gulf of Alaska to near northern Baja Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow 2003). sighted as far as 550 km from shore California, ranging from 30° N to 50° N The highest encounter rates off Oregon (Barlow et al. 1997). (Reeves et al., 2002). In the eastern The distribution of common dolphins and Washington have been reported North Pacific Ocean, including waters along the U.S. West Coast is variable during March–May in slope and off Oregon, the northern right whale and likely related to oceanographic offshore waters (Green et al., 1992). dolphin is one of the most common changes (Heyning and Perrin 1994; Similarly, Becker et al. (2014) predicted marine mammal species, occurring Forney and Barlow 1998). It is the most relatively high densities off southern primarily in shelf and slope waters ∼100 abundant cetacean off California; some Oregon in shelf and slope waters. to >2000 m deep (Green et al., 1993; sightings have been made off Oregon, in Based on year-round aerial surveys off Barlow 2003). The northern right whale offshore waters (Carretta et al., 2017). Oregon/Washington, the Pacific white- dolphin comes closer to shore where During surveys off the west coast in sided dolphin was the most abundant there is deep water, such as over 2014 and 2017, sightings were made as cetacean species, with nearly all (97 submarine canyons (Reeves et al., 2002). far north as 44° N (Barlow 2016; SIO percent) sightings occurring in May Aerial and shipboard surveys suggest n.d.). However, their abundance (Green et al., 1992, 1993). Barlow (2003) seasonal inshore-offshore and decreases dramatically north of about also found that the Pacific white-sided north-south movements in the eastern 40° N (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., dolphin was one of the most abundant North Pacific Ocean between California 2012c; Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., marine mammal species off Oregon/ and Oregon/Washington; the 2012). Based on the absolute dynamic Washington during 1996 and 2001 ship movements are believed to be related to topography of the region, common surveys, and it was the second most oceanographic influences, particularly dolphins could occur in relatively high abundant species reported during 2008 water temperature and presumably prey densities off Oregon during July– surveys (Barlow 2010). Adams et al. distribution and availability (Green et December (Pardo et al., 2015). In (2014) reported numerous offshore al., 1993; Forney and Barlow 1998; contrast, habitat modeling predicted sightings off Oregon during summer, Buchanan et al., 2001). Green et al. moderate densities of common dolphins fall, and winter surveys in 2011 and (1992, 1993) found that northern right off the Columbia River mouth during 2012. whale dolphins were most abundant off summer, with lower densities off Fifteen Pacific white-sided dolphin Oregon/Washington during fall, less southern Oregon (Becker et al. 2014). sightings (231 animals) were made off abundant during spring and summer, There are three stranding records of Washington/Oregon during the June– and absent during winter, when this common dolphins in British Columbia, July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca plate species presumably moves south to including one from northwestern seismic survey (RPS 2012b). There were warmer California waters (Green et al., Vancouver Island, one from the Strait of fifteen Pacific white-sided dolphin 1992, 1993; Forney 1994; Forney et al., Juan de Fuca, and one from Hecate sightings (462 animals) made during the 1995; Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow Strait (Ford 2014). July 2012 L–DEO seismic surveys off 2003). southern Washington (RPS 2012a). This Survey data suggest that, at least in Pacific White-Sided Dolphin species was not sighted during the July the eastern North Pacific, seasonal The Pacific white-sided dolphin is 2012 L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon inshore-offshore and north-south found in cool temperate waters of the (RPS 2012c). One group of 10 Pacific movements are related to prey North Pacific from the southern Gulf of white-sided dolphins was sighted availability, with peak abundance in the California to Alaska. Across the North during the 2009 ETOMO survey (Holst Southern California Bight during winter Pacific, it appears to have a relatively 2017). and distribution shifting northward into

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19592 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

Oregon and Washington as water et al. (1992, 1993) reported most Risso’s sighting was made off southern temperatures increase during late spring dolphin groups off Oregon between ∼45 California during 2014 (Barlow 2016). and summer (Barlow, 1995; Becker et and 47ß N. Several sightings were made Stacey and Baird (1991b) suggested al., 2014; Forney et al., 1995; Forney & off southern Oregon during surveys in that false killer whales are at the limit Barlow, 1998; Leatherwood & Walker, 1991–2014 (Carretta et al., 2017). of their distribution in Canada and have 1979). Seven northern right whale Sightings during ship surveys in always been rare. Sightings have been dolphin sightings (231 animals) were summer/fall 2008 were mostly between made along the northern and central made off Washington/Oregon during the ∼30 and 38° N; none were reported in mainland coast of British Columbia, as June–July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca Oregon/Washington (Barlow 2010).Two well as in Queen Charlotte Strait, Strait plate seismic survey (RPS 2012b). There sightings of 38 individuals were of Georgia, and along the west coast of were eight northern right whale dolphin recorded off Washington from August Vancouver Island (Ford 2014). sightings (278 animals) made during the 2004 to September 2008 (Oleson et al. Killer Whale July 2012 L–DEO seismic surveys off 2009). Risso’s dolphins were sighted off southern Washington (RPS 2012a). This Oregon, in June and October 2011 The killer whale is cosmopolitan and species was not sighted during the July (Adams et al. 2014). There were three globally fairly abundant; it has been 2012 L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon Risso’s dolphin sightings (31 animals) observed in all oceans of the world (RPS 2012c). made during the July 2012 L–DEO (Ford 2009). It is very common in There are 47 records of northern right seismic surveys off southern temperate waters and also frequents whale dolphins from British Columbia, Washington (RPS 2012a). This species tropical waters, at least seasonally mostly in deep water off the west coast was not sighted during the July 2012 L– (Heyning and Dahlheim 1988). There of Vancouver Island; however, sightings DEO seismic survey off Oregon (RPS are three distinct ecotypes, or forms, of killer whales recognized in the north have also been reported in deep water 2012c), or off Washington/Oregon Pacific: Resident, transient, and off Haida Gwaii (Ford 2014). Most during the June–July 2012 L–DEO Juan offshore. The three ecotypes differ sightings have occurred in water depths de Fuca plate seismic survey (RPS morphologically, ecologically, over 900 m (Baird and Stacey 1991a). 2012b). One group of six northern right whale behaviorally, and genetically. Resident Risso’s dolphin was once considered killer whales exclusively prey upon dolphins was seen west of Vancouver rare in British Columbia, but there have Island in water deeper than 2,500 m fish, with a clear preference for salmon been numerous sightings since the (Ford and Ellis 2006; Hanson et al., during a survey from Oregon to Alaska 1970s (Ford 2014). Most sightings have (Hauser and Holt 2009). 2010; Ford et al., 2016), while transient been made in Gwaii Haanas National killer whales exclusively prey upon Risso’s Dolphin Park Reserve, Haida Gwaii, but there marine mammals (Caretta et al., 2019). Risso’s dolphin is distributed have also been sightings in Dixon Less is known about offshore killer worldwide in temperate and tropical Entrance, off the west coast of Haida whales, but they are believed to oceans (Baird 2009), although it shows Gwaii, Queen Charlotte Sound, and to consume primarily fish, including a preference for mid-temperate waters of the west of Vancouver Island (Ford several species of shark (Dahlheim et the shelf and slope between 30° and 45° 2014). al., 2008). N (Jefferson et al., 2014). Although it Currently, there are eight killer whale occurs from coastal to deep water stocks recognized in the U.S. Pacific: (1) (∼200–1000 m depth), it shows a strong The false killer whale is found in all Alaska Residents, occurring from preference for mid-temperate waters of tropical and warmer temperate oceans, southeast Alaska to the Aleutians and upper continental slopes and steep especially in deep, offshore waters Bering Sea; (2) Northern Residents, from shelf-edge areas (Hartman 2018). (Odell and McClune 1999). It is widely BC through parts of southeast Alaska; Off the U.S. West Coast, Risso’s distributed, but not abundant anywhere (3) Southern Residents, mainly in dolphin is believed to make seasonal (Carwardine 1995). The false killer inland waters of Washington State and north-south movements related to water whale generally inhabits deep, offshore southern BC; (4) Gulf of Alaska, temperature, spending colder winter waters, but sometimes is found over the Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea months off California and moving north continental shelf and occasionally Transients, from Prince William Sound to waters off Oregon/Washington during moves into very shallow (Jefferson et al., (PWS) through to the Aleutians and the spring and summer as northern 2015; Baird 2018b). It is gregarious and Bering Sea; (5) AT1 Transients, from waters begin to warm (Green et al., forms strong social bonds, as is evident PWS through the Kenai Fjords; (6) West 1992, 1993; Buchanan et al., 2001; from its propensity to strand en masse Coast Transients, from California Barlow 2003; Becker 2007). The (Baird 2018b). In the eastern North through southeast Alaska; (7) Offshore, distribution and abundance of Risso’s Pacific, it has been reported only rarely from California through Alaska; and (8) dolphins are highly variable from north of Baja California (Leatherwood et Hawaiian (Carretta et al. 2018). California to Washington, presumably in al., 1982, 1987; Mangels and Gerrodette Individuals from the Southern Resident, response to changing oceanographic 1994); however, the waters off the U.S. Northern Resident, West Coast conditions on both annual and seasonal West Coast all the way north to Alaska Transient, and Offshore stocks could be time scales (Forney and Barlow 1998; are considered part of its secondary encountered in the proposed project Buchanan et al. 2001). The highest range (Jefferson et al. 2015). area. All three pods (J, K, and L pods) densities were predicted along the Its occurrence in Washington/Oregon of Southern Resident killer whales may coasts of Washington, Oregon, and is associated with warm-water occur in the project area. central and southern California (Becker incursions (Buchanan et al., 2001). One Southern Resident killer whales et al., 2012). Off Oregon and pod of false killer whales occurred in mainly feed on salmon, in particular Washington, Risso’s dolphins are most Puget Sound for several months during Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), abundant over continental slope and the 1990s (USN 2015). Two were but also prey upon other salmonids, shelf waters during spring and summer, reported stranded along the Washington such as chum (O. keta), coho (O. less so during fall, and rare during coast between 1930–2002, both in El kitsutch), and steelhead (O. mykiss), as winter (Green et al., 1992, 1993). Green Nin˜ o years (Norman et al. 2004). One well as rockfish (Sebastes spp.), Pacific

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19593

halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), contiguous shoreline delimited by the Bigg’s killer whales) range from Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), among line at a depth of 6.1 m relative to Southeast Alaska to California (Muto et others. Seasonal and spatial shifts in extreme high water (71 FR 69054; al., 2019a). The seasonal movements of prey consumption have been observed, November 29, 2006). On September 19, transients are largely unpredictable, with Chinook consumed in May through 2019, NMFS published a proposed rule although there is a tendency to September, and chum eaten in the fall. to revise designated Southern Resident investigate harbor seal haulouts off Chinook remain an important prey item killer whale critical habitat to include Vancouver Island more frequently while the Southern Residents are in 40,472.7 km2 of marine waters between during the pupping season in August offshore coastal waters, where they also the 6.1-m depth contour and the 200-m and September (Baird 1994; Ford 2014). consume a greater diversity of fish depth contour from the U.S. Transients have been sighted species (NMFS 2019). international border with Canada south throughout British Columbia waters, Southern Resident killer whales occur to Point Sur, California (84 FR 49214; including the waters around Vancouver for part of the year in the inland September 19, 2019). The proposed Island (Ford 2014). waterways of the Salish Sea, including survey tracklines overlap with NMFS’ Little is known about offshore killer Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, proposed expanded Southern Resident whales, but they occur primarily over and the southern Strait of Georgia critical habitat. shelf waters and feed on fish, especially mostly during the spring, summer, and In Canada, Southern Resident killer sharks (Ford 2014). Dalheim et al. fall. Their movement patterns appear whales are listed as Endangered under (2008) reported sightings in southeast related to the seasonal availability of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), and Alaska during spring and summer. prey, especially Chinook salmon. They critical habitat has been designated in Relatively few sightings of offshore also move to coastal waters, primarily the trans-boundary waters in southern killer whales have been reported in off Washington and British Columbia, in British Columbia, including the British Columbia; there have been 103 search of suitable prey, and have been southern Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, records since 1988 (Ford 2014). The observed as far as central California and and Strait of Juan de Fuca (SOR/2018– number of sightings are likely southeast Alaska (NMFS 2019). 278, December 13, 2018; SOR/2009–68, influenced by the fact that these whales Although less is known about the February 19, 2009; DFO 2018). The prefer deeper waters near the whales’ movements in outer coastal continental shelf waters off continental slope, where little sighting waters than inland waters of the Salish southwestern Vancouver Island, effort has taken place (Ford 2014). Most ´ Sea, satellite tagging, opportunistic including Swiftsure and La Perouse sightings are from Haida Gwaii and 15 sighting, and acoustic recording data Banks have also been designated as km or more off the west coast of suggest that Southern Residents spend critical habitat (DFO 2018). Two of the Vancouver Island near the continental nearly all their time on the continental proposed survey tracklines intersect the slope (Ford et al., 1994). Offshore killer shelf, within 34 km of shore in water Canadian Southern Resident critical whales are mainly seen off British less than 200 m deep (Hanson et al., habitat on Swiftsure and La Pe´rouse Columbia during summer, but they can 2017). Banks. The Southern Resident DPS was listed Northern Resident killer whales are occur in British Columbia year-round as endangered under the ESA in 2005 not listed under the ESA, but are listed (Ford 2014). after a nearly 20 percent decline in as threatened under Canada’s SARA Short-Finned abundance between 1996 and 2001 (70 (DFO 2018). In British Columbia, FR 69903; November 18, 2005). As Northern Resident killer whales inhabit The short-finned pilot whale is found compared to stable or growing the central and northern Strait of in tropical, subtropical, and warm populations, the DPS reflects lower Georgia, Johnstone Strait, Queen temperate waters (Olson 2009); it is seen as far south as ∼40° S and as far north fecundity and has demonstrated little to Charlotte Strait, the west coast of ∼ ° no growth in recent decades, and in fact Vancouver Island, and the entire central as 50 N (Jefferson et al. 2015). Pilot has declined further since the date of and north coast of mainland British whales are generally nomadic, but may listing (NMFS 2019). The population Columbia (Muto et al., 2019a,b). be resident in certain locations, abundance listed in the draft 2019 SARs Northern Resident killer whales are also including California and Hawaii (Olson is 75, from the July 1, 2018 annual regularly acoustically detected off the 2009). Short-finned pilot whales were census conducted by the Center for coast of Washington (Hanson et al., common off southern California (Dohl et Whale Research (CWR) (Caretta et al., 2017). Canada has designated critical al. 1980) until an El Nin˜ o event 2019); since that date, four whales have habitat for Northern Resident killer occurred in 1982–1983 (Carretta et al. died or are presumed dead, and two whales in Johnstone Strait, southeastern 2017). calves were born in 2019, bringing the Queen Charlotte Strait, western Dixon Few sightings were made off abundance to 73 whales (NMFS 2019). Entrance along the north coast of California/Oregon/Washington in 1984– An additional adult male is considered Graham Island, Haida Gwaii, and 1992 (Green et al. 1992; Carretta and missing as of January 2020 (CWR 2020). Swiftsure and La Pe´rouse Banks off Forney 1993; Barlow 1997), and NMFS has identified three main causes southwestern Vancouver Island (SOR/ sightings remain rare (Barlow 1997; of the population decline: (1) Reduced 2018–278, December 13, 2018; SOR/ Buchanan et al. 2001; Barlow 2010). No quantity and quality of prey; (2) 2009–68, February 19, 2009; DFO 2018). short-finned pilot whales were seen persistent organic pollutants that could Critical habitat for both Northern and during surveys off Oregon and cause immune or reproductive system Southern Resident killer whales has Washington in 1989–1990, 1992, 1996, dysfunction; and (3) noise and been established within the proposed and 2001 (Barlow 2003). A few sightings disturbance from increased commercial survey area at Swiftsure and La Pe´rouse were made off California during surveys and recreational vessel traffic (NMFS Banks (SOR/2018–278, December 13, in 1991–2014 (Barlow 2010). Carretta et 2019). 2018). al. (2019a) reported one sighting off The U.S. Southern Resident killer The main diet of transient killer Oregon during 1991–2014. Several whale critical habitat designated under whales consists of marine mammals, in stranding events in Oregon/southern the ESA currently includes inland particular porpoises and seals. West Washington have been recorded over waters of Washington relative to a coast transient whales (also known as the past few decades, including in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19594 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

March 1996, June 1998, and August <100 m deep, with a few sightings on densities to the north. According to 2002 (Norman et al. 2004). the slope near the 200-m isobath. predictive density distribution maps, Short-finned pilot whales are Similarly, predictive density the highest densities off southern considered rare in British Columbia distribution maps show the highest in Washington and Oregon occur along the waters (Baird and Stacey 1993; Ford nearshore waters along the coasts of 500-m isobath (Menza et al. 2016). 2014). There are 10 confirmed records, Oregon/Washington, with very low Encounter rates reported by Green et including three bycatch records in densities beyond the 500-m isobath al. (1992) during aerial surveys off offshore waters, six sightings in offshore (Menza et al., 2016). Oregon/Washington were highest in fall, waters, and one stranding; the stranding There were no harbor porpoise lowest during winter, and intermediate occurred in the Strait of Juan de Fuca sightings made during the July 2012 L– during spring and summer. Encounter (Ford 2014). There are also unconfirmed DEO seismic surveys off southern rates during the summer were similarly records for nearshore waters of western Washington (RPS 2012a), the July 2012 high in slope and shelf waters, and Vancouver Island (Baird and Stacey L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon (RPS somewhat lower in offshore waters 1993; Ford 2014). 2012c), or off Washington/Oregon (Green et al. 1992). Dall’s porpoise was during the June–July 2012 L–DEO Juan the most abundant species sighted off Harbor Porpoise de Fuca plate seismic survey (RPS Oregon/Washington during 1996, 2001, The harbor porpoise inhabits 2012b). 2005, and 2008 ship surveys up to ∼550 temperate, subarctic, and arctic waters. Harbor porpoises are found along the km from shore (Barlow 2003, 2010). It is typically found in shallow water coast of British Columbia year-round, Oleson et al. (2009) reported 44 (<100 m) nearshore but is occasionally primarily in coastal shallow waters, sightings of 206 individuals off sighted in deeper offshore water harbors, bays, and river mouths Washington during surveys from August (Jefferson et al., 2015); abundance (Osborne et al., 1988), but can also be 2004 to September 2008. Dall’s porpoise declines linearly as depth increases found in deep water over the were seen in the waters off Oregon (Barlow 1988). In the eastern north continental shelf and over offshore during summer, fall, and winter surveys Pacific, its range extends from Point banks that are no deeper than 150 m in 2011 and 2012 (Adams et al., 2014). Barrow, Alaska to Point Conception, (Ford 2014; COSEWIC 2016). Many Nineteen Dall’s porpoise sightings (144 California. Their seasonal movements sightings records exist for nearshore animals) were made off Washington/ appear to be inshore-offshore, rather waters of Vancouver Island, and Oregon during the June–July 2012 L– than north-south, as a response to the occasional sightings have also been DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey abundance and distribution of food made in shallow water of Swiftsure and (RPS 2012b). There were 16 Dall’s resources (Dohl et al., 1983; Barlow La Pe´rouse banks off southwestern porpoise sightings (54 animals) made 1988). Genetic testing has also shown Vancouver Island (Ford 2014). during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic that harbor porpoises along the west Dall’s Porpoise surveys off southern Washington (RPS coast of North America are not 2012a). This species was not sighted migratory and occupy restricted home Dall’s porpoise is found in temperate during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic ranges (Rosel et al., 1995). to subarctic waters of the North Pacific survey off Oregon (RPS 2012c). Based on genetic data and density and adjacent seas (Jefferson et al. 2015). Dall’s porpoise is found all along the discontinuities, six stocks have been It is widely distributed across the North coast of British Columbia and is identified in California/Oregon/ Pacific over the continental shelf and common inshore and offshore Washington: (1) Washington Inland slope waters, and over deep ( ≥2500 m) throughout the year (Jefferson 1990; Waters, (2) Northern Oregon/ oceanic waters (Hall 1979). It is Ford 2014). It is most common over the Washington Coast, (3) Northern probably the most abundant small continental shelf and slope, but also California/Southern Oregon, (4) San cetacean in the North Pacific Ocean, and occurs >2,400 km from the coast (Pike Francisco-Russian River, (5) Monterey its abundance changes seasonally, likely and MacAskie 1969 in Jefferson 1990), Bay, and (6) Morro Bay (Caretta et al., in relation to water temperature (Becker and sightings have been made 2019a). Harbor porpoises form the 2007). throughout the proposed survey area Northern Oregon/Washington and the Off Oregon and Washington, Dall’s (Ford 2014). During a survey from Northern California/Southern Oregon porpoise is widely distributed over shelf Oregon to Alaska, Dall’s porpoises were stocks could occur in the proposed and slope waters, with concentrations sighted west of Vancouver Island and project area (Caretta et al., 2019a). near shelf edges, but is also commonly Haida Gwaii in early October during the Harbor porpoises inhabit coastal sighted in pelagic offshore waters southbound transit, but none were Oregon and Washington waters year- (Morejohn 1979; Green et al. 1992; sighted in mid-September during the round, although there appear to be Becker et al. 2014; Carretta et al. 2018). northward transit; all sightings were distinct seasonal changes in abundance Combined results of various surveys out made in water deeper than 2000 m there (Barlow 1988; Green et al., 1992). to ∼550 km offshore indicate that the (Hauser and Holst 2009). Green et al. (1992) reported that distribution and abundance of Dall’s encounter rates were similarly high porpoise varies between seasons and Guadalupe Fur Seal during fall and winter, intermediate years. North–south movements are Guadalupe fur seals were once during spring, and low during summer. believed to occur between Oregon/ plentiful on the California coast, ranging Encounter rates were highest along the Washington and California in response from the Gulf of the Farallones near San Oregon/Washington coast in the area to changing oceanographic conditions, Francisco, to the Revillagigedo Islands, from Cape Blanco (∼43° N) to California, particularly temperature and Mexico (Aurioles-Gamboa et al., 1999), from fall through spring. During distribution and abundance of prey but they were over-harvested in the 19th summer, the reported encounter rates (Green et al. 1992, 1993; Mangels and century to near extinction. After being decreased notably from inner shelf to Gerrodette 1994; Barlow 1995; Forney protected, the population grew slowly; offshore waters. Green et al. (1992) and Barlow 1998; Buchanan et al. 2001). mature individuals of the species were reported that 96 percent of harbor Becker et al. (2014) predicted high observed occasionally in the Southern porpoise sightings off Oregon/ densities off southern Oregon California Bight starting in the 1960s Washington occurred in coastal waters throughout the year, with moderate (Stewart et al., 1993), and, in 1997, a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19595

female and pup were observed on San southern California to the Bering Sea, Washington, Oregon, and northern Miguel Island (Melin & DeLong, 1999). Sea of Okhotsk, and Sea of Japan California after weaning (Lea et al. Since 2008, individual adult females, (Jefferson et al. 2015). The worldwide 2009). Although pups may be present, subadult males, and between one and population of northern fur seals has there are no rookeries in Washington or three pups have been observed annually declined substantially from 1.8 million Oregon. on San Miguel Island (Caretta et al., animals in the 1950s (Muto et al. 2018). The northern fur seals spends ∼90 2017). They were subjected to large-scale percent of its time at sea, typically in During the summer breeding season, harvests on the Pribilof Islands to areas of upwelling along the continental most adults occur at rookeries in Mexico supply a lucrative fur trade. Two stocks slopes and over seamounts (Gentry (Caretta et al., 2019a,b; Norris 2017 in are recognized in U.S. waters: The 1981). The remainder of its life is spent Navy 2019a,b). Following the breeding Eastern North Pacific and the California on or near rookery islands or haulouts. season, adult males tend to move stocks. The Eastern Pacific stock ranges While at sea, northern fur seals usually northward to forage. Females have been from southern California during winter occur singly or in pairs, although larger observed feeding south of Guadalupe to the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof groups can form in waters rich with Island, making an average round trip of Island in the Bering Sea during summer prey (Antonelis and Fiscus 1980; Gentry 2,375 km (Ronald and Gots 2003). (Carretta et al. 2018; Muto et al. 2018). 1981). Northern fur seals dive to Several rehabilitated Guadalupe fur Abundance of the Eastern Pacific Stock relatively shallow depths to feed: 100– seals that were satellite tagged and has been decreasing at the Pribilof 200 m for females, and <400 m for males released in central California traveled as Islands since the 1940s and increasing (Gentry 2009). Tagged adult female fur far north as British Columbia (Norris et on Bogoslof Island. The California stock seals were shown to remain within 200 al., 2015; Norris 2017 in Navy 2019a,b). originated with immigrants from the km of the shelf break (Pelland et al. Fur seals younger than two years old are Pribilof Islands and Russian populations 2014). more likely to travel to more northerly, that recolonized San Miguel Island Bonnell et al. (1992) noted the offshore areas than older fur seals during the late 1950s or early 1960s presence of northern fur seals year- (Norris 2017 in Navy 2019a,b). after northern fur seals were extirpated round off Oregon/Washington, with the Stranding data also indicates that fur from California in the 1700s and 1800s greatest numbers (87 percent) occurring seals younger than two years old are (DeLong 1982). The northern fur seal in January–May. Northern fur seals were more likely to occur in the proposed population appears to be greatly affected seen as far out from the coast as 185 km, survey area, as this age class was most by El Nin˜ o events. In the month of June, and numbers increased with distance frequently reported (Lambourn et al., approximately 93.6 percent of the from land; they were 5–6 times more 2012 in Navy 2019a,b). Guadalupe fur northern fur seals in the survey area are abundant in offshore waters than over the shelf or slope (Bonnell et al. 1992). seals have not been observed in expected to be from the Eastern Pacific The highest densities were seen in the previous L–DEO surveys in the stock and 6.4 percent from the Columbia River plume (∼46° N) and in northeast Pacific (RPS 2012a,b,c). California stock (U.S. Navy 2019). Increased strandings of Guadalupe fur deep offshore waters (>2000 m) off Therefore, although individuals from seals have occurred along the entire central and southern Oregon (Bonnell et both the Eastern Pacific Stock and coast of California. Guadalupe fur seal al. 1992). The waters off Washington are California Stock may be present in the strandings began in January 2015 and a known foraging area for adult females, proposed survey area, the majority are were eight times higher than the and concentrations of fur seals were also expected to be from the Eastern Pacific historical average. Strandings have reported to occur near Cape Blanco, Stock. continued since 2015 and have Oregon, at ∼42.8° N (Pelland et al. remained well above average through Most northern fur seals are highly 2014). Tagged adult fur seals were 2019. Strandings are seasonal and migratory. During the breeding season, tracked from the Pribilof Islands to the generally peak in April through June of most of the world’s population of waters off Washington/Oregon/ each year. Strandings in Oregon and northern fur seals occurs on the Pribilof California, with recorded movement Washington became elevated starting in and Bogoslof islands (NMFS 2007). The throughout the proposed survey area 2019 and have continued to present. main breeding season is in July (Gentry (Pelland et al. 2014). Strandings in these two states in 2019 2009). Adult males usually occur Thirty-one northern fur seal sightings are five times higher than the historical onshore from May to August, though (63 animals) were made off Washington/ average. Guadalupe fur seals have some may be present until November; Oregon during the June–July 2012 L– stranded alive and dead. Those females are usually found ashore from DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey stranding are mostly weaned pups and June to November (Muto et al. 2018). (RPS 2012b). There were six sightings (6 juveniles (1–2 years old). The majority Nearly all fur seals from the Pribilof animals) made during the July 2012 L– of stranded animals showed signs of Island rookeries are foraging at sea from DEO seismic surveys off southern malnutrition with secondary bacterial fall through late spring. In November, Washington (RPS 2012a). This species and parasitic infections. NMFS has females and pups leave the Pribilof was not sighted during the July 2012 L– declared a UME for Guadalupe fur seals Islands and migrate through the Gulf of DEO seismic survey off Oregon (RPS along the entire U.S. West Coast; the Alaska to feeding areas primarily off the 2012c). UME is ongoing and NMFS is coasts of BC, Washington, Oregon, and Off British Columbia, females and continuing to investigate the cause(s). California before migrating north again subadult males are typically found For additional information on the UME, to the rookeries in spring (Ream et al. during the winter off the continental see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 2005; Pelland et al. 2014). Immature shelf (Bigg 1990). They start arriving national/marine-life-distress/2015-2020- seals can remain in southern foraging from Alaska during December and most guadalupe-fur-seal-unusual-mortality- areas year-round until they are old will leave British Columbia waters by event-california. enough to mate (NMFS 2007). Adult July (Ford 2014). Ford (2014) also males migrate only as far south as the reported the occurrence of northern fur Northern Fur Seal Gulf of Alaska or to the west off the seals throughout British Columbia, The northern fur seal is endemic to Kuril Islands (Kajimura 1984). Pups including Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait, the North Pacific Ocean and occurs from from the California stock also migrate to Queen Charlotte Sound, and off the west

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19596 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

coasts of Haida Gwaii and Vancouver Non-breeding adults use haulouts or California Sea Lion Island, with concentrations over the occupy sites at the periphery of The primary range of the California shelf and slope, especially on La rookeries during the breeding season sea lion includes the coastal areas and Pe´rouse Bank, southwestern Vancouver (NMFS 2008). Pupping occurs from offshore islands of the eastern North Island. A few animals are seen in mid-May to mid-July (Pitcher and Pacific Ocean from British Columbia to inshore waters in British Columbia, and Calkins 1981) and peaks in June (Pitcher central Mexico, including the Gulf of individuals occasionally come ashore, et al., 2002). Territorial males fast and California (Jefferson et al., 2015). usually at sea lion haulouts (e.g., Race remain on land during the breeding However, its distribution is expanding Rocks, off southern Vancouver Island) season (NMFS 2008). Females with (Jefferson et al., 2015), and its secondary during winter and spring (Baird and pups generally stay within 30 km of the range extends into the Gulf of Alaska Hanson 1997). Although fur seals rookeries in shallow (30–120 m) water (Maniscalco et al., 2004) and southern sometimes haul out in British Columbia, when feeding (NMFS 2008). Tagged Mexico (Gallo-Reynoso and Solo´rzano- there are no breeding rookeries. juvenile sea lions showed localized Velasco 1991), where it is occasionally movements near shore (Briggs et al., Steller Sea Lion recorded. 2005). Loughlin et al. (2003) reported In California and Baja California, The Steller sea lion occurs along the that most (88 percent) at-sea movements births occur on land from mid-May to North Pacific Rim from northern Japan of juvenile Steller sea lions were short late-June. During August and to California (Loughlin et al., 1984). It is (< 15 km) foraging trips. Although September, after the mating season, the distributed around the coasts to the Steller sea lions are not considered adult males migrate northward to outer shelf from northern Japan through migratory, foraging animals can travel feeding areas as far north as Washington the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, long distances outside of the breeding (Puget Sound) and British Columbia through the Aleutian Islands, central season (Loughlin et al., 2003; Raum- (Lowry et al., 1992). They remain there Bering Sea, southern Alaska, and south Suryan et al., 2002). During the summer, until spring (March-May), when they to California (NOAA 2019d). There are they mostly forage within 60 km from migrate back to the breeding colonies two stocks and DPSs of Steller sea lions, the coast; during winter they can range (Lowry et al., Weise et al., 2006). The the Western and Eastern DPSs, which up to 200 km from shore (Ford 2014). distribution of immature California sea ° are divided at 144 W longitude (Muto During a survey off Washington/ lions is less well known but some make et al., 2019b). The Western DPS is listed Oregon June–July 2012, two Steller sea northward migrations that are shorter in as endangered under the ESA and lions were seen from R/V Langseth (RPS length than the migrations of adult includes animals that occur in Japan 2012b) off southern Oregon. Eight males (Huber 1991). However, most and Russia (Muto et al., 2019a,b); the sightings of 11 individuals were made immature seals are presumed to remain Eastern DPS is not listed. Only from R/V Northern Light during a near the rookeries for most of the year, individuals from the Eastern DPS are survey off southern Washington during as are females and pups (Lowry et al., expected to occur in the proposed July 2012 (RPS 2012a). 1992). Peak numbers of California sea survey area. In British Columbia there are six main lions off Oregon and Washington occur Steller sea lions typically inhabit rookeries which are situated at the Scott during the fall (Bonnell et al., 1992). waters from the coast to the outer Islands off northwestern Vancouver California sea lions have not been continental shelf and slope throughout Island, the Kerourd Islands near Cape observed in previous L–DEO surveys in their range; they are not considered St. James at the southern end of Haida the northeast Pacific (RPS 2012a,b,c). migratory although foraging animals can Gwaii, North Danger Rocks in eastern California sea lions used to be rare in travel long distances (Loughlin et al., Hecate Strait, Virgin Rocks in eastern British Columbia, but their numbers 2003; Raum-Suryan et al., 2002). The Queen Charlotte Sound, Garcin Rocks have increased substantially since the eastern stock of Steller sea lions has off southeastern Moresby Island in 1970s and 1980s (Ford 2014). Wintering historically bred on rookeries located in Haida Gwaii, and Gosling Rocks on the California sea lion numbers have Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, central mainland coast (Ford 2014). The increased off southern Vancouver Island Oregon, and California. However, Scott Islands and Cape St. James since the 1970s, likely as a result of the within the last several years a new rookeries are the two largest breeding increasing California breeding rookery has become established on the sites with 4,000 and 850 pups born in population (Olesiuk and Bigg 1984). outer Washington coast (at the Carroll 2010, respectively (Ford 2014). Some Several thousand occur in the waters of Island and Sea Lion Rock complex), adults and juveniles are also found on British Columbia from fall to spring with >100 pups born there in 2015 sites known as year-round haulouts (Ford 2014). Adult and subadult male (Muto et al., 2018). Breeding adults during the breeding season. Haulouts California sea lions are mainly seen in occupy rookeries from late-May to early- are located along the coasts of Haida British Columbia during the winter July (NMFS 2008). Federally designated Gwaii, the central and northern (Olesiuk and Bigg 1984). They are critical habitat for Steller sea lions in mainland coast, the west coast of mostly seen off the west coast of Oregon and California includes all Vancouver Island, and the Strait of Vancouver Island and in the Strait of rookeries (NMFS 1993). Although the Georgia; some are year-round sites Georgia, but they are also known to haul Eastern DPS was delisted from the ESA whereas others are only winter haulouts out along the coasts of Haida Gwaii, in 2013, the designated critical habitat (Ford 2014). Pitcher et al. (2007) including Dixon Entrance, and the remains valid (NOAA 2019e). The reported 24 major haulout sites (>50 sea mainland (Ford 2014). critical habitat in Oregon is located lions) in British Columbia, but there are Elevated strandings of California sea along the coast at Rogue Reef (Pyramid currently around 30 (Ford 2014). The lion pups have occurred in Southern Rock) and Orford Reef (Long Brown total pup and non-pup count of Steller California since January 2013 and Rock and Seal Rock). The critical habitat sea lions in British Columbia in 2002 NMFS has declared a UME. The UME is area includes aquatic zones that extend was 15,438; this represents a minimum confined to pup and yearling California 0.9 km seaward and air zones extending population estimate (Pitcher et al., sea lions, many of which are emaciated, 0.9 km above these terrestrial and 2007). The highest pup counts in British dehydrated, and underweight for their aquatic zones (NMFS 1993). Columbia occur in July (Bigg 1988). age. A change in the availability of sea

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19597

lion prey, especially sardines, a high noted that traveling likely takes place at early 20th century and its tendency to value food source for nursing mothers, depths >200 m. Most elephant seals be highly migratory. A peak number (22) is a likely contributor to the large return to their natal rookeries when they of adults and subadults were observed number of strandings. Sardine spawning start breeding (Huber et al. 1991). in spring 2003 (Demarchi and Bentley grounds shifted further offshore in 2012 When not at their breeding rookeries, 2004); pups have also been born there and 2013, and while other prey were adults feed at sea far from the rookeries. primarily during December and January available (market squid and rockfish), Males may feed as far north as the (Ford 2014). Haulouts can also be found these may not have provided adequate eastern Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of on the western and northeastern coasts nutrition in the milk of sea lion mothers Alaska, whereas females feed south of of Haida Gwaii, and along the coasts of supporting pups, or for newly-weaned 45° N (Le Boeuf et al. 1993; Stewart and Vancouver Island (Ford 2014). pups foraging on their own. Although Huber 1993). Adult male elephant seals Harbor Seal the pups showed signs of some viruses migrate north via the California current and infections, findings indicate that to the Gulf of Alaska during foraging Two subspecies of harbor seal occur this event was not caused by disease, trips, and could potentially be passing in the Pacific: P.v. stejnegeri in the but rather by the lack of high quality, through the area off Washington in May northwest Pacific Ocean and P.v. close-by food sources for nursing and August (migrating to and from richardii in the eastern Pacific Ocean. mothers. Current evidence does not molting periods) and November and P.v. richardii occurs in nearshore, indicate that this UME was caused by a February (migrating to and from coastal, and estuarine areas ranging single infectious agent, though a variety breeding periods), but likely their from Baja California, Mexico, north to of disease-causing bacteria and viruses presence there is transient and short- the Pribilof Islands in Alaska (Carretta et were found in samples from sea lion lived. Adult females and juveniles al., 2019a). Five stocks of harbor seals pups. Investigating and identifying the forage in the California current off are recognized along the U.S. West cause of this UME is a true public- California to BC (Le Boeuf et al. 1986, Coast: (1) Southern Puget Sound, (2) private effort with many collaborators. 1993, 2000). Bonnell et al. (1992) Washington Northern Inland Waters The investigative team examined reported that northern elephant seals Stock, (3) Hood Canal, (4) Oregon/ multiple potential explanations for the were distributed equally in shelf, slope, Washington Coast, and (5) California high numbers of malnourished and offshore waters during surveys (Carretta et al., 2019a). The Oregon/ California sea lion pups observed on the conducted off Oregon and Washington, Washington Coast stock occurs in the island rookeries and stranded on the as far as 150 km from shore, in waters proposed survey area. mainland in 2013. The UME >2000 m deep. Telemetry data indicate Harbor seals inhabit estuarine and investigation is ongoing. For more that they range much farther offshore coastal waters, hauling out on rocks, information, see https:// than that (Stewart and DeLong 1995). reefs, beaches, and glacial ice flows. www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ Off Washington, most elephant seal They are generally non-migratory, but marine-life-distress/2013-2017- sightings at sea were made during June, move locally with the tides, weather, california-sea-lion-unusual-mortality- July, and September; off Oregon, season, food availability, and event-california. sightings were recorded from November reproduction (Scheffer and Slipp 1944; through May (Bonnell et al. 1992). Fisher 1952; Bigg 1969, 1981). Female Northern Elephant Seal Several seals were seen off Oregon harbor seals give birth to a single pup The northern elephant seal breeds in during summer, fall, and winter surveys while hauled out on shore or on glacial California and Baja California, primarily in 2011 and 2012 (Adams et al. 2014). ice flows; pups are born from May to on offshore islands, from Cedros off the Northern elephant seals were also taken mid-July. When molting, which occurs west coast of Baja California, north to as bycatch off Oregon in the west coast primarily in late August, seals spend the the Farallons in Central California groundfish fishery during 2002–2009 majority of the time hauled out on (Stewart et al. 1994). Pupping has also (Jannot et al. 2011). Northern elephant shore, glacial ice, or other substrates. been observed at Shell Island (∼43.3° N) seals were sighted five times (5 animals) Juvenile harbor seals can travel off southern Oregon, suggesting a range during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic significant distances (525 km) to forage expansion (Bonnell et al. 1992; Hodder surveys off southern Washington (RPS or disperse (Lowry et al., 2001). The et al. 1998). 2012a). This species was not sighted smaller home range used by adults is Adult elephant seals engage in two during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic suggestive of a strong site fidelity long northward migrations per year, one survey off Oregon (RPS 2012c), or off (Pitcher and Calkins 1979; Pitcher and following the breeding season, and Washington/Oregon during the June– McAllister 1981; Lowry et al., 2001). another following the annual molt July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca plate Harbor seals haul out on rocks, reefs, (Stewart and DeLong 1995). Between the seismic survey (RPS 2012b). One and beaches along the U.S. west coast two foraging periods, they return to land northern elephant seal was sighted (Carretta et al., 2019a). Jeffries et al. to molt, with females returning earlier during the 2009 ETOMO survey off of (2000) documented several harbor seal than males (March–April vs. July– British Columbia (Holst 2017). rookeries and haulouts along the August). After the molt, adults then Race Rocks Ecological Preserve, Washington coastline. Bonnell et al. return to their northern feeding areas located off southern Vancouver Island, (1992) noted that most harbor seals until the next winter breeding season. is one of the few spots in British sighted off Oregon and Washington Breeding occurs from December to Columbia where elephant seals were within 20 km from shore, with the March (Stewart and Huber 1993). regularly haul out. Based on their size farthest sighting 92 km from the coast. Females arrive in late December or and general appearance, most animals Menza et al. (2016) also showed the January and give birth within ∼1 week using Race Rocks are adult females or highest predicted densities nearshore. of their arrival. Pups are weaned after subadults, although a few males also During surveys off the Oregon and just 27 days and are abandoned by their haul out there. Use of Race Rocks by Washington coasts, 88 percent of at-sea mothers. Juvenile elephant seals northern elephant seals has increased harbor seals occurred over shelf waters typically leave the rookeries in April or substantially in recent years, most likely <200 m deep, with a few sightings near May and head north, traveling an as a result of the species’ dramatic the 2000-m contour, and only one average of 900–1000 km. Hindell (2009) recovery from near extinction in the sighting over deeper water (Bonnell et

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19598 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

al., 1992). Twelve sightings of harbor underwater, and exposure to other data. Note that no direct seals occurred in nearshore waters from anthropogenic sound can have measurements of hearing ability have R/V Northern Light during a survey off deleterious effects. To appropriately been successfully completed for southern Washington during July 2012 assess the potential effects of exposure mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency (RPS 2012a). to sound, it is necessary to understand cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) Harbor seals occur along all coastal the frequency ranges marine mammals described generalized hearing ranges for areas of British Columbia, including the are able to hear. Current data indicate these marine mammal hearing groups. western coast of Vancouver Island, with that not all marine mammal species Generalized hearing ranges were chosen the highest concentration in the Strait of have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., based on the approximately 65 decibel Georgia (13.1 seals per km of coast); Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and (dB) threshold from the normalized average densities elsewhere are 2.6 seals Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). composite audiograms, with the per km (Ford 2014). Almost 1,400 To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) exception for lower limits for low- haulouts have been reported for British recommended that marine mammals be frequency cetaceans where the lower Columbia, many of them in the Strait of divided into functional hearing groups bound was deemed to be biologically Georgia (Ford 2014). based on directly measured or estimated implausible and the lower bound from hearing ranges on the basis of available Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine Marine Mammal Hearing behavioral response data, audiograms mammal hearing groups and their Hearing is the most important sensory derived using auditory evoked potential associated hearing ranges are provided modality for marine mammals techniques, anatomical modeling, and in Table 2.

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

Hearing group Generalized hearing range *

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ...... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus 275 Hz to 160 kHz. cruciger & L. australis). Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ...... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ...... 60 Hz to 39 kHz. * Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

The pinniped functional hearing Harassment section later in this corresponding points of a sound wave group was modified from Southall et al. document includes a quantitative (length of one cycle). Higher frequency (2007) on the basis of data indicating analysis of the number of individuals sounds have shorter wavelengths than that phocid species have consistently that are expected to be taken by this lower frequency sounds, and typically demonstrated an extended frequency activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, range of hearing compared to otariids, and Determination section considers the except in certain cases in shallower especially in the higher frequency range content of this section, the Estimated water. Amplitude is the height of the (Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., Take by Incidental Harassment section, sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). and the Proposed Mitigation section, to of a sound and is typically described For more detail concerning these draw conclusions regarding the likely using the relative unit of the dB. A groups and associated frequency ranges, impacts of these activities on the sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is please see NMFS (2018) for a review of reproductive success or survivorship of described as the ratio between a available information. 31 marine individuals and how those impacts on measured pressure and a reference mammal species (25 cetacean and six individuals are likely to impact marine pressure (for underwater sound, this is pinniped (four otariid and two phocid) mammal species or stocks. 1 microPascal (mPa)) and is a species) have the reasonable potential to logarithmic unit that accounts for large co-occur with the proposed survey Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources variations in amplitude; therefore, a activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the relatively small change in dB This section contains a brief technical cetacean species that may be present, corresponds to large changes in sound background on sound, the six are classified as low-frequency pressure. The source level (SL) characteristics of certain sound types, cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 15 represents the SPL referenced at a and on metrics used in this proposal are classified as mid-frequency distance of 1 m from the source inasmuch as the information is relevant cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid (referenced to 1 mPa) while the received to the specified activity and to a species and the sperm whale), and four level is the SPL at the listener’s position discussion of the potential effects of the are classified as high-frequency (referenced to 1 mPa). cetaceans (i.e., porpoises and Kogia specified activity on marine mammals spp.). found later in this document. Root mean square (rms) is the Sound travels in waves, the basic quadratic mean sound pressure over the Potential Effects of Specified Activities components of which are frequency, duration of an impulse. Root mean on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. square is calculated by squaring all of This section includes a summary and Frequency is the number of pressure the sound amplitudes, averaging the discussion of the ways that components waves that pass by a reference point per squares, and then taking the square root of the specified activity may impact unit of time and is measured in hertz of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean marine mammals and their habitat. The (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is square accounts for both positive and Estimated Take by Incidental the distance between two peaks or negative values; squaring the pressures

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19599

makes all values positive so that they main source of naturally occurring Details of source types are described in may be accounted for in the summation ambient sound for frequencies between the following text. of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In Sounds are often considered to fall 2005). This measurement is often used general, ambient sound levels tend to into one of two general types: Pulsed in the context of discussing behavioral increase with increasing wind speed and non-pulsed (defined in the effects, in part because behavioral and wave height. Surf sound becomes following). The distinction between effects, which often result from auditory important near shore, with these two sound types is important cues, may be better expressed through measurements collected at a distance of because they have differing potential to averaged units than by peak pressures. 8.5 km from shore showing an increase cause physical effects, particularly with Sound exposure level (SEL; of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band represented as dB re 1 mPa2¥s) during heavy surf conditions; regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in represents the total energy contained • Precipitation: Sound from rain and Southall et al., 2007). Please see within a pulse and considers both hail impacting the water surface can Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth intensity and duration of exposure. Peak become an important component of total discussion of these concepts. sound pressure (also referred to as zero- sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, to-peak sound pressure or 0-p) is the possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, maximum instantaneous sound pressure times; impact pile driving) produce signals • measurable in the water at a specified Biological: Marine mammals can that are brief (typically considered to be distance from the source and is contribute significantly to ambient less than one second), broadband, atonal represented in the same units as the rms sound levels, as can some fish and transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, sound pressure. Another common snapping shrimp. The frequency band 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure for biological contributions is from occur either as isolated events or (pk-pk), which is the algebraic approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz; repeated in some succession. Pulsed difference between the peak positive and sounds are all characterized by a • Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient and peak negative sound pressures. relatively rapid rise from ambient sound related to human activity include Peak-to-peak pressure is typically pressure to a maximal pressure value approximately 6 dB higher than peak transportation (surface vessels), dredging and construction, oil and gas followed by a rapid decay period that pressure (Southall et al., 2007). may include a period of diminishing, When underwater objects vibrate or drilling and production, seismic activity occurs, sound-pressure waves surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean oscillating maximal and minimal are created. These waves alternately acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically pressures, and generally have an compress and decompress the water as dominates the total ambient sound for increased capacity to induce physical the sound wave travels. Underwater frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In injury as compared with sounds that sound waves radiate in a manner similar general, the frequencies of lack these features. to ripples on the surface of a pond and anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, may be either directed in a beam or and, if higher frequency sound levels narrowband, or broadband, brief or beams or may radiate in all directions are created, they attenuate rapidly. prolonged, and may be either (omnidirectional sources), as is the case Sound from identifiable anthropogenic continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, for pulses produced by the airgun arrays sources other than the activity of 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non- considered here. The compressions and interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is pulsed sounds can be transient signals decompressions associated with sound sometimes termed background sound, as of short duration but without the waves are detected as changes in opposed to ambient sound. essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid pressure by aquatic life and man-made The sum of the various natural and rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sound receptors such as hydrophones. anthropogenic sound sources at any sounds include those produced by Even in the absence of sound from the given location and time—which vessels, aircraft, machinery operations specified activity, the underwater comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ such as drilling or dredging, vibratory environment is typically loud due to sound—depends not only on the source pile driving, and active sonar systems ambient sound. Ambient sound is levels (as determined by current (such as those used by the U.S. Navy). defined as environmental background weather conditions and levels of The duration of such sounds, as biological and human activity) but also sound levels lacking a single source or received at a distance, can be greatly on the ability of sound to propagate point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the extended in a highly reverberant through the environment. In turn, sound sound level of a region is defined by the environment. total acoustical energy being generated propagation is dependent on the by known and unknown sources. These spatially and temporally varying Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals sources may include physical (e.g., properties of the water column and sea with energy in a frequency range from wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a about 10–2,000 Hz, with most energy atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., result of the dependence on a large radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. sounds produced by marine mammals, number of varying factors, ambient The amplitude of the acoustic wave fish, and invertebrates), and sound levels can be expected to vary emitted from the source is equal in all anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, widely over both coarse and fine spatial directions (i.e., omnidirectional), but construction) sound. A number of and temporal scales. Sound levels at a airgun arrays do possess some sources contribute to ambient sound, given frequency and location can vary directionality due to different phase including the following (Richardson et by 10–20 dB from day to day delays between guns in different al., 1995): (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is directions. Airgun arrays are typically • Wind and waves: The complex that, depending on the source type and tuned to maximize functionality for data interactions between wind and water its intensity, sound from a given activity acquisition purposes, meaning that surface, including processes such as may be a negligible addition to the local sound transmitted in horizontal breaking waves and wave-induced environment or could form a distinctive directions and at higher frequencies is bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a signal that may affect marine mammals. minimized to the extent possible.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19600 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

Acoustic Effects ability of an to detect a signal of data for cetaceans but such relationships Here, we discuss the effects of active interest that is above the absolute are assumed to be similar to those in acoustic sources on marine mammals. hearing threshold) may occur; the humans and other terrestrial mammals. Potential Effects of Underwater masking zone may be highly variable in PTS typically occurs at exposure levels Sound—Please refer to the information size. at least several dBs above (a 40-dB given previously (‘‘Description of Active We describe the more severe effects of threshold shift approximates PTS onset; Acoustic Sources’’) regarding sound, certain non-auditory physical or e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) characteristics of sound types, and physiological effects only briefly as we that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB metrics used in this document. Note do not expect that use of airgun arrays threshold shift approximates TTS onset; that, in the following discussion, we are reasonably likely to result in such e.g., Southall et al. 2007). Based on data refer in many cases to a review article effects (see below for further from terrestrial mammals, a concerning studies of noise-induced discussion). Potential effects from precautionary assumption is that the impulsive sound sources can range in hearing loss conducted from 1996–2015 PTS thresholds for impulse sounds severity from effects such as behavioral (i.e., Finneran, 2015). For study-specific (such as airgun pulses as received close disturbance or tactile perception to citations, please see that work. to the source) are at least 6 dB higher physical discomfort, slight injury of the Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad than the TTS threshold on a peak- internal organs and the auditory system, range of frequencies and sound levels pressure basis and PTS cumulative or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). and can have a range of highly variable sound exposure level thresholds are 15 Non-auditory physiological effects or impacts on marine life, from none or to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative injuries that theoretically might occur in sound exposure level thresholds minor to potentially severe responses, marine mammals exposed to high level (Southall et al., 2007). Given the higher depending on received levels, duration underwater sound or as a secondary level of sound or longer exposure of exposure, behavioral context, and effect of extreme behavioral reactions duration necessary to cause PTS as various other factors. The potential (e.g., change in dive profile as a result compared with TTS, it is considerably effects of underwater sound from active of an avoidance reaction) caused by less likely that PTS could occur. acoustic sources can potentially result exposure to sound include neurological For mid-frequency cetaceans in in one or more of the following: effects, bubble formation, resonance particular, potential protective Temporary or permanent hearing effects, and other types of organ or mechanisms may help limit onset of impairment, non-auditory physical or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall TTS or prevent onset of PTS. Such physiological effects, behavioral et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; mechanisms include dampening of disturbance, stress, and masking Tal et al., 2015). The survey activities hearing, auditory adaptation, or (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., considered here do not involve the use behavioral amelioration (e.g., Nachtigall 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et of devices such as explosives or mid- and Supin, 2013; Miller et al., 2012; al., 2007; Go¨tz et al., 2009). The degree frequency tactical sonar that are Finneran et al., 2015; Popov et al., of effect is intrinsically related to the associated with these types of effects. 2016). signal characteristics, received level, Threshold Shift—Marine mammals TTS is the mildest form of hearing distance from the source, and duration exposed to high-intensity sound, or to impairment that can occur during of the sound exposure. In general, lower-intensity sound for prolonged exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While sudden, high level sounds can cause periods, can experience hearing experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold hearing loss, as can longer exposures to threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of rises, and a sound must be at a higher lower level sounds. Temporary or hearing sensitivity at certain frequency level in order to be heard. In terrestrial permanent loss of hearing will occur ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be and marine mammals, TTS can last from almost exclusively for noise within an permanent (PTS), in which case the loss minutes or hours to days (in cases of animal’s hearing range. We first describe of hearing sensitivity is not fully strong TTS). In many cases, hearing specific manifestations of acoustic recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in sensitivity recovers rapidly after effects before providing discussion which case the animal’s hearing exposure to the sound ends. Few data specific to the use of airgun arrays. threshold would recover over time on sound levels and durations necessary Richardson et al. (1995) described (Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound to elicit mild TTS have been obtained zones of increasing intensity of effect exposure that leads to TTS could cause for marine mammals. that might be expected to occur, in PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can Marine mammal hearing plays a relation to distance from a source and be total or partial deafness, while in critical role in communication with assuming that the signal is within an most cases the animal has an impaired conspecifics, and interpretation of animal’s hearing range. First is the area ability to hear sounds in specific environmental cues for purposes such within which the acoustic signal would frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). as predator avoidance and prey capture. be audible (potentially perceived) to the When PTS occurs, there is physical Depending on the degree (elevation of animal, but not strong enough to elicit damage to the sound receptors in the ear threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery any overt behavioral or physiological (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS time), and frequency range of TTS, and response. The next zone corresponds represents primarily tissue fatigue and the context in which it is experienced, with the area where the signal is audible is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In TTS can have effects on marine to the animal and of sufficient intensity addition, other investigators have mammals ranging from discountable to to elicit behavioral or physiological suggested that TTS is within the normal serious. For example, a marine mammal responsiveness. Third is a zone within bounds of physiological variability and may be able to readily compensate for which, for signals of high intensity, the tolerance and does not represent a brief, relatively small amount of TTS received level is sufficient to potentially physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). in a non-critical frequency range that cause discomfort or tissue damage to Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS occurs during a time where ambient auditory or other systems. Overlaying to constitute auditory injury. noise is lower and there are not as many these zones to a certain extent is the Relationships between TTS and PTS competing sounds present. area within which masking (i.e., when a thresholds have not been studied in Alternatively, a larger amount and sound interferes with or masks the marine mammals, and there is no PTS longer duration of TTS sustained during

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19601

time when communication is critical for Behavioral Effects—Behavioral loud pulsed sound sources (typically successful mother/calf interactions disturbance may include a variety of seismic airguns or acoustic harassment could have more serious impacts. effects, including subtle changes in devices) have been varied but often Finneran et al. (2015) measured behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance consist of avoidance behavior or other hearing thresholds in three captive of an area or changes in vocalizations), behavioral changes suggesting bottlenose dolphins before and after more conspicuous changes in similar discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; exposure to ten pulses produced by a behavioral activities, and more see also Richardson et al., 1995; seismic airgun in order to study TTS sustained and/or potentially severe Nowacek et al., 2007). However, many induced after exposure to multiple reactions, such as displacement from or delphinids approach acoustic source pulses. Exposures began at relatively abandonment of high-quality habitat. vessels with no apparent discomfort or low levels and gradually increased over Behavioral responses to sound are obvious behavioral change (e.g., a period of several months, with the highly variable and context-specific and Barkaszi et al., 2012). highest exposures at peak SPLs from any reactions depend on numerous Available studies show wide variation 196 to 210 dB and cumulative intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., in response to underwater sound; (unweighted) SELs from 193–195 dB. species, state of maturity, experience, therefore, it is difficult to predict No substantial TTS was observed. In current activity, reproductive state, specifically how any given sound in a addition, behavioral reactions were auditory sensitivity, time of day), as particular instance might affect marine observed that indicated that animals can well as the interplay between factors mammals perceiving the signal. If a learn behaviors that effectively mitigate (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et marine mammal does react briefly to an noise exposures (although exposure al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007, 2019; underwater sound by changing its patterns must be learned, which is less Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). behavior or moving a small distance, the likely in wild animals than for the Behavioral reactions can vary not only impacts of the change are unlikely to be captive animals considered in this among individuals but also within an significant to the individual, let alone study). The authors note that the failure individual, depending on previous the stock or population. However, if a to induce more significant auditory experience with a sound source, sound source displaces marine effects likely due to the intermittent context, and numerous other factors mammals from an important feeding or nature of exposure, the relatively low (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary breeding area for a prolonged period, peak pressure produced by the acoustic depending on characteristics associated impacts on individuals and populations source, and the low-frequency energy in with the sound source (e.g., whether it could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and airgun pulses as compared with the is moving or stationary, number of Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005). However, there are broad frequency range of best sensitivity for sources, distance from the source). categories of potential response, which dolphins and other mid-frequency Please see Appendices B–C of Southall we describe in greater detail here, that cetaceans. et al. (2007) for a review of studies include alteration of dive behavior, Currently, TTS data only exist for four involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound. alteration of foraging behavior, effects to species of cetaceans (bottlenose breathing, interference with or alteration dolphin, , harbor porpoise, Habituation can occur when an of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. and Yangtze ) exposed animal’s response to a stimulus wanes Changes in dive behavior can vary to a limited number of sound sources with repeated exposure, usually in the widely, and may consist of increased or (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band absence of unpleasant associated events decreased dive times and surface noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most intervals as well as changes in the rates 2015). In general, harbor porpoises have likely to habituate to sounds that are of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., a lower TTS onset than other measured predictable and unvarying. It is Frankel and Clark, 2000; Ng and Leung, cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). important to note that habituation is 2003; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen Additionally, the existing marine appropriately considered as a et al., 2013a, b). Variations in dive mammal TTS data come from a limited ‘‘progressive reduction in response to behavior may reflect interruptions in number of individuals within these stimuli that are perceived as neither biologically significant activities (e.g., species. There are no data available on aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, foraging) or they may be of little noise-induced hearing loss for more generally, moderation in response biological significance. The impact of an mysticetes. to human disturbance (Bejder et al., alteration to dive behavior resulting Critical questions remain regarding 2009). The opposite process is from an acoustic exposure depends on the rate of TTS growth and recovery sensitization, when an unpleasant what the animal is doing at the time of after exposure to intermittent noise and experience leads to subsequent the exposure and the type and the effects of single and multiple pulses. responses, often in the form of magnitude of the response. Data at present are also insufficient to avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. Disruption of feeding behavior can be construct generalized models for As noted, behavioral state may affect the difficult to correlate with anthropogenic recovery and determine the time type of response. For example, animals sound exposure, so it is usually inferred necessary to treat subsequent exposures that are resting may show greater by observed displacement from known as independent events. More behavioral change in response to foraging areas, the appearance of information is needed on the disturbing sound levels than animals secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets relationship between auditory evoked that are highly motivated to remain in or sediment plumes), or changes in dive potential and behavioral measures of an area for feeding (Richardson et al., behavior. As for other types of TTS for various stimuli. For summaries 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). behavioral response, the frequency, of data on TTS in marine mammals or Controlled experiments with captive duration, and temporal pattern of signal for further discussion of TTS onset marine mammals have showed presentation, as well as differences in thresholds, please see Southall et al. pronounced behavioral reactions, species sensitivity, are likely (2007, 2019), Finneran and Jenkins including avoidance of loud sound contributing factors to differences in (2012), Finneran (2015), and NMFS sources (Ridgway et al., 1997). Observed response in any given circumstance (2018). responses of wild marine mammals to (e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19602 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et response to anthropogenic noise can Seismic pulses at average received al., 2007). A determination of whether occur for any of these modes and may levels of 131 dB re 1 mPa2-s caused blue foraging disruptions incur fitness result from a need to compete with an whales to increase call production (Di consequences would require increase in background noise or may Iorio and Clark, 2010). In contrast, information on or estimates of the reflect increased vigilance or a startle McDonald et al. (1995) tracked a blue energetic requirements of the affected response. For example, in the presence whale with seafloor seismometers and individuals and the relationship of potentially masking signals, reported that it stopped vocalizing and between prey availability, foraging effort humpback whales and killer whales changed its travel direction at a range of and success, and the life history stage of have been observed to increase the 10 km from the acoustic source vessel the animal. length of their songs or amplitude of (estimated received level 143 dB pk-pk). Visual tracking, passive acoustic calls (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., Blackwell et al. (2013) found that monitoring, and movement recording 2003; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., call rates dropped tags were used to quantify sperm whale 2012), while right whales have been significantly at onset of airgun use at behavior prior to, during, and following observed to shift the frequency content sites with a median distance of 41–45 exposure to airgun arrays at received of their calls upward while reducing the km from the survey. Blackwell et al. levels in the range 140–160 dB at rate of calling in areas of increased (2015) expanded this analysis to show distances of 7–13 km, following a phase- anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). that whales actually increased calling in of sound intensity and full array In some cases, animals may cease sound rates as soon as airgun signals were exposures at 1–13 km (Madsen et al., production during production of detectable before ultimately decreasing 2006; Miller et al., 2009). Sperm whales aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994). calling rates at higher received levels did not exhibit horizontal avoidance Cerchio et al. (2014) used passive (i.e., 10-minute SELcum of ∼127 dB). behavior at the surface. However, acoustic monitoring to document the Overall, these results suggest that foraging behavior may have been presence of singing humpback whales bowhead whales may adjust their vocal affected. The sperm whales exhibited 19 off the coast of northern Angola and to output in an effort to compensate for percent less vocal (buzz) rate during full opportunistically test for the effect of noise before ceasing vocalization effort exposure relative to post exposure, and seismic survey activity on the number of and ultimately deflecting from the the whale that was approached most singing whales. Two recording units acoustic source (Blackwell et al., 2013, closely had an extended resting period were deployed between March and 2015). These studies demonstrate that and did not resume foraging until the December 2008 in the offshore even low levels of noise received far airguns had ceased firing. The environment; numbers of singers were from the source can induce changes in remaining whales continued to execute counted every hour. Generalized vocalization and/or behavior for foraging dives throughout exposure; Additive Mixed Models were used to mysticetes. however, swimming movements during assess the effect of survey day Avoidance is the displacement of an foraging dives were 6 percent lower (seasonality), hour (diel variation), individual from an area or migration during exposure than control periods moon phase, and received levels of path as a result of the presence of a (Miller et al., 2009). These data raise noise (measured from a single pulse sound or other stressors, and is one of concerns that seismic surveys may during each ten minute sampled period) the most obvious manifestations of impact foraging behavior in sperm on singer number. The number of disturbance in marine mammals whales, although more data are required singers significantly decreased with (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, to understand whether the differences increasing received level of noise, gray whales are known to change were due to exposure or natural suggesting that humpback whale direction—deflecting from customary variation in sperm whale behavior breeding activity was disrupted to some migratory paths—in order to avoid noise (Miller et al., 2009). extent by the survey activity. from seismic surveys (Malme et al., Variations in respiration naturally Castellote et al. (2012) reported 1984). Humpback whales showed vary with different behaviors and acoustic and behavioral changes by fin avoidance behavior in the presence of alterations to breathing rate as a whales in response to shipping and an active seismic array during function of acoustic exposure can be airgun noise. Acoustic features of fin observational studies and controlled expected to co-occur with other whale song notes recorded in the exposure experiments in western behavioral reactions, such as a flight and northeast Australia (McCauley et al., 2000). response or an alteration in diving. Atlantic Ocean were compared for areas Avoidance may be short-term, with However, respiration rates in and of with different shipping noise levels and animals returning to the area once the themselves may be representative of traffic intensities and during a seismic noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., annoyance or an acute stress response. airgun survey. During the first 72 h of 1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; Various studies have shown that the survey, a steady decrease in song Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et respiration rates may either be received levels and bearings to singers al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is unaffected or could increase, depending indicated that whales moved away from possible, however, which may lead to on the species and signal characteristics, the acoustic source and out of the study changes in abundance or distribution again highlighting the importance in area. This displacement persisted for a patterns of the affected species in the understanding species differences in the time period well beyond the 10-day affected region if habituation to the tolerance of underwater noise when duration of seismic airgun activity, presence of the sound does not occur determining the potential for impacts providing evidence that fin whales may (e.g., Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., resulting from anthropogenic sound avoid an area for an extended period in 2006). exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, the presence of increased noise. The Forney et al. (2017) detail the 2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007, 2016). authors hypothesize that fin whale potential effects of noise on marine Marine mammals vocalize for acoustic communication is modified to mammal populations with high site different purposes and across multiple compensate for increased background fidelity, including displacement and modes, such as whistling, echolocation noise and that a sensitization process auditory masking, noting that a lack of click production, calling, and singing. may play a role in the observed observed response does not imply Changes in vocalization behavior in temporary displacement. absence of fitness costs and that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19603

apparent tolerance of disturbance may attention (i.e., when a response consists pre-, during, and post-seismic survey have population-level impacts that are of increased vigilance, it may come at (Gailey et al., 2016). Behavioral state less obvious and difficult to document. the cost of decreased attention to other and water depth were the best ‘natural’ As we discuss in describing our critical behaviors such as foraging or predictors of whale movements and proposed mitigation later in this resting). These effects have generally not respiration and, after considering document, avoidance of overlap been demonstrated for marine natural variation, none of the response between disturbing noise and areas and/ mammals, but studies involving fish variables were significantly associated or times of particular importance for and terrestrial animals have shown that with seismic survey or vessel sounds. sensitive species may be critical to increased vigilance may substantially Stress Responses—An animal’s avoiding population-level impacts reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp perception of a threat may be sufficient because (particularly for animals with and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; to trigger stress responses consisting of high site fidelity) there may be a strong Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, some combination of behavioral motivation to remain in the area despite chronic disturbance can cause responses, autonomic nervous system negative impacts. Forney et al. (2017) population declines through reduction responses, neuroendocrine responses, or state that, for these animals, remaining of fitness (e.g., decline in body immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; in a disturbed area may reflect a lack of condition) and subsequent reduction in Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an alternatives rather than a lack of effects. reproductive success, survival, or both animal’s first and sometimes most The authors discuss several case (e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan economical (in terms of energetic costs) studies, including western Pacific gray et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). response is behavioral avoidance of the whales, which are a small population of However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported potential stressor. Autonomic nervous mysticetes believed to be adversely that increased vigilance in bottlenose system responses to stress typically affected by oil and gas development off dolphins exposed to sound over a five- involve changes in heart rate, blood Sakhalin Island, Russia (Weller et al., day period did not cause any sleep pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 2002; Reeves et al., 2005). Western gray deprivation or stress effects. These responses have a relatively short whales display a high degree of Many animals perform vital functions, duration and may or may not have a interannual site fidelity to the area for such as feeding, resting, traveling, and significant long-term effect on an foraging purposes, and observations in socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour animal’s fitness. the area during airgun surveys has cycle). Disruption of such functions Neuroendocrine stress responses often shown the potential for harm caused by resulting from reactions to stressors involve the hypothalamus-pituitary- displacement from such an important such as sound exposure are more likely adrenal system. Virtually all area (Weller et al., 2006; Johnson et al., to be significant if they last more than neuroendocrine functions that are 2007). Forney et al. (2017) also discuss one diel cycle or recur on subsequent affected by stress—including immune beaked whales, noting that days (Southall et al., 2007). competence, reproduction, metabolism, anthropogenic effects in areas where Consequently, a behavioral response and behavior—are regulated by pituitary they are resident could cause severe lasting less than one day and not hormones. Stress-induced changes in biological consequences, in part because recurring on subsequent days is not the secretion of pituitary hormones have displacement may adversely affect considered particularly severe unless it been implicated in failed reproduction, foraging rates, reproduction, or health, could directly affect reproduction or altered metabolism, reduced immune while an overriding instinct to remain survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that competence, and behavioral disturbance could lead to more severe acute effects. there is a difference between multi-day (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). A flight response is a dramatic change substantive behavioral reactions and Increases in the circulation of in normal movement to a directed and multi-day anthropogenic activities. For glucocorticoids are also equated with rapid movement away from the example, just because an activity lasts stress (Romano et al., 2004). perceived location of a sound source. for multiple days does not necessarily The primary distinction between The flight response differs from other mean that individual animals are either stress (which is adaptive and does not avoidance responses in the intensity of exposed to activity-related stressors for normally place an animal at risk) and the response (e.g., directed movement, multiple days or, further, exposed in a ‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. rate of travel). Relatively little manner resulting in sustained multi-day During a stress response, an animal uses information on flight responses of substantive behavioral responses. glycogen stores that can be quickly marine mammals to anthropogenic Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea replenished once the stress is alleviated. signals exist, although observations of observations during 1,196 seismic In such circumstances, the cost of the flight responses to the presence of surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large stress response would not pose serious predators have occurred (Connor and arrays of airguns (considered to be 500 fitness consequences. However, when Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight in3 or more) were firing, lateral an animal does not have sufficient response could range from brief, displacement, more localized energy reserves to satisfy the energetic temporary exertion and displacement avoidance, or other changes in behavior costs of a stress response, energy from the area where the signal provokes were evident for most odontocetes. resources must be diverted from other flight to, in extreme cases, marine However, significant responses to large functions. This state of distress will last mammal strandings (Evans and arrays were found only for the minke until the animal replenishes its England, 2001). However, it should be whale and fin whale. Behavioral energetic reserves sufficiently to restore noted that response to a perceived responses observed included changes in normal function. predator does not necessarily invoke swimming or surfacing behavior, with Relationships between these flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and indications that cetaceans remained physiological mechanisms, animal whether individuals are solitary or in near the water surface at these times. behavior, and the costs of stress groups may influence the response. Cetaceans were recorded as feeding less responses are well-studied through Behavioral disturbance can also often when large arrays were active. controlled experiments and for both impact marine mammals in more subtle Behavioral observations of gray whales laboratory and free-ranging animals ways. Increased vigilance may result in during a seismic survey monitored (e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., costs related to diversion of focus and whale movements and respirations 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19604 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress not considered a physiological effect, and Gagnon 2006), which could mask responses due to exposure to but rather a potential behavioral effect. calls. Situations with prolonged strong anthropogenic sounds or other stressors The frequency range of the potentially reverberation are infrequent. However, and their effects on marine mammals masking sound is important in it is common for reverberation to cause have also been reviewed (Fair and determining any potential behavioral some lesser degree of elevation of the Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) impacts. For example, low-frequency background level between airgun pulses and, more rarely, studied in wild signals may have less effect on high- (e.g., Gedamke 2011; Guerra et al. 2011, populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). frequency echolocation sounds 2016; Klinck et al. 2012; Guan et al. For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found produced by odontocetes but are more 2015), and this weaker reverberation that noise reduction from reduced ship likely to affect detection of mysticete presumably reduces the detection range communication calls and other traffic in the Bay of Fundy was of calls and other natural sounds to potentially important natural sounds associated with decreased stress in some degree. Guerra et al. (2016) North Atlantic right whales. These and such as those produced by surf and reported that ambient noise levels other studies lead to a reasonable some prey species. The masking of between seismic pulses were elevated as expectation that some marine mammals communication signals by will experience physiological stress anthropogenic noise may be considered a result of reverberation at ranges of 50 responses upon exposure to acoustic as a reduction in the communication km from the seismic source. Based on stressors and that it is possible that space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) measurements in deep water of the some of these would be classified as and may result in energetic or other Southern Ocean, Gedamke (2011) ‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal costs as animals change their estimated that the slight elevation of experiencing TTS would likely also vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., background levels during intervals experience stress responses (NRC, 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., between pulses reduced blue and fin 2003). 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et whale communication space by as much Auditory Masking—Sound can al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in as 36–51 percent when a seismic survey disrupt behavior through masking, or situations where the signal and noise was operating 450–2,800 km away. interfering with, an animal’s ability to come from different directions Based on preliminary modeling, detect, recognize, or discriminate (Richardson et al., 1995), through Wittekind et al. (2016) reported that between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., amplitude modulation of the signal, or airgun sounds could reduce the those used for intraspecific through other compensatory behaviors communication range of blue and fin communication and social interactions, (Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can whales 2000 km from the seismic prey detection, predator avoidance, be tested directly in captive species source. Nieukirk et al. (2012) and navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild Blackwell et al. (2013) noted the Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when populations it must be either modeled potential for masking effects from the receipt of a sound is interfered with or inferred from evidence of masking seismic surveys on large whales. by another coincident sound at similar compensation. There are few studies frequencies and at similar or higher addressing real-world masking sounds Some baleen and toothed whales are intensity, and may occur whether the likely to be experienced by marine known to continue calling in the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et presence of seismic pulses, and their wind, waves, precipitation) or al., 2013). calls usually can be heard between the anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, Masking affects both senders and pulses (e.g., Nieukirk et al. 2012; Thode seismic exploration) in origin. The receivers of acoustic signals and can et al. 2012; Bro¨ker et al. 2013; Sciacca ability of a noise source to mask potentially have long-term chronic et al. 2016). As noted above, Cerchio et biologically important sounds depends effects on marine mammals at the al. (2014) suggested that the breeding on the characteristics of both the noise population level as well as at the display of humpback whales off Angola source and the signal of interest (e.g., individual level. Low-frequency could be disrupted by seismic sounds, signal-to-noise ratio, temporal ambient sound levels have increased by as singing activity declined with variability, direction), in relation to each as much as 20 dB (more than three times increasing received levels. In addition, other and to an animal’s hearing in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean some cetaceans are known to change abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency from pre-industrial periods, with most their calling rates, shift their peak range, critical ratios, frequency of the increase from distant commercial frequencies, or otherwise modify their discrimination, directional shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All vocal behavior in response to airgun discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), anthropogenic sound sources, but sounds (e.g., Di Iorio and Clark 2010; and existing ambient noise and especially chronic and lower-frequency Castellote et al. 2012; Blackwell et al. signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), propagation conditions. 2013, 2015). The hearing systems of Under certain circumstances, marine contribute to elevated ambient sound baleen whales are undoubtedly more mammals experiencing significant levels, thus intensifying masking. masking could also be impaired from Masking effects of pulsed sounds sensitive to low-frequency sounds than maximizing their performance fitness in (even from large arrays of airguns) on are the ears of the small odontocetes survival and reproduction. Therefore, marine mammal calls and other natural that have been studied directly (e.g., when the coincident (masking) sound is sounds are expected to be limited, MacGillivray et al. 2014). The sounds man-made, it may be considered although there are few specific data on important to small odontocetes are harassment when disrupting or altering this. Because of the intermittent nature predominantly at much higher critical behaviors. It is important to and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, frequencies than are the dominant distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist animals can emit and receive sounds in components of airgun sounds, thus after the sound exposure, from masking, the relatively quiet intervals between limiting the potential for masking. In which occurs during the sound pulses. However, in exceptional general, masking effects of seismic exposure. Because masking (without situations, reverberation occurs for pulses are expected to be minor, given resulting in TS) is not associated with much or all of the interval between the normally intermittent nature of abnormal physiological function, it is pulses (e.g., Simard et al. 2005; Clark seismic pulses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19605

Ship Noise mammals. A negative correlation approach vessels (e.g., Anderwald et al. Vessel noise from the Langseth could between the presence of some cetacean 2013). Some dolphin species approach affect marine animals in the proposed species and the number of vessels in an moving vessels to ride the bow or stern survey areas. Houghton et al. (2015) area has been demonstrated by several waves (Williams et al. 1992). Pirotta et proposed that vessel speed is the most studies (e.g., Campana et al. 2015; al. (2015) noted that the physical important predictor of received noise Culloch et al. 2016). presence of vessels, not just ship noise, levels, and Putland et al. (2017) also Southern Resident killer whales often disturbed the foraging activity of reported reduced sound levels with forage in the company of whale watch bottlenose dolphins. Sightings of striped decreased vessel speed. Sounds boats in the waters around the San Juan dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, sperm whale, produced by large vessels generally Islands, Washington. These observed and Cuvier’s beaked whale in the behavioral changes have included faster dominate ambient noise at frequencies western Mediterranean were negatively swimming speeds (Williams et al., from 20 to 300 Hz (Richardson et al. correlated with the number of vessels in 2002b), less directed swimming paths 1995). However, some energy is also the area (Campana et al. 2015). (Williams et al., 2002b; Bain et al., 2006; There are few data on the behavioral produced at higher frequencies Williams et al., 2009a), and less time reactions of beaked whales to vessel (Hermannsen et al. 2014); low levels of foraging (Bain et al., 2006; Williams et noise, though they seem to avoid high-frequency sound from vessels has al., 2006; Lusseau et al., 2009; Giles and approaching vessels (e.g., Wu¨ rsig et al. been shown to elicit responses in harbor Cendak 2010; Senigaglia et al., 2016). 1998) or dive for an extended period porpoise (Dyndo et al. 2015). Increased Vessels in the path of the whales can when approached by a vessel (e.g., levels of ship noise have been shown to also interfere with important social Kasuya 1986). Based on a single affect foraging by porpoise (Teilmann et behaviors such as prey sharing (Ford observation, Aguilar Soto et al. (2006) al. 2015; Wisniewska et al. 2018); and Ellis 2006) or nursing (Kriete 2007). suggest foraging efficiency of Cuvier’s Wisniewska et al. (2018) suggest that a Williams et al. (2006) found that with beaked whales may be reduced by close decrease in foraging success could have the disruption of feeding behavior that approach of vessels. long-term fitness consequences. has been observed in Northern Resident Sounds emitted by the Langseth are Ship noise, through masking, can killer whales, it is estimated that the low frequency and continuous, but reduce the effective communication presence of vessels could result in an 18 would be widely dispersed in both distance of a marine mammal if the percent decrease in energy intake. space and time. Vessel traffic associated frequency of the sound source is close Baleen whales are thought to be more with the proposed survey is of low to that used by the animal, and if the sensitive to sound at these low density compared to traffic associated sound is present for a significant frequencies than are toothed whales with commercial shipping, industry fraction of time (e.g., Richardson et al. (e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2014), possibly support vessels, or commercial fishing 1995; Clark et al. 2009; Jensen et al. causing localized avoidance of the vessels, and would therefore be 2009; Gervaise et al. 2012; Hatch et al. proposed survey area during seismic expected to represent an insignificant 2012; Rice et al. 2014; Dunlop 2015; operations. Reactions of gray and incremental increase in the total amount Erbe et al. 2015; Jones et al. 2017; humpback whales to vessels have been of anthropogenic sound input to the Putland et al. 2017). In addition to the studied, and there is limited marine environment, and the effects of frequency and duration of the masking information available about the vessel noise described above are not sound, the strength, temporal pattern, reactions of right whales and rorquals expected to occur as a result of this and location of the introduced sound (fin, blue, and minke whales). Reactions survey. In summary, project vessel also play a role in the extent of the of humpback whales to boats are sounds would not be at levels expected masking (Branstetter et al. 2013, 2016; variable, ranging from approach to to cause anything more than possible Finneran and Branstetter 2013; Sills et avoidance (Payne 1978; Salden 1993). localized and temporary behavioral al. 2017). Branstetter et al. (2013) Baker et al. (1982, 1983) and Baker and changes in marine mammals, and would reported that time-domain metrics are Herman (1989) found humpbacks often not be expected to result in significant also important in describing and move away when vessels are within negative effects on individuals or at the predicting masking. In order to several kilometers. Humpbacks seem population level. In addition, in all compensate for increased ambient noise, less likely to react overtly when actively oceans of the world, large vessel traffic some cetaceans are known to increase feeding than when resting or engaged in is currently so prevalent that it is the source levels of their calls in the other activities (Krieger and Wing 1984, commonly considered a usual source of presence of elevated noise levels from 1986). Increased levels of ship noise ambient sound (NSF–USGS 2011). shipping, shift their peak frequencies, or have been shown to affect foraging by Ship Strike otherwise change their vocal behavior humpback whales (Blair et al. 2016). Fin (e.g., Parks et al. 2011, 2012, 2016a,b; whale sightings in the western Vessel collisions with marine Castellote et al. 2012; Melco´n et al. Mediterranean were negatively mammals, or ship strikes, can result in 2012; Azzara et al. 2013; Tyack and correlated with the number of vessels in death or serious injury of the animal. Janik 2013; Luı´s et al. 2014; Sairanen the area (Campana et al. 2015). Minke Wounds resulting from ship strike may 2014; Papale et al. 2015; Bittencourt et whales and gray seals have shown slight include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, al. 2016; Dahlheim and Castellote 2016; displacement in response to broken bones, or propeller lacerations Gospic´ and Picciulin 2016; Gridley et al. construction-related vessel traffic (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal 2016; Heiler et al. 2016; Martins et al. (Anderwald et al. 2013). at the surface may be struck directly by 2016; O’Brien et al. 2016; Tenessen and Many odontocetes show considerable a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the Parks 2016). Harp seals did not increase tolerance of vessel traffic, although they bottom of a vessel, or an animal just their call frequencies in environments sometimes react at long distances if below the surface may be cut by a with increased low-frequency sounds confined by ice or shallow water, if vessel’s propeller. Superficial strikes (Terhune and Bosker 2016). Holt et al. previously harassed by vessels, or have may not kill or result in the death of the (2015) reported that changes in vocal had little or no recent exposure to ships animal. These interactions are typically modifications can have increased (Richardson et al. 1995). Dolphins of associated with large whales (e.g., fin energetic costs for individual marine many species tolerate and sometimes whales), which are occasionally found

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19606 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

draped across the bulbous bow of large incidents were reported for geophysical MMPA is that ‘‘(A) a marine mammal is commercial ships upon arrival in port. survey vessels during that time period. dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of Although smaller cetaceans are more It is possible for ship strikes to occur the United States; or (ii) in waters under maneuverable in relation to large vessels while traveling at slow speeds. For the jurisdiction of the United States than are large whales, they may also be example, a hydrographic survey vessel (including any navigable waters); or (B) susceptible to strike. The severity of traveling at low speed (5.5 kn) while a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on injuries typically depends on the size conducting mapping surveys off the a beach or shore of the United States and speed of the vessel, with the central California coast struck and killed and is unable to return to the water; (ii) probability of death or serious injury a blue whale in 2009. The State of on a beach or shore of the United States increasing as vessel speed increases California determined that the whale and, although able to return to the (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., had suddenly and unexpectedly water, is in need of apparent medical 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; surfaced beneath the hull, with the attention; or (iii) in the waters under the Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact forces result that the propeller severed the jurisdiction of the United States increase with speed, as does the whale’s vertebrae, and that this was an (including any navigable waters), but is probability of a strike at a given distance unavoidable event. This strike unable to return to its natural habitat (Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011). represents the only such incident in under its own power or without Pace and Silber (2005) also found that approximately 540,000 hours of similar assistance.’’ the probability of death or serious injury coastal mapping activity (p = 1.9 × 10¥6; Marine mammals strand for a variety increased rapidly with increasing vessel 95% CI = 0–5.5 × 10¥6; NMFS, 2013b). of reasons, such as infectious agents, speed. Specifically, the predicted In addition, a research vessel reported a biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery probability of serious injury or death fatal strike in 2011 of a dolphin in the interaction, ship strike, unusual increased from 45 to 75 percent as Atlantic, demonstrating that it is oceanographic or weather events, sound vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn, possible for strikes involving smaller exposure, or combinations of these and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn. cetaceans to occur. In that case, the stressors sustained concurrently or in Higher speeds during collisions result in incident report indicated that an animal series. However, the cause or causes of greater force of impact, but higher apparently was struck by the vessel’s most strandings are unknown (Geraci et speeds also appear to increase the propeller as it was intentionally al., 1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et al., 1980; chance of severe injuries or death swimming near the vessel. While Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest through increased likelihood of indicative of the type of unusual events that the physiology, behavior, habitat collision by pulling whales toward the that cannot be ruled out, neither of these relationships, age, or condition of vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton et al., instances represents a circumstance that cetaceans may cause them to strand or 1995). In a separate study, Vanderlaan would be considered reasonably might pre-dispose them to strand when and Taggart (2007) analyzed the foreseeable or that would be considered exposed to another phenomenon. These probability of lethal mortality of large preventable. suggestions are consistent with the whales at a given speed, showing that Although the likelihood of the vessel conclusions of numerous other studies the greatest rate of change in the striking a marine mammal is low, we that have demonstrated that probability of a lethal injury to a large require a robust ship strike avoidance combinations of dissimilar stressors whale as a function of vessel speed protocol (see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’), commonly combine to kill an animal or occurs between 8.6 and 15 kn. The which we believe eliminates any dramatically reduce its fitness, even chances of a lethal injury decline from foreseeable risk of ship strike during though one exposure without the other approximately 80 percent at 15 kn to transit. We anticipate that vessel does not produce the same result approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn. At collisions involving a seismic data (Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries speeds below 11.8 kn, the chances of acquisition vessel towing gear, while et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley lethal injury drop below 50 percent, not impossible, represent unlikely, et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, while the probability asymptotically unpredictable events for which there are 2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al., increases toward one hundred percent no preventive measures. Given the 2004). above 15 kn. required mitigation measures, the There is no conclusive evidence that The Langseth will travel at a speed of relatively slow speed of the vessel exposure to airgun noise results in 4.2 kn (7.8 km/h) while towing seismic towing gear, the presence of bridge crew behaviorally-mediated forms of injury. survey gear (LGL 2018). At this speed, watching for obstacles at all times Behaviorally-mediated injury (i.e., mass both the possibility of striking a marine (including marine mammals), and the stranding events) has been primarily mammal and the possibility of a strike presence of marine mammal observers, associated with beaked whales exposed resulting in serious injury or mortality we believe that the possibility of ship to mid-frequency active (MFA) naval are discountable. At average transit strike is discountable and, further, that sonar. Tactical sonar and the alerting speed, the probability of serious injury were a strike of a large whale to occur, stimulus used in Nowacek et al. (2004) or mortality resulting from a strike is it would be unlikely to result in serious are very different from the noise less than 50 percent. However, the injury or mortality. No incidental take produced by airguns. One should likelihood of a strike actually happening resulting from ship strike is anticipated, therefore not expect the same reaction to is again discountable. Ship strikes, as and this potential effect of the specified airgun noise as to these other sources. analyzed in the studies cited above, activity will not be discussed further in As explained below, military MFA generally involve commercial shipping, the following analysis. sonar is very different from airguns, and which is much more common in both Stranding—When a living or dead one should not assume that airguns will space and time than is geophysical marine mammal swims or floats onto cause the same effects as MFA sonar survey activity. Jensen and Silber (2004) shore and becomes ‘‘beached’’ or (including strandings). summarized ship strikes of large whales incapable of returning to sea, the event To understand why Navy MFA sonar worldwide from 1975–2003 and found is a ‘‘stranding’’ (Geraci et al., 1999; affects beaked whales differently than that most collisions occurred in the Perrin and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and airguns do, it is important to note the open ocean and involved large vessels Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The distinction between behavioral (e.g., commercial shipping). No such legal definition for a stranding under the sensitivity and susceptibility to auditory

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19607

injury. To understand the potential for frequencies than airguns. Mid-frequency et al., 2009). As stated by Richardson et auditory injury in a particular marine cetacean hearing is generically thought al. (1995), ‘‘[. . .] most emitted [seismic mammal species in relation to a given to be best between 8.8 to 110 kHz, i.e., airgun] energy is at 10–120 Hz, but the acoustic signal, the frequency range the these cutoff values define the range pulses contain some energy up to 500– species is able to hear is critical, as well above and below which a species in the 1,000 Hz.’’ Tolstoy et al. (2009) as the species’ auditory sensitivity to group is assumed to have declining conducted empirical measurements, frequencies within that range. Current auditory sensitivity, until reaching demonstrating that sound energy levels data indicate that not all marine frequencies that cannot be heard associated with airguns were at least 20 mammal species have equal hearing (NMFS, 2018). However, beaked whale decibels (dB) lower at 1 kHz (considered capabilities across all frequencies and, hearing is likely best within a higher, ‘‘mid-frequency’’) compared to higher therefore, species are grouped into narrower range (20–80 kHz, with best energy levels associated with lower hearing groups with generalized hearing sensitivity around 40 kHz), based on a frequencies (below 300 Hz) (‘‘all but a ranges assigned on the basis of available few measurements of hearing in small fraction of the total energy being data (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). stranded beaked whales (Cook et al., concentrated in the 10–300 Hz range’’ Hearing ranges as well as auditory 2006; Finneran et al., 2009; Pacini et al., [Tolstoy et al., 2009]), and at higher sensitivity/susceptibility to frequencies 2011) and several studies of acoustic frequencies (e.g., 2.6–4 kHz), power within those ranges vary across the signals produced by beaked whales (e.g., might be less than 10 percent of the different groups. For example, in terms Frantzis et al., 2002; Johnson et al., peak power at 10 Hz (Yoder, 2002). of hearing range, the high-frequency 2004, 2006; Zimmer et al., 2005). While Energy levels measured by Tolstoy et al. cetaceans (e.g., Kogia spp.) have a precaution requires that the full range of (2009) were even lower at frequencies generalized hearing range of frequencies audibility be considered when assessing above 1 kHz. In addition, as sound between 275 Hz and 160 kHz, while risks associated with noise exposure propagates away from the source, it mid-frequency cetaceans—such as (Southall et al., 2007, 2019a2019), tends to lose higher-frequency dolphins and beaked whales—have a animals typically produce sound at components faster than low-frequency generalized hearing range between 150 frequencies where they hear best. More components (i.e., low-frequency sounds Hz to 160 kHz. Regarding auditory recently, Southall et al. (2019a2019) typically propagate longer distances susceptibility within the hearing range, suggested that certain species amongst than high-frequency sounds) (Diebold et while mid-frequency cetaceans and the historical mid-frequency hearing al., 2010). Although higher-frequency high-frequency cetaceans have roughly group (beaked whales, sperm whales, components of airgun signals have been similar hearing ranges, the high- and killer whales) are likely more recorded, it is typically in surface- frequency group is much more sensitive to lower frequencies within ducting conditions (e.g., DeRuiter et al., susceptible to noise-induced hearing the group’s generalized hearing range 2006; Madsen et al., 2006) or in shallow loss during sound exposure, i.e., these than are other species within the group water, where there are advantageous species have lower thresholds for these and state that the data for beaked whales propagation conditions for the higher effects than other hearing groups suggest sensitivity to approximately 5 frequency (but low-energy) components (NMFS, 2018). Referring to a species as kHz. However, this information is of the airgun signal (Hermannsen et al., behaviorally sensitive to noise simply consistent with the general conclusion 2015). This should not be of concern means that an animal of that species is that beaked whales (and other mid- because the likely behavioral reactions more likely to respond to lower received frequency cetaceans) are relatively of beaked whales that can result in acute levels of sound than an animal of insensitive to the frequencies where physical injury would result from noise another species that is considered less most energy of an airgun signal is found. exposure at depth (because of the behaviorally sensitive. So, while Military MFA sonar is typically potentially greater consequences of dolphin species and beaked whale considered to operate in the frequency severe behavioral reactions). In species—both in the mid-frequency range of approximately 3–14 kHz summary, the frequency content of cetacean hearing group—are assumed to (D’Amico et al., 2009), i.e., outside the airgun signals is such that beaked (generally) hear the same sounds range of likely best hearing for beaked whales will not be able to hear the equally well and be equally susceptible whales but within or close to the lower signals well (compared to MFA sonar), to noise-induced hearing loss (auditory bounds, whereas most energy in an especially at depth where we expect the injury), the best available information airgun signal is radiated at much lower consequences of noise exposure could indicates that a beaked whale is more frequencies, below 500 Hz (Dragoset, be more severe. likely to behaviorally respond to that 1990). Aside from frequency content, there sound at a lower received level It is important to distinguish between are other significant differences between compared to an animal from other mid- energy (loudness, measured in dB) and MFA sonar signals and the sounds frequency cetacean species that are less frequency (pitch, measured in Hz). In produced by airguns that minimize the behaviorally sensitive. This distinction considering the potential impacts of risk of severe behavioral reactions that is important because, while beaked mid-frequency components of airgun could lead to strandings or deaths at sea, whales are more likely to respond noise (1–10 kHz, where beaked whales e.g., significantly longer signal duration, behaviorally to sounds than are many can be expected to hear) on marine horizontal sound direction, typical fast other species (even at lower levels), they mammal hearing, one needs to account and unpredictable source movement. cannot hear the predominant, lower for the energy associated with these All of these characteristics of MFA frequency sounds from seismic airguns higher frequencies and determine what sonar tend towards greater potential to as well as sounds that have more energy energy is truly ‘‘significant.’’ Although cause severe behavioral or physiological at frequencies that beaked whales can there is mid-frequency energy reactions in exposed beaked whales that hear better (such as military MFA associated with airgun noise (as may contribute to stranding. Although sonar). expected from a broadband source), both sources are powerful, MFA sonar Navy MFA sonar affects beaked airgun sound is predominantly below 1 contains significantly greater energy in whales differently than airguns do kHz (Breitzke et al., 2008; the mid-frequency range, where beaked because it produces energy at different Tashmukhambetov et al., 2008; Tolstoy whales hear better. Short-duration, high

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19608 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

energy pulses—such as those produced England, 2001). D’Amico et al. (2009) 6 ranking system, in which ‘‘6’’ by airguns—have greater potential to reviewed 126 beaked whale mass represented the most robust evidence cause damage to auditory structures stranding events over the period from connecting the event to the seismic (though this is unlikely for mid- 1950 (i.e., from the development of survey. As described above, D’Amico et frequency cetaceans, as explained later modern MFA sonar systems) through al. (2009) found that two events were in this document), but it is longer 2004. Of these, there were two events ranked ‘‘1’’ and ten events were ranked duration signals that have been where detailed information was ‘‘2’’ (i.e., 12 beaked whale stranding implicated in the vast majority of available on both the timing and events were found to be associated with beaked whale strandings. Faster, less location of the stranding and the MFA sonar use). In contrast, Castellote predictable movements in combination concurrent nearby naval activity, and Llorens (2016) found that none of with multiple source vessels are more including verification of active MFA the three beaked whale stranding events likely to elicit a severe, potentially anti- sonar usage, with no evidence for an achieved their highest ranks of 5 or 6. predator response. Of additional interest alternative cause of stranding. An Of the ten total events, none achieved in assessing the divergent characteristics additional ten events were at minimum the highest rank of 6. Two events were of MFA sonar and airgun signals and spatially and temporally coincident ranked as 5: One stranding in Peru their relative potential to cause with naval activity likely to have involving dolphins and porpoises and a stranding events or deaths at sea is the included MFA sonar use and, despite 2008 stranding in Madagascar. This similarity between the MFA sonar incomplete knowledge of timing and latter ranking can only broadly be signals and stereotyped calls of beaked location of the stranding or the naval associated with the survey itself, as whales’ primary predator: The killer activity in some cases, there was no opposed to use of seismic airguns. An whale (Zimmer and Tyack, 2007). evidence for an alternative cause of exhaustive investigation of this Although generic disturbance stimuli— stranding. The U.S. Navy has publicly stranding event, which did not involve as airgun noise may be considered in stated agreement that five such events beaked whales, concluded that use of a this case for beaked whales—may also since 1996 were associated in time and high-frequency mapping system (12-kHz trigger antipredator responses, stronger space with MFA sonar use, either by the multibeam echosounder) was the most responses should generally be expected U.S. Navy alone or in joint training plausible and likely initial behavioral when perceived risk is greater, as when exercises with the North Atlantic Treaty trigger of the event, which was likely the stimulus is confused for a known Organization. The U.S. Navy exacerbated by several site- and predator (Frid and Dill, 2002). In additionally noted that, as of 2017, a situation-specific secondary factors. The addition, because the source of the 2014 beaked whale stranding event in review panel found that seismic airguns perceived predator (i.e., MFA sonar) Crete coincident with naval exercises were used after the initial strandings will likely be closer to the whales was under review and had not yet been and animals entering a lagoon system, (because attenuation limits the range of determined to be linked to sonar that airgun use clearly had no role as an detection of mid-frequencies) and activities (U.S. Navy, 2017). Separately, initial trigger, and that there was no moving faster (because it will be on the International Council for the evidence that airgun use dissuaded faster-moving vessels), any antipredator Exploration of the Sea reported in 2005 animals from leaving (Southall et al., response would be more likely to be that, worldwide, there have been about 2013). However, one of these stranding severe (with greater perceived predation 50 known strandings, consisting mostly events, involving two Cuvier’s beaked risk, an animal is more likely to of beaked whales, with a potential whales, was contemporaneous with and disregard the cost of the response; Frid causal link to MFA sonar (ICES, 2005). reasonably associated spatially with a and Dill, 2002). Indeed, when analyzing In contrast, very few such associations 2002 seismic survey in the Gulf of movements of a beaked whale exposed have been made to seismic surveys, California conducted by L–DEO, as was to playback of killer whale predation despite widespread use of airguns as a the case for the 2007 Gulf of Cadiz calls, Allen et al. (2014) found that the geophysical sound source in numerous seismic survey discussed by Castellote whale engaged in a prolonged, directed locations around the world. and Llorens (also involving two Cuvier’s avoidance response, suggesting a A more recent review of possible beaked whales). However, neither event behavioral reaction that could pose a stranding associations with seismic was considered a ‘‘true atypical mass risk factor for stranding. Overall, these surveys (Castellote and Llorens, 2016) stranding’’ (according to Frantzis [1998]) significant differences between sound states plainly that, ‘‘[s]peculation as used in the analysis of Castellote and from MFA sonar and the mid-frequency concerning possible links between Llorens (2016). While we agree with the sound component from airguns and the seismic survey noise and cetacean authors that this lack of evidence should likelihood that MFA sonar signals will strandings is available for a dozen not be considered conclusive, it is clear be interpreted in error as a predator are events but without convincing causal that there is very little evidence that critical to understanding the likely risk evidence.’’ The authors’ ‘‘exhaustive’’ seismic surveys should be considered as of behaviorally-mediated injury due to search of available information found posing a significant risk of acute harm seismic surveys. ten events worth further investigation to beaked whales or other mid- The available scientific literature also via a ranking system representing a frequency cetaceans. We have provides a useful contrast between rough metric of the relative level of considered the potential for the airgun noise and MFA sonar regarding confidence offered by the data for proposed surveys to result in marine the likely risk of behaviorally-mediated inferences about the possible role of the mammal stranding and have concluded injury. There is strong evidence for the seismic survey in a given stranding that, based on the best available association of beaked whale stranding event. Only three of these events information, stranding is not expected events with MFA sonar use, and involved beaked whales. Whereas to occur. particularly detailed accounting of D’Amico et al. (2009) used a 1–5 Entanglement—Entanglements occur several events is available (e.g., a 2000 ranking system, in which ‘‘1’’ when marine mammals become Bahamas stranding event for which represented the most robust evidence wrapped around cables, lines, nets, or investigators concluded that MFA sonar connecting the event to MFA sonar use, other objects suspended in the water use was responsible; Evans and Castellote and Llorens (2016) used a 1– column. During seismic operations,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19609

numerous cables, lines, and other any effects of physical damage to habitat SPLs of sufficient strength have been objects primarily associated with the are expected to be minor and temporary. known to cause injury to fish and fish airgun array and hydrophone streamers Effects to Prey—Marine mammal prey mortality and, in some studies, fish will be towed behind the Langseth near varies by species, season, and location auditory systems have been damaged by the water‘s surface. However, we are not and, for some, is not well documented. airgun noise (McCauley et al., 2003; aware of any cases of entanglement of Fish react to sounds which are Popper et al., 2005; Song et al., 2008). mysticetes in seismic survey equipment. especially strong and/or intermittent However, in most fish species, hair cells No incidents of entanglement of marine low-frequency sounds, and behavioral in the ear continuously regenerate and mammals with seismic survey gear have responses such as flight or avoidance loss of auditory function likely is been documented in over 54,000 nmi are the most likely effects. However, the restored when damaged cells are (100,000 km) of previous NSF-funded reaction of fish to airguns depends on replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et al. seismic surveys when observers were the physiological state of the fish, past (2012b. (2012) showed that a TTS of 4– aboard (e.g., Smultea and Holst 2003; exposures, motivation (e.g., feeding, 6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours Haley and Koski 2004; Holst 2004; spawning, migration), and other for one species. Impacts would be most Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a; environmental factors. Several studies severe when the individual fish is close Haley and Ireland 2006; SIO and NSF have demonstrated that airgun sounds to the source and when the duration of 2006b; Hauser et al., 2008; Holst and might affect the distribution and exposure is long—both of which are Smultea 2008). Although entanglement behavior of some fishes, potentially conditions unlikely to occur for this with the streamer is theoretically impacting foraging opportunities or survey that is necessarily transient in possible, it has not been documented increasing energetic costs (e.g., Fewtrell any given location and likely result in during tens of thousands of miles of and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., brief, infrequent noise exposure to prey NSF-sponsored seismic cruises or, to 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., species in any given area. For this our knowledge, during hundreds of 1999; Paxton et al., 2017), though the survey, the sound source is constantly thousands of miles of industrial seismic bulk of studies indicate no or slight moving, and most fish would likely cruises. Entanglement in OBSs and reaction to noise (e.g., Miller and avoid the sound source prior to receiving sound of sufficient intensity to OBNs is also not expected to occur. Cripps, 2013; Dalen and Knutsen, 1987; cause physiological or anatomical There are a relative few deployed Pena et al., 2013; Chapman and damage. In addition, ramp-up may devices, and no interaction between Hawkins, 1969; Wardle et al., 2001; Sara allow certain fish species the marine mammals and any such device et al., 2007; Jorgenson and Gyselman, opportunity to move further away from has been recorded during prior NSF 2009; Blaxter et al., 1981; Cott et al., surveys using the devices. There are no the sound source. 2012; Boeger et al., 2006), and that, most A recent comprehensive review meaningful entanglement risks posed by commonly, while there are likely to be the proposed survey, and entanglement (Carroll et al., 2017) found that results impacts to fish as a result of noise from are mixed as to the effects of airgun risks are not discussed further in this nearby airguns, such effects will be document. noise on the prey of marine mammals. temporary. For example, investigators While some studies suggest a change in Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal reported significant, short-term declines prey distribution and/or a reduction in Habitat in commercial fishing catch rate of prey abundance following the use of gadid fishes during and for up to five seismic airguns, others suggest no Physical Disturbance—Sources of days after seismic survey operations, but effects or even positive effects in prey seafloor disturbance related to the catch rate subsequently returned to abundance. As one specific example, geophysical surveys that may impact normal (Engas et al., 1996; Engas and Paxton et al. (2017), which describes marine mammal habitat include Lokkeborg, 2002). Other studies have findings related to the effects of a 2014 placement of anchors, nodes, cables, reported similar findings (Hassel et al., seismic survey on a reef off of North sensors, or other equipment on or in the 2004). Skalski et al. (1992) also found a Carolina, showed a 78 percent decrease seafloor for various activities. reduction in catch rates—for rockfish in observed nighttime abundance for Equipment deployed on the seafloor has (Sebastes spp.) in response to controlled certain species. It is important to note the potential to cause direct physical airgun exposure—but suggested that the that the evening hours during which the damage and could affect bottom- mechanism underlying the decline was decline in fish habitat use was recorded associated fish resources. not dispersal but rather decreased (via video recording) occurred on the Placement of equipment, such as responsiveness to baited hooks same day that the seismic survey OBSs and OBNs, on the seafloor could associated with an alarm behavioral passed, and no subsequent data is damage areas of hard bottom where response. A companion study showed presented to support an inference that direct contact with the seafloor occurs that alarm and startle responses were the response was long-lasting. and could crush epifauna (organisms not sustained following the removal of Additionally, given that the finding is that live on the seafloor or surface of the sound source (Pearson et al., 1992). based on video images, the lack of other organisms). Damage to unknown Therefore, Skalski et al. (1992) recorded fish presence does not support or unseen hard bottom could occur, but suggested that the effects on fish a conclusion that the fish actually because of the small area covered by abundance may be transitory, primarily moved away from the site or suffered most bottom-founded equipment and occurring during the sound exposure any serious impairment. In summary, the patchy distribution of hard bottom itself. In some cases, effects on catch this particular study corroborates prior habitat, contact with unknown hard rates are variable within a study, which studies indicating that a startle response bottom is expected to be rare and may be more broadly representative of or short-term displacement should be impacts minor. Seafloor disturbance in temporary displacement of fish in expected. areas of soft bottom can cause loss of response to airgun noise (i.e., catch rates Available data suggest that small patches of epifauna and infauna may increase in some locations and cephalopods are capable of sensing the due to burial or crushing, and bottom- decrease in others) than any long-term particle motion of sounds and detect feeding fishes could be temporarily damage to the fish themselves (Streever low frequencies up to 1–1.5 kHz, displaced from feeding areas. Overall, et al., 2016). depending on the species, and so are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19610 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

likely to detect airgun noise (Kaifu et al., downstream of the survey areas, either about the underlying biological cause of 2008; Hu et al., 2009; Mooney et al., spatially or temporally. catch rate reduction (Carroll et al., 2010; Samson et al., 2014). Auditory Notably, a recently described study 2017). injuries (lesions occurring on the produced results inconsistent with In summary, impacts of the specified statocyst sensory hair cells) have been those of McCauley et al. (2017). activity on marine mammal prey species reported upon controlled exposure to Researchers conducted a field and will likely be limited to behavioral low-frequency sounds, suggesting that laboratory study to assess if exposure to responses, the majority of prey species cephalopods are particularly sensitive to airgun noise affects mortality, predator will be capable of moving out of the area low-frequency sound (Andre et al., escape response, or gene expression of during the survey, a rapid return to 2011; Sole et al., 2013). Behavioral the copepod Calanus finmarchicus normal recruitment, distribution, and responses, such as inking and jetting, (Fields et al., 2019). Immediate behavior for prey species is anticipated, have also been reported upon exposure mortality of copepods was significantly and, overall, impacts to prey species to low-frequency sound (McCauley et higher, relative to controls, at distances will be minor and temporary. Prey al., 2000b; Samson et al., 2014). Similar of 5 m or less from the airguns. species exposed to sound might move to fish, however, the transient nature of Mortality one week after the airgun blast away from the sound source, experience the survey leads to an expectation that was significantly higher in the copepods TTS, experience masking of biologically effects will be largely limited to placed 10 m from the airgun but was not relevant sounds, or show no obvious behavioral reactions and would occur as significantly different from the controls direct effects. Mortality from a result of brief, infrequent exposures. at a distance of 20 m from the airgun. decompression injuries is possible in With regard to potential impacts on The increase in mortality, relative to close proximity to a sound, but only zooplankton, McCauley et al. (2017) controls, did not exceed 30 percent at limited data on mortality in response to found that exposure to airgun noise any distance from the airgun. Moreover, airgun noise exposure are available resulted in significant depletion for the authors caution that even this higher (Hawkins et al., 2014). The most likely more than half the taxa present and that mortality in the immediate vicinity of impacts for most prey species in the there were two to three times more dead the airguns may be more pronounced survey area would be temporary zooplankton after airgun exposure than what would be observed in free- avoidance of the area. The proposed compared with controls for all taxa, swimming animals due to increased survey would move through an area within 1 km of the airguns. However, flow speed of fluid inside bags relatively quickly, limiting exposure to containing the experimental animals. the authors also stated that in order to multiple impulsive sounds. In all cases, There were no sublethal effects on the have significant impacts on r-selected sound levels would return to ambient escape performance or the sensory species (i.e., those with high growth once the survey moves out of the area threshold needed to initiate an escape rates and that produce many offspring) or ends and the noise source is shut response at any of the distances from such as plankton, the spatial or down and, when exposure to sound the airgun that were tested. Whereas temporal scale of impact must be large ends, behavioral and/or physiological McCauley et al. (2017) reported an SEL in comparison with the ecosystem responses are expected to end relatively of 156 dB at a range of 509–658 m, with concerned, and it is possible that the quickly (McCauley et al., 2000b). The zooplankton mortality observed at that findings reflect avoidance by duration of fish avoidance of a given range, Fields et al. (2019) reported an area after survey effort stops is zooplankton rather than mortality SEL of 186 dB at a range of 25 m, with (McCauley et al., 2017). In addition, the no reported mortality at that distance. unknown, but a rapid return to normal results of this study are inconsistent Regardless, if we assume a worst-case recruitment, distribution, and behavior with a large body of research that likelihood of severe impacts to is anticipated. While the potential for generally finds limited spatial and zooplankton within approximately 1 km disruption of spawning aggregations or temporal impacts to zooplankton as a of the acoustic source, the brief time to schools of important prey species can be result of exposure to airgun noise (e.g., regeneration of the potentially affected meaningful on a local scale, the mobile Dalen and Knutsen, 1987; Payne, 2004; zooplankton populations does not lead and temporary nature of this survey and Stanley et al., 2011). Most prior research us to expect any meaningful follow-on the likelihood of temporary avoidance on this topic, which has focused on effects to the prey base for marine behavior suggest that impacts would be relatively small spatial scales, has mammals. minor. showed minimal effects (e.g., A recent review article concluded Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is Kostyuchenko, 1973; Booman et al., that, while laboratory results provide the soundscape—which encompasses 1996; S#tre and Ona, 1996; Pearson et scientific evidence for high-intensity all of the sound present in a particular al., 1994; Bolle et al., 2012). and low-frequency sound-induced location and time, as a whole—when A modeling exercise was conducted physical trauma and other negative considered from the perspective of the as a follow-up to the McCauley et al. effects on some fish and invertebrates, animals experiencing it. Animals (2017) study (as recommended by the sound exposure scenarios in some produce sound for, or listen for sounds McCauley et al.), in order to assess the cases are not realistic to those produced by, conspecifics potential for impacts on ocean encountered by marine organisms (communication during feeding, mating, ecosystem dynamics and zooplankton during routine seismic operations and other social activities), other population dynamics (Richardson et al., (Carroll et al., 2017). The review finds animals (finding prey or avoiding 2017). Richardson et al. (2017) found that there has been no evidence of predators), and the physical that for copepods with a short life cycle reduced catch or abundance following environment (finding suitable habitats, in a high-energy environment, a full- seismic activities for invertebrates, and navigating). Together, sounds made by scale airgun survey would impact that there is conflicting evidence for fish animals and the geophysical copepod abundance up to three days with catch observed to increase, environment (e.g., produced by following the end of the survey, decrease, or remain the same. Further, earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, suggesting that effects such as those where there is evidence for decreased waves) make up the natural found by McCauley et al. (2017) would catch rates in response to airgun noise, contributions to the total acoustics of a not be expected to be detectable these findings provide no information place. These acoustic conditions,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19611

termed acoustic habitat, are one which will inform both NMFS’ marine mammals would be reasonably attribute of an animal’s total habitat. consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and expected to be behaviorally harassed Soundscapes are also defined by, and the negligible impact determination. (equated to Level B harassment) or to acoustic habitat influenced by, the total Harassment is the only type of take incur PTS of some degree (equated to contribution of anthropogenic sound. expected to result from these activities. Level A harassment). This may include incidental emissions Except with respect to certain activities Level B Harassment for non-explosive from sources such as vessel traffic, or not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the may be intentionally introduced to the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act sources—Though significantly driven by marine environment for data acquisition of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, received level, the onset of behavioral purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). which (i) has the potential to injure a disturbance from anthropogenic noise Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its marine mammal or marine mammal exposure is also informed to varying frequency content, duration, and stock in the wild (Level A harassment); degrees by other factors related to the loudness and these characteristics or (ii) has the potential to disturb a source (e.g., frequency, predictability, greatly influence the potential habitat- marine mammal or marine mammal duty cycle), the environment (e.g., mediated effects to marine mammals stock in the wild by causing disruption bathymetry), and the receiving animals (please see also the previous discussion of behavioral patterns, including, but (hearing, motivation, experience, on masking under ‘‘Acoustic Effects’’), not limited to, migration, breathing, demography, behavioral context) and which may range from local effects for nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering can be difficult to predict (Southall et brief periods of time to chronic effects (Level B harassment). al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). NMFS over large areas and for long durations. Authorized takes would primarily be uses a generalized acoustic threshold Depending on the extent of effects to by Level B harassment, as use of seismic based on received level to estimate the habitat, animals may alter their airguns has the potential to result in onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS communications signals (thereby disruption of behavioral patterns for predicts that marine mammals are likely potentially expending additional individual marine mammals. There is to be behaviorally harassed in a manner energy) or miss acoustic cues (either also some potential for auditory injury we consider Level B harassment when conspecific or adventitious). For more (Level A harassment) for mysticetes and exposed to underwater anthropogenic detail on these concepts see, e.g., Barber high frequency cetaceans (i.e., noise above received levels of 120 dB re et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 2011; porpoises, Kogia spp.). The proposed 1 mPa (rms) for continuous (e.g., Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., mitigation and monitoring measures are vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 2014. expected to minimize the severity of above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for non- Problems arising from a failure to such taking to the extent practicable. explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic detect cues are more likely to occur As described previously, no serious airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific when noise stimuli are chronic and injury or mortality is anticipated or sonar) sources. L–DEO’s proposed overlap with biologically relevant cues proposed to be authorized for this activity includes the use of impulsive activity. Below we describe how the used for communication, orientation, seismic sources. Therefore, the 160 dB and predator/prey detection (Francis take is estimated. re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable for and Barber, 2013). Although the signals Generally speaking, we estimate take analysis of Level B harassment. emitted by seismic airgun arrays are by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds generally low frequency, they would above which NMFS believes the best Level A harassment for non-explosive also likely be of short duration and available science indicates marine sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance transient in any given area due to the mammals will be behaviorally harassed for Assessing the Effects of nature of these surveys. As described or incur some degree of permanent Anthropogenic Sound on Marine previously, exploratory surveys such as hearing impairment; (2) the area or Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) these cover a large area but would be volume of water that will be ensonified (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies transient rather than focused in a given above these levels in a day; (3) the dual criteria to assess auditory injury location over time and therefore would density or occurrence of marine (Level A harassment) to five different not be considered chronic in any given mammals within these ensonified areas; marine mammal groups (based on location. and, (4) and the number of days of hearing sensitivity) as a result of Based on the information discussed activities. We note that while these exposure to noise from two different herein, we conclude that impacts of the basic factors can contribute to a basic types of sources (impulsive or non- specified activity are not likely to have calculation to provide an initial impulsive). L–DEO’s proposed seismic more than short-term adverse effects on prediction of takes, additional survey includes the use of impulsive any prey habitat or populations of prey information that can qualitatively (seismic airguns) sources. species. Further, any impacts to marine inform take estimates is also sometimes mammal habitat are not expected to available (e.g., previous monitoring These thresholds are provided in the result in significant or long-term results or average group size). Below, we table below. The references, analysis, consequences for individual marine describe the factors considered here in and methodology used in the mammals, or to contribute to adverse more detail and present the proposed development of the thresholds are impacts on their populations. take estimate. described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at Estimated Take Acoustic Thresholds https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ This section provides an estimate of NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that national/marine-mammal-protection/ the number of incidental takes proposed identify the received level of marine-mammal-acoustic-technical- for authorization through this IHA, underwater sound above which exposed guidance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19612 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * Hearing Group (received level) Impulsive Non-impulsive

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ...... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ...... Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ...... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ...... Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ...... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ...... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ...... Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ...... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impul- sive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. 2 Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.

Ensonified Area m, which may not intersect all the deep-water radii obtained from model Here, we describe operational and sound pressure level (SPL) isopleths at results down to a maximum water depth environmental parameters of the activity their widest point from the sea surface of 2,000 m. down to the maximum relevant water that will feed into identifying the area ∼ A recent retrospective analysis of ensonified above the acoustic depth for marine mammals of 2,000 m. acoustic propagation from use of the thresholds, which include source levels At short ranges, where the direct Langseth sources during a 2012 survey and acoustic propagation modeling. arrivals dominate and the effects of off Washington (i.e., in the same L–DEO’s modeling methodology is seafloor interactions are minimal, the location) suggests that predicted data recorded at the deep and slope sites described in greater detail in the IHA (modeled) radii (using the same are suitable for comparison with application (LGL 2019). The proposed approach as that used here) were 2–3 modeled levels at the depth of the 2D survey would acquire data using the times larger than the measured radii in calibration hydrophone. At longer 36-airgun array with a total discharge shallow water. (Crone et al., 2014). 3 ranges, the comparison with the volume of 6,600 in at a maximum tow Therefore, because the modeled depth of 12 m. L–DEO model results are model—constructed from the maximum SPL through the entire water column at shallow-water radii were specifically used to determine the 160-dBrms radius demonstrated to be overly conservative for the 36-airgun array in deep water varying distances from the airgun array—is the most relevant. for the region in which the current (>1,000 m) down to a maximum water survey is planned, L–DEO used the depth of 2,000 m. Water depths in the In deep and intermediate-water received levels from multichannel project area may be up to 4,400 m, but depths, comparisons at short ranges seismic data collected by the Langseth marine mammals are generally not between sound levels for direct arrivals during the 2012 survey to estimate Level anticipated to dive below 2,000 m recorded by the calibration hydrophone B harassment radii in shallow (<100 m) and model results for the same array (Costa and Williams 1999). Received and intermediate (100–1,000 m) depths tow depth are in good agreement (Fig. sound levels were predicted by L–DEO’s (Crone et al., 2014). Streamer data in 12 and 14 in Appendix H of NSF–USGS, model (Diebold et al., 2010) which uses shallow water collected in 2012 have 2011). Consequently, isopleths falling ray tracing for the direct wave traveling the advantage of including the effects of within this domain can be predicted from the array to the receiver and its local and complex subsurface geology, associated source ghost (reflection at the reliably by the L–DEO model, although seafloor topography, and water column air-water interface in the vicinity of the they may be imperfectly sampled by properties, and thus allow array), in a constant-velocity half-space measurements recorded at a single determination of radii more confidently (infinite homogeneous ocean layer, depth. At greater distances, the than using data from calibration unbounded by a seafloor). In addition, calibration data show that seafloor- experiments in the Gulf of Mexico. propagation measurements of pulses reflected and sub-seafloor-refracted from the 36-airgun array at a tow depth arrivals dominate, whereas the direct The proposed survey would acquire of 6 m have been reported in deep water arrivals become weak and/or data with a four-string 6,600-in3 airgun (approximately 1600 m), intermediate incoherent. Aside from local topography array at a tow depth of 12 m while the water depth on the slope (approximately effects, the region around the critical data collected in 2012 were acquired 600–1100 m), and shallow water distance is where the observed levels with the same airgun array at a tow (approximately 50 m) in the Gulf of rise closest to the model curve. depth of 9 m. To account for the Mexico in 2007–2008 (Tolstoy et al. However, the observed sound levels are differences in tow depth between the 2009; Diebold et al. 2010). found to fall almost entirely below the 2012 survey and the proposed 2020 For deep and intermediate-water model curve. Thus, analysis of the Gulf survey, L–DEO calculated a scaling cases, the field measurements cannot be of Mexico calibration measurements factor using the deep water modeling used readily to derive Level A and Level demonstrates that although simple, the (see Appendix D in L–DEO’s IHA B harassment isopleths, as at those sites L–DEO model is a robust tool for application). A scaling factor of 1.15 the calibration hydrophone was located conservatively estimating isopleths. For was applied to the measured radii from at a roughly constant depth of 350–500 deep water (>1,000 m), L–DEO used the the airgun array towed at 9 m.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19613

The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleth for the Langseth’s 36-airgun array are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Level B harassment Source and volume Tow depth Water depth zone (m) (m) (m) using L–DEO model

36 airgun array, 6,600-in3 ...... 12 >1000 a 6,733 100–1000 b 9,468 <100 b 12,650 a Distance based on L–DEO model results. b Distance based on data from Crone et al. (2014).

Predicted distances to Level A marine mammal density or occurrence 2009). At larger distances, away from harassment isopleths, which vary based to facilitate the estimation of take the source array center, sound pressure on marine mammal hearing groups, numbers. of all the airguns in the array stack were calculated based on modeling The values for SELcum and peak SPL coherently, but not within one time performed by L–DEO using the for the Langseth airgun array were sample, resulting in smaller source NUCLEUS source modeling software derived from calculating the modified levels (a few dB) than the source level program and the NMFS User far-field signature (Table 5). The farfield derived from the farfield signature. Spreadsheet, described below. The signature is often used as a theoretical Because the farfield signature does not acoustic thresholds for impulsive representation of the source level. To take into account the large array effect sounds (e.g., airguns) contained in the compute the farfield signature, the near the source and is calculated as a Technical Guidance were presented as source level is estimated at a large point source, the modified farfield dual metric acoustic thresholds using distance below the array (e.g., 9 km), signature is a more appropriate measure both SELcum and peak sound pressure and this level is back projected of the sound source level for distributed metrics (NMFS 2018). As dual metrics, mathematically to a notional distance of sound sources, such as airgun arrays. L– NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A 1 m from the array’s geometrical center. DEO used the acoustic modeling harassment) to have occurred when However, when the source is an array of methodology as used for Level B either one of the two metrics is multiple airguns separated in space, the harassment with a small grid step of 1 exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the source level from the theoretical farfield m in both the inline and depth largest isopleth). The SELcum metric signature is not necessarily the best directions. The propagation modeling considers both level and duration of measurement of the source level that is takes into account all airgun exposure, as well as auditory weighting physically achieved at the source interactions at short distances from the functions by marine mammal hearing (Tolstoy et al. 2009). Near the source (at source, including interactions between group. In recognition of the fact that the short ranges, distances <1 km), the subarrays, which are modeled using the requirement to calculate Level A pulses of sound pressure from each NUCLEUS software to estimate the harassment ensonified areas could be individual airgun in the source array do notional signature and MATLAB more technically challenging to predict not stack constructively, as they do for software to calculate the pressure signal due to the duration component and the the theoretical farfield signature. The at each mesh point of a grid. use of weighting functions in the new pulses from the different airguns spread For a more complete explanation of SELcum thresholds, NMFS developed an out in time such that the source levels this modeling approach, please see optional User Spreadsheet that includes observed or modeled are the result of ‘‘Appendix A: Determination of tools to help predict a simple isopleth the summation of pulses from a few Mitigation Zones’’ in the IHA that can be used in conjunction with airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al. application.

TABLE 5—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS BASED ON MODIFIED FARFIELD SIGNATURE FOR THE 6,600-IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY

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

6,600 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) ...... 252.06 252.65 253.24 252.25 252.52 3 6,600 in airgun array (SELcum) ... 232.98 232.84 233.10 232.84 232.08

In order to more realistically to make adjustments (dB) to the converted to pressures (mPa) in order to incorporate the Technical Guidance’s unweighted spectrum levels, by integrate them over the entire weighting functions over the seismic frequency, according to the weighting broadband spectrum, resulting in array’s full acoustic band, unweighted functions for each relevant marine broadband weighted source levels by spectrum data for the Langseth’s airgun mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ hearing group that could be directly array (modeled in 1 Hz bands) was used weighted spectrum levels were then incorporated within the User

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19614 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the potential radial distances to auditory Spreadsheets in the form of estimated Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting injury zones were then calculated for distances to Level A harassment factor adjustment). Using the User SELcum thresholds. isopleths for the survey are shown in Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the Table 6. As described above, NMFS methodology for mobile sources form of estimated SLs are shown in considers onset of PTS (Level A (described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the Table 5. User Spreadsheets used by L– harassment) to have occurred when hearing group-specific weighted source DEO to estimate distances to Level A either one of the dual metrics (SELcum levels, and inputs assuming spherical harassment isopleths for the 36-airgun and Peak SPLflat) is exceeded (i.e., spreading propagation and source array for the surveys are shown in Table metric resulting in the largest isopleth). velocities (4.2 knots) and shot intervals A–3 in Appendix A of the IHA (37.5 m) specific to the planned survey, application. Outputs from the User

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

Level A harassment zone (m) Source Threshold (volume) LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids Otariids

36-airgun array SELcum ...... 426.9 0 1.3 13.9 0 (6,600 in3). Peak ...... 38.9 13.6 268.3 43.7 10.6

Note that because of some of the from each element. The effect is of sound (here assumed to be 1,500 assumptions included in the methods destructive interference of the outputs meters per second in water, although used (e.g., stationary receiver with no of each element, so that peak pressures this varies with environmental vertical or horizontal movement in in the near-field will be significantly conditions). response to the acoustic source), lower than the output of the largest To determine the closest distance to isopleths produced may be individual element. Here, the 230 dB the arrays at which the source level overestimates to some degree, which peak isopleth distances would in all predictions in Table 5 are valid (i.e., will ultimately result in some degree of cases be expected to be within the near- overestimation of Level A harassment. field of the array where the definition of maximum extent of the near-field), we However, these tools offer the best way source level breaks down. Therefore, calculated D based on an assumed to predict appropriate isopleths when actual locations within this distance of frequency of 1 kHz. A frequency of 1 more sophisticated modeling methods the array center where the sound level kHz is commonly used in near-field/far- are not available, and NMFS continues exceeds 230 dB peak SPL would not field calculations for airgun arrays to develop ways to quantitatively refine necessarily exist. In general, Caldwell (Zykov and Carr, 2014; MacGillivray, these tools and will qualitatively and Dragoset (2000) suggest that the 2006; NSF and USGS, 2011), and based address the output where appropriate. near-field for airgun arrays is considered on representative airgun spectrum data For mobile sources, such as the to extend out to approximately 250 m. and field measurements of an airgun proposed seismic survey, the User In order to provide quantitative array used on the Langseth, nearly all Spreadsheet predicts the closest support for this theoretical argument, (greater than 95 percent) of the energy distance at which a stationary animal we calculated expected maximum from airgun arrays is below 1 kHz would not incur PTS if the sound source distances at which the near-field would (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Thus, using 1 kHz traveled by the animal in a straight line transition to the far-field (Table 5). For as the upper cut-off for calculating the at a constant speed. a specific array one can estimate the maximum extent of the near-field Auditory injury is unlikely to occur distance at which the near-field should reasonably represent the near- for mid-frequency cetaceans, otariid transitions to the far-field by: field extent in field conditions. pinnipeds, and phocid pinnipeds given If the largest distance to the peak very small modeled zones of injury for sound pressure level threshold was those species (up to 43.7 m), in context equal to or less than the longest of distributed source dynamics. The source level of the array is a theoretical with the condition that D >> l, and dimension of the array (i.e., under the definition assuming a point source and where D is the distance, L is the longest array), or within the near-field, then measurement in the far-field of the dimension of the array, and l is the received levels that meet or exceed the source (MacGillivray, 2006). As wavelength of the signal (Lurton, 2002). threshold in most cases are not expected described by Caldwell and Dragoset Given that l can be defined by: to occur. This is because within the (2000), an array is not a point source, near-field and within the dimensions of but one that spans a small area. In the the array, the source levels specified in far-field, individual elements in arrays Table 5 are overestimated and not will effectively work as one source where f is the frequency of the sound applicable. In fact, until one reaches a because individual pressure peaks will signal and v is the speed of the sound distance of approximately three or four have coalesced into one relatively broad in the medium of interest, one can times the near-field distance the average pulse. The array can then be considered rewrite the equation for D as: intensity of sound at any given distance a ‘‘point source.’’ For distances within from the array is still less than that the near-field, i.e., approximately 2–3 based on calculations that assume a times the array dimensions, pressure directional point source (Lurton, 2002). peaks from individual elements do not The 6,600-in3 airgun array used in the arrive simultaneously because the and calculate D directly given a proposed survey has an approximate observation point is not equidistant particular frequency and known speed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:15 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 EN07AP20.001 EN07AP20.002 EN07AP20.003 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19615

diagonal of 28.8 m, resulting in a near- and Forney 2007; Forney 2007; Barlow density models.’’) These models field distance of 138.7 m at 1 kHz (NSF 2010). Ship surveys for cetaceans in estimate density as a continuous and USGS, 2011). Field measurements slope and offshore waters of Oregon and function of habitat variables (e.g., sea of this array indicate that the source Washington were conducted by NMFS’ surface temperature, seafloor depth) and behaves like multiple discrete sources, Southwest Fisheries Science Center thus, within the study area that was rather than a directional point source, (SWFSC) in 1991, 1993, 1996, 2001, modeled, densities can be predicted at beginning at approximately 400 m (deep 2005, 2008, and 2014 and synthesized all locations where these habitat site) to 1 km (shallow site) from the by Barlow (2016); these surveys were variables can be measured or estimated. center of the array (Tolstoy et al., 2009), conducted from the coastline up to ∼556 Spatial habitat models therefore allow distances that are actually greater than km from shore from June or August to estimates of cetacean densities on finer four times the calculated 140-m near- November or December. These data scales (spatially and temporally) than field distance. Within these distances, were used by the SWFSC to develop traditional line-transect or mark- the recorded received levels were spatial models of cetacean densities for recapture analyses. always lower than would be predicted the California Current Ecosystem (CCE). The methods used to estimate based on calculations that assume a Systematic, offshore, at-sea survey data pinniped at-sea densities are typically directional point source, and for pinnipeds are more limited (e.g., different than those used for cetaceans, increasingly so as one moves closer Bonnell et al., 1992; Adams et al., 2014); because pinnipeds are not limited to the towards the array (Tolstoy et al., 2009). In British Columbia, several systematic water and spend a significant amount of Given this, relying on the calculated surveys have been conducted in coastal time on land (e.g., at rookeries). distance (138.7 m) as the distance at waters (e.g., Williams and Thomas 2007; Pinniped abundance is generally which we expect to be in the near-field Ford et al., 2010a; Best et al., 2015; estimated via shore counts of animals is a conservative approach since even Harvey et al., 2017). Surveys in coastal on land at known haulout sites or by beyond this distance the acoustic as well as offshore waters were counting number of pups weaned at modeling still overestimates the actual conducted by DFO during 2002 to 2008; rookeries and applying a correction received level. Within the near-field, in however, little effort occurred off the factor to estimate the abundance of the order to explicitly evaluate the west coast of Vancouver Island during population (for example Harvey et al., likelihood of exceeding any particular late spring/summer (Ford et al., 2010). 1990; Jeffries et al., 2003; Lowry, 2002; acoustic threshold, one would need to Density estimates for the proposed Sepulveda et al., 2009). Estimating consider the exact position of the survey areas outside the U.S. EEZ, i.e., in-water densities from land-based animal, its relationship to individual in the Canadian EEZ, were not readily counts is difficult given the variability array elements, and how the individual available, so density estimates for U.S. in foraging ranges, migration, and acoustic sources propagate and their waters were applied to the entire survey haulout behavior between species and acoustic fields interact. Given that area. within each species, and is driven by within the near-field and dimensions of factors such as age class, sex class, The U.S. Navy primarily used SWFSC the array source levels would be below breeding cycles, and seasonal variation. habitat-based cetacean density models those in Table 5, we believe exceedance Data such as age class, sex class, and of the peak pressure threshold would to develop a marine species density seasonal variation are often used in only be possible under highly unlikely database (MSDD) for the Northwest conjunction with abundance estimates circumstances. Training and Testing (NWTT) Study from known haulout sites to assign an In consideration of the received sound Area for NWTT Phase III activities (U.S. in-water abundance estimate for a given levels in the near-field as described Navy 2019a), which encompasses the area. The total abundance divided by above, we expect the potential for Level U.S. portion of the proposed survey the area of the region provides a A harassment of mid-frequency area. For several cetacean species, the representative in-water density estimate cetaceans, otariid pinnipeds, and Navy updated densities estimated by for each species in a different location. phocid pinnipeds to be de minimis, line-transect surveys or mark-recapture In addition to using shore counts to even before the likely moderating effects studies (e.g., Barlow 2016). These estimate pinniped density, traditional of aversion and/or other compensatory methods usually produce a single value line-transect derived estimates are also behaviors (e.g., Nachtigall et al., 2018) for density that is an averaged estimate used, particularly in open ocean areas. are considered. We do not believe that across very large geographical areas, The Navy’s MSDD is currently the Level A harassment is a likely outcome such as waters within the U.S. EEZ off most comprehensive compendium for for any mid-frequency cetacean, otariid California, Oregon, and Washington density data available for the CCE. pinniped, or phocid pinniped and do (referred to as a ‘‘uniform’’ density However, data products are currently not propose to authorize any Level A estimate). This is the general approach not publically available for the database; harassment for these species. applied in estimating cetacean thus, in this analysis the Navy’s data abundance in the NMFS stock products were used only for species for Marine Mammal Occurrence assessment reports. The disadvantage of which density data were not available In this section we provide the these methods is that they do not from an alternative spatially-explicit information about the presence, density, provide spatially- or temporally-explicit model (e.g., pinnipeds, Kogia spp., and group dynamics of marine density information. More recently, a minke whales, sei whales, gray whales, mammals that will inform the take newer method called spatial habitat short-finned pilot whales, and Northern calculations. modeling has been used to estimate Resident, transient, and offshore killer Extensive systematic aircraft- and cetacean densities that address some of whales). For these species, GIS was used ship-based surveys have been these shortcomings (e.g., Barlow et al., to determine the areas expected to be conducted for marine mammals in 2009; Becker et al., 2010; 2012a; 2014; ensonified in each density category (i.e., offshore waters of Oregon and Becker et al., 2016; Ferguson et al., distance from shore). For pinnipeds, the Washington (e.g., Bonnell et al., 1992; 2006; Forney et al., 2012; 2015; Redfern densities from the Navy’s MSDD were Green et al., 1992, 1993; Barlow 1997, et al., 2006). (Note that spatial habitat corrected by projecting the most recent 2003; Barlow and Taylor 2001; models are also referred to as ‘‘species population growth and updated Calambokidis and Barlow 2004; Barlow distribution models’’ or ‘‘habitat-based population estimates to 2020, when

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19616 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

available. Where available, the Coast from December through June. Forney et al., 2012). The small beaked appropriate seasonal density estimate These monthly density estimates apply whale guild includes Cuvier’s beaked from the MSDD was used in the to a ‘‘main migration corridor’’ that whale and beaked whales of the genus estimation here (i.e., summer). extends from the coast to 10 km Mesoplodon, including Blainville’s NMFS obtained data products from offshore. A zone from the main beaked whale, Hubbs’ beaked whale, the Navy for densities of Southern migration corridor out to 47 km offshore and Stejneger’s beaked whale. NMFS Resident killer whales in the NWTT is designated as an area of ‘‘potential SWFSC developed a CCE habitat-based Offshore Study Area. The modeled presence’’. To derive a density estimate density model for the small beaked density estimates were available on the for this area the Navy assumed that 1 whale guild which provides spatially scale of 1 km by 1 km grid cells. The percent of the population could be explicit density estimates off the U.S. densities from grid cells overlapping the within the 47-km ‘‘potential presence’’ West Coast for summer and fall based ensonified area in each depth category area during migration. Given the 2014 on survey data collected between 1991 were multiplied by the corresponding stock assessment population estimate of and 2009 (Becker et al., 2016). area to estimate potential exposures 20,990 animals (Carretta et al., 2017b), False Killer Whale (Table 9). approximately 210 gray whales may use For most other species, (i.e., this corridor. Assuming the migration False killer whales were not included humpback, blue, fin, sperm, Baird’s wave lasts 30 days, then 7 whales on in the Navy’s MSDD, as they are very beaked, and other small beaked whales; average on any one day could occur in rarely encountered in the northeast bottlenose, striped, common, Pacific the ‘‘potential presence’’ area. The area Pacific. Density estimates for false killer white-sided, Risso’s and northern right from the main migration route offshore whales were also not presented in whale dolphins; and Dall’s porpoise), to 47 km within the NWTT study area Barlow (2016) or Becker et al. (2016), as habitat-based density models from = 45,722.06 km2, so density within this no sightings occurred during surveys Becker et al. (2016) were used. Becker zone = 0.00015 whales/km2. From July– conducted between 1986 and 2008 et al. (2016) used seven years of SWFSC November, gray whale occurrence off (Ferguson and Barlow 2001, 2003; cetacean line-transect survey data the coast is expected to consist Forney 2007; Barlow 2003, 2010). One collected between 1991 and 2009 to primarily of whales belonging to the sighting was made off of southern develop predictive habitat-based models PCFG. Calambokidis et al. (2012) California during 2014 (Barlow 2016). of cetacean densities in the CCE. The provided an updated analysis of the One pod of false killer whales occurred modeled density estimates were abundance of the PCFG whales in the in Puget Sound for several months available on the scale of 7 km by 10 km Pacific Northwest and recognized that during the 1990s (Navy 2015). Based on grid cells. The densities from all grid this group forms a distinct feeding the available information, NMFS does cells overlapping the ensonified areas aggregation. For the purposes of not believe false killer whales are within each water depth category were establishing density, the Navy assumed expected to be taken, but L–DEO has averaged to calculate a zone-specific that from July 1 to November 30 all the requested take of this species so we are density for each species. 209 PCFG whales could be present off proposing to authorize take. Becker et al. (2016) did not develop a the coast in the Northern California/ Killer Whale density model for the harbor porpoise, Oregon/Washington region (this so densities from Forney et al. (2014) accounts for the potential that some A combination of movement data were used for that species. Forney et al. PCFG whales may be outside of the area (from both visual observations and (2014) presented estimates of harbor but that there also may be some non- satellite-linked tags) and detections porpoise abundance and density along PCFG whales in the region as noted by from stationary acoustic recorders have the Pacific coast of California, Oregon, Calambokidis et al.(2012)). Given that provided information on the offshore and Washington based on aerial line- the PCFG whales are found largely distribution of the Southern Resident transect surveys conducted between nearshore, it was assumed that all the stock (Hanson et al., 2018). These data 2007 and 2012. Separate density whales could be within 10 km of the have been used to develop state space estimates were provided for harbor coast. To capture the potential presence movement models that provide porpoises in Oregon south of 45° N and of whales further offshore (e.g., Oleson estimates of the probability of Oregon/Washington north of 45° N (i.e., et al., 2009), it was assumed that a occurrence (or relative density) of within the boundaries of the Northern percentage of the whales could be Southern Residents in the offshore California/Southern Oregon and present from 10 km out to 47 km off the study area in winter and spring (Hanson Northern Oregon/Washington Coast coast; the 47 km outer limit is consistent et al., 2018). Since the total number of stocks), so stock-specific take estimates with the DeAngelis et al. (2011) animals that comprise each pod is were generated (Forney et al., 2014). migration model. Since 77 percent of known, the relative density estimates Background information on the the PCFG sightings were within the were used in association with the total density calculations for each species/ nearshore BIAs (Calambokidis et al., abundance estimates to derive absolute guild (if different from the general 2015), it was assumed that 23 percent density estimates (i.e., number of methods from the Navy’s MSDD, Becker (48 whales) could potentially be found animals/km2) within the offshore study et al. (2016), or Forney et al. (2014) further offshore. Two strata were thus area. Given that the K and L pods were described above) are reported here. developed for the July–November gray together during all but one of the Density estimates for each species/guild whale density layers: (1) From the coast satellite tag deployments, Hanson et al. (aside from Southern Resident killer to 10 km offshore, and (2) from 10 km (2018) developed two separate state whales, which are discussed separately) to 47 km offshore. The density was space models, one for the combined K are found in Table 7. assumed to be 0 animals/km2 for areas and L pods and one for the J pod. The offshore of 47 km. absolute density estimates were thus Gray Whale derived based on a total of 53 animals DeAngelis et al. (2011) developed a Small Beaked Whale Guild for the K and L pods (K pod = 18 migration model that provides monthly, NMFS has developed habitat-based animals, L pod = 35 animals) and 22 spatially explicit predictions of gray density models for a small beaked whale animals for the J pod (Center for Whale whale abundance along the U.S. West guild in the CCE (Becker et al., 2012b; Research, 2019). Of the three pods, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19617

K and L pods appear to have a more et al., 2017b). Stranding records for this survey area). The second stratum (200 m extensive and seasonally variable species from Oregon and Washington to 300 km from shore) is the preferred offshore coastal distribution, with rare waters are considered to be beyond the habitat where Guadalupe fur seals are sightings as far south as Monterey Bay, normal range of this species rather than most likely to occur most of the time. California (Carretta et al., 2019; Ford et an extension of its range (Norman et al., Individuals may spend a portion of their al., 2000; Hanson et al., 2018). Two 2004). Density values for short-finned time over the continental shelf or farther seasonal density maps were thus pilot whales are available for the than 300 km from shore, necessitating a developed for the K and L pods, one SWFSC Oregon/Washington and density estimate for those areas, but all representing their distribution from Northern California strata for summer/ Guadalupe fur seals would be expected January to May (the duration of the tag fall (Barlow, 2016). Density data are not to be in the central stratum most of the deployments), and another representing available for the NWTT Offshore area time, which is the reason 100 percent is their distribution from June to northwest of the SWFSC strata, so data used in the density estimate for the December. Based on stationary acoustic from the SWFSC Oregon/Washington central stratum (Norris, 2017a). Spatial recording data, their excursions offshore stratum were used as representative areas for the three strata were estimated from June to December are more limited estimates. These values were used to in a GIS and used to calculate the and typically do not extend south of the represent density year-round. densities. Columbia River (Emmons 2019). To The Navy’s density estimate for Guadalupe Fur Seal provide more conservative density Guadalupe fur seals projected the estimates, the Navy extended the June to Adult male Guadalupe fur seals are abundance through 2017, while L– December distribution to just south of expected to be ashore at breeding areas DEO’s survey will occur in 2020. the Columbia River and redistributed over the summer, and are not expected Therefore, we have projected the the total K and L populations (53 to be present during the planned abundance estimate in 2020 using the animals) within the more limited range geophysical survey (Caretta et al., abundance estimate (34,187 animals) boundaries. A conservative approach 2017b; Norris 2017b). Additionally, and population growth rate (5.9 percent) was also adopted for the J pod since the breeding females are unlikely to be presented in the 2019 draft SARs January to May density estimates were present within the Offshore Study Area (Caretta et al., 2019). This calculation assumed to represent annual occurrence as they remain ashore to nurse their yielded an increased density estimate of patterns, despite information that this pups through the fall and winter, Guadalupe fur seals than what was pod typically spends more time in the making only short foraging trips from presented in the Navy’s MSDD. rookeries (Gallo-Reynoso et al., 2008; inland waters during the summer and Northern Fur Seal fall (Carretta et al., 2019; Ford et al., Norris 2017b; Yochem et al., 1987). To 2000; Hanson et al., 2018). Further, for estimate the total abundance of The Navy estimated the abundance of all seasons the Navy assumed that all Guadalupe fur seals, the Navy adjusted northern fur seals from the Eastern members of the three pods of Southern the population reported in the 2016 Pacific stock and the California breeding Residents could occur either offshore or SAR (Caretta et al., 2017b) of 20,000 stock that could occur in the NWTT in the inland waters, so the total number seals by applying the average annual Offshore Study Area by determining the of animals in the stock was used to growth rate of 7.64 percent over the percentage of time tagged animals spent derive density estimates for both study seven years between 2010 and 2017. within the Study Area and applying that areas. The resulting 2017 projected abundance percentage to the population to Due to the difficulties associated with was 33,485 fur seals. Using the reported calculate an abundance for adult reliably distinguishing the different composition of the breeding population females, juveniles, and pups stocks of killer whales from at sea of Guadalupe fur seals (Gallo-Reynoso independently on a monthly basis. sightings, and anticipated equal 1994) and satellite telemetry data Adult males are not expected to occur likelihood of occurrence among the (Norris 2017b), the Navy established within the Offshore Study Area and the stocks, density estimates for the rest of seasonal and demographic abundances planned survey area during the planned the stocks are presented as a whole (i.e., of Guadalupe fur seals expected to occur geophysical survey as they spend the includes the Offshore, West Coast within the Offshore Study Area. summer ashore at breeding areas in the Transient, and Northern Resident The distribution of Guadalupe fur Bering Sea and San Miguel Island stocks). Barlow (2016) presents density seals in the Offshore Study Area was (Caretta et al., 2017b). Using the values for killer whales in the CCE, with stratified by distance from shore (or monthly abundances of fur seals within separate densities for waters off Oregon/ water depth) to reflect their preferred the Offshore Study Area, the Navy Washington (i.e., north of the California pelagic habitat (Norris, 2017a). Ten created strata to estimate the density of border) and Northern California for percent of fur seals in the Study Area fur seals within three strata: 22 km to 70 summer/fall. Density data are not are expected to use waters over the km from shore, 70 km to 130 km from available for the NWTT Offshore area continental shelf (approximated as shore, and 130 km to 463 km from shore northwest of the CCE study area, so data waters with depths between 10 and 200 (the western Study Area boundary). L– from the SWFSC Oregon/Washington m). A depth of 10 m is used as the DEO’s planned survey is 423 km from area were used as representative shoreward extent of the shelf (rather shore at the closest point. Based on estimates. These values were used to than extending to shore), because satellite tag data and historic sealing represent density year-round. Guadalupe fur seals in the Offshore records (Olesiuk 2012; Kajimura 1984), Study Area are not expected to haul out the Navy assumed 25 percent of the Short-Finned Pilot Whale and would not be likely to come close population present within the overall Along the U.S. West Coast, short- to shore. All fur seals (i.e., 100 percent) Offshore Study Area may be within the finned pilot whales were once common would use waters off the shelf (beyond 130 km to 463 km stratum. south of Point Conception, California the 200-m isobath) out to 300 km from The Navy’s density estimates for (Carretta et al., 2017b; Reilly & Shane, shore, and 25 of percent of fur seals northern fur seals did not include the 1986), but now sightings off the U.S. would be expected to use waters latest abundance data collected from West Coast are infrequent and typically between 300 and 700 km from shore Bogoslof Island or the Pribilof Islands in occur during warm water years (Carretta (including the planned geophysical 2015 and 2016. Incorporating the latest

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19618 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

pup counts yielded a slight decrease in (Oleson et al., 2009). The mean water California. In-water abundance the population abundance estimate, depth in the area of occurrence was 42 estimates of adult and sub-adult males which resulted in a slight decrease in m, and surveys were conducted out to in strata A and B were extrapolated to the estimated densities of northern fur approximately 60 km from shore. Wiles estimate seasonal densities in the Study seals in each depth stratum. (2015) estimated that Steller sea lions Area. Approximately 3,000 male off the Washington coast primarily California sea lions are known to pass Steller Sea Lion occurred within 60 km of shore, through the NWTT Study Area in The Eastern stock of Steller sea lions favoring habitats over the continental August as they migrate northward to the has established rookeries and breeding shelf. However, a few individuals may Washington coast and inland waters sites along the coasts of California, travel several hundred km offshore (DeLong 2018a; Wright et al., 2010). Oregon, British Columbia, and southeast (Merrick & Loughlin 1997; Wiles 2015). Nearly all male sea lions are expected to Alaska. A new rookery was recently Based on these occurrence and be on or near breeding sites off discovered along the coast of distribution data, two strata were used California in July (DeLong et al., 2017; Washington at the Carroll Island and to estimate densities for Steller sea Wright et al., 2010). An estimate of Sea Lion Rock complete, where more lions. The spatial area extending from 3,000 male sea lions is used for the than 100 pups were born in 2015 (Muto shore to the 200-m isobath (i.e., over the month of August. Projected 2017 et al., 2017; Wiles 2015). The 2017 SAR continental shelf) was defined as one seasonal abundance estimates were did not factor in pups born at sites along stratum, and the second stratum derived by applying an annual growth the Washington coast (Muto et al., extended from the 200-m isobath to 300 rate of 5.4 percent (Caretta et al., 2017b) 2017). Considering that pups have been km from shore to account for reports of between 1999 and 2017 to the observed at multiple breeding sites Steller sea lions occurring several abundance estimates from Lowry & since 2013, specifically at the Carroll hundred km offshore. Ninety-five Forney (2005). Island and Sea Lion Rock complex percent of the population of Steller sea The strata used to calculated densities (Wiles 2015), the 2017 SAR abundance lions occurring in the NWTT Study in the NWTT Study Area were based on of 1,407 Steller sea lions (non-pups Area were distributed over the distribution data from Wright et al. only) for Washington underestimates continental shelf stratum and the (2010) and Lowry & Forney (2005) the total population. Wiles (2015) remaining five percent were assumed to indicating that approximately 90 estimates that up to 2,500 Steller sea occur between the 200-m isobath and percent of California sea lions occurred lions are present along the Washington 300 km from shore. within 40 km of shore and 100 percent coast, which is the abundance estimate The percentage of time Steller sea of sea lions were within 70 km of shore. used by the Navy to calculate densities. lions spend hauled out varies by season, A third stratum was added that extends Approximately 30,000 Steller sea lions life stage, and geographic location. To from shore to 450 km offshore to occur along the coast of British calculated densities in the Study Area, account for anomalous conditions, such Columbia, but these animals were not the projected population abundance was as changes in sea surface temperature included in the Navy’s calculations. The adjusted to account for time spent and upwelling associated with El Nin˜ o, Navy applied the annual growth rate for hauled out. In spring and winter, sea during which California sea lions have each regional population (California, lions were estimated to be in the water been encountered farther from shore, Oregon, Washington, and southeast 64 percent of the time. In summer, when presumably seeking prey (DeLong & Alaska), reported in Muto et al. (2017), sea lions are more likely to be in the Jeffries 2017; Weise et al., 2010). The to each population to estimate the stock water, the percent of animals estimated Navy calculated densities for each abundance in 2017, and we further to be in the water was increased to 76 stratum (0 to 40 km, 40 to 70 km, and projected the population estimate in percent, and in fall, sea lions were 0 to 450 km) for each season, spring, 2020. anticipated to be in the water 53 percent summer, fall, and winter, but noted that Sea lions from northern California of the time (U.S. Navy 2019). Densities the density of California sea lions in all and southern Oregon rookeries migrate were calculated for each depth stratum strata for June and July was 0 animals/ north in September following the off Washington and off Oregon. km2. The Navy’s calculated densities for breeding season and winter in northern August were conservatively used here, California Sea Lion Oregon, Washington, and British as sightings of California sea lions have Columbia waters. They disperse widely Seasonal at-sea abundance of been reported on the continental shelf following the breeding season, which California sea lions is estimated from in June and July (Adams et al., 2014). extends from May through July, likely in strip transect survey data collected search of different types of prey, which offshore along the California coastline Northern Elephant Seal may be concentrated in areas where (Lowry & Forney 2005). The survey area The most recent surveys supporting oceanic fronts and eddies persist (Fritz was divided into seven strata, labeled A the abundance estimate for northern et al., 2016; Jemison et al., 2013; Lander through G. Abundance estimates from elephant seals were conducted in 2010 et al., 2010; Muto et al., 2017; NMFS the two northernmost strata (A and B) (Caretta et al., 2017b). By applying the 2013; Raum-Suryan et al., 2004; Sigler were used to estimate the abundance of average growth rate of 3.8 percent per et al., 2017). Adults depart rookeries in California sea lions occurring in the year for the California breeding stock August. Females with pups remain NWTT Study Area. While the over the seven years from 2010 to 2017, within 500 km of their rookery during northernmost stratum (A) only partially the Navy calculated a projected 2017 the non-breeding season and juveniles overlaps with the Study Area, this abundance estimate of 232,399 elephant of both sexes and adult males disperse approach conservatively assumes that seals (Caretta et al., 2017b; Lowry et al., more widely but remain primarily over all sea lions from the two strata would 2014). Male and female distributions at the continental shelf (Wiles 2015). continue north into the Study Area. sea differ both seasonally and spatially. Based on 11 sightings along the The majority of male sea lions would Pup counts reported by Lowry et al., Washington coast, Steller sea lions were be expected in the NWTT Study Area (2014) and life tables compiled by observed at an average distance of 13 from August to mid-June (Wright et al., Condit et al., (2014) were used to km from shore and 35 km from the shelf 2010). In summer, males are expected to determine the proportion of males and break (defined as the 200-m isobath) be at breeding sites off of Southern females in the population, which was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19619

estimated to be 56 percent female and reported by Caretta et al. (2017b) to population has remained stable) was 44 percent male. Females are assumed project the estimated abundance in applied such that the 2017 abundance to be at sea 100 percent of the time 2020. The resulting population estimate estimate used by the Navy, and 2020 within their seasonal distribution area and estimated densities increased from estimate used here, was still 24,732 in fall and summer (Robinson et al., those presented in the Navy’s MSDD harbor seals. A haulout factor of 33 2012). Males are at sea approximately 90 (U.S. Navy 2019). percent was used to account for hauled- percent of the time in fall and spring, Harbor Seal out seals (i.e., seals are estimated to be remain ashore through the entire winter, in the water 33 percent of the time) and spend one month ashore to molt in Only harbor seals from the (Huber et al., 2001). A single stratum the summer (i.e., are at sea 66 percent Washington and Oregon Coast stock extending from shore to 30 km offshore would be expected to occur in the of the summer). Monthly distribution was used to define the spatial area used proposed survey area. The most recent maps produced by Robinson et al. by the Navy for calculating densities off abundance estimate for the Washington (2012) showing the extent of foraging Washington and Oregon (Bailey et al., and Oregon Coast stock is 24,732 harbor areas used by satellite tagged female 2014; Oleson et al., 2009). elephant seals were used to estimate the seals (Caretta et al., 2017b). Survey data spatial areas to calculate densities. supporting this abundance estimate are Marine Mammal Densities Although the distributions were based from 1999, which exceeds the eight-year on tagged female seals, Le Boeuf et al. limit beyond which NMFS will not Densities for most species are (2000) and Simmons et al. (2007) confirm abundance in a SAR (Caretta et presented by depth stratum (shallow, reported similar tracks by males over al., 2017b). However, based on logistical intermediate, and deep water) in Table broad spatial scales. The spatial areas growth curves for the Washington and 7. For species where densities are representing each monthly distribution Oregon Coast stock that leveled off in available based on other categories (gray were calculating using GIS and then the early 1990s (Caretta et al., 2017b) whale, harbor porpoise, northern fur averaged to produce seasonally variable and unpublished data from the seal, Guadalupe fur seal, California sea areas and resulting densities. Washington Department of Fish and lion, Steller sea lion), category As with other pinniped species above, Wildlife (DeLong & Jeffries 2017), an definitions are provided in the footnotes NMFS used the population growth rate annual growth rate of 0 percent (i.e., the of Table 7.

TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY VALUES IN THE SURVEY AREA

Estimated density (#/km2) Species Intermediate Reference Shallow <100 100–1000 m/ Deep >1000 m/category 1 category 2 m/category 3

LF Cetaceans: Humpback whale ...... 0.0052405 0.0040200 0.0004830 Becker et al. (2016). Blue whale ...... 0.0020235 0.0010518 0.0003576 Becker et al. (2016). Fin whale ...... 0.0002016 0.0009306 0.0013810 Becker et al. (2016). Sei whale ...... 0.0004000 0.0004000 0.0004000 U.S. Navy (2019). Minke whale ...... 0.0013000 0.0013000 0.0013000 U.S. Navy (2019). Gray whale a ...... 0.0155000 0.0010000 N.A. U.S. Navy (2019). MF Cetaceans: Sperm whale ...... 0.0000586 0.0001560 0.0013023 Becker et al. (2016). Baird’s beaked whale ...... 0.0001142 0.0002998 0.0014680 Becker et al. (2016). Small beaked whale ...... 0.0007878 0.0013562 0.0039516 Becker et al. (2016). Bottlenose dolphin ...... 0.0000007 0.0000011 0.0000108 Becker et al. (2016). Striped dolphin ...... 0.0000000 0.0000025 0.0001332 Becker et al. (2016). Short-beaked common dolphin ...... 0.0005075 0.0010287 0.0016437 Becker et al. (2016). Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... 0.0515230 0.0948355 0.0700595 Becker et al. (2016). Northern right-whale dolphin ...... 0.0101779 0.0435350 0.0621242 Becker et al. (2016). Risso’s dolphin ...... 0.0306137 0.0308426 0.0158850 Becker et al. (2016). False killer whale b ...... N.A. N.A. N.A. Killer whale (all stocks except Southern 0.0009200 0.0009200 0.0009200 U.S. Navy (2019). Residents). Short-finned pilot whale ...... 0.0002500 0.0002500 0.0002500 U.S. Navy (2019). HF Cetaceans: Pygmy/dwarf sperm whale ...... 0.0016300 0.0016300 0.0016300 U.S. Navy (2019). Dall’s porpoise ...... 0.1450767 0.1610605 0.1131827 Becker et al. (2016). Harbor porpoise c ...... 0.6240000 0.4670000 N.A. Forney et al. (2014). Otariids: Northern fur seal d ...... 0.0113247 0.1346441 0.0103424 U.S. Navy (2019). Guadalupe fur seal e ...... 0.0234772 0.0262595 N.A. U.S. Navy (2019). California sea lion f ...... 0.0288000 0.0037000 0.0065000 U.S. Navy (2019). Steller sea lion g ...... 0.3088864 0.0022224 N.A. U.S. Navy (2019). Phocids: Northern elephant seal ...... 0.0345997 0.0345997 0.0345997 U.S. Navy (2019). Harbor seal h ...... 0.3424000 N.A. N.A. U.S. Navy (2019). a Category 1 = 0–10 km offshore, Category 2 = 10–47 km offshore (U.S. Navy 2019). b No density estimates available for false killer whales in the survey area, take is based on mean group size from Mobley et al. (2000). c Category 1 = South of 45° N, Category 2 = North of 45° N (Forney et al., 2014). d Category 1 = 22–70 km offshore, Category 2 = 70–130 km offshore, Category 3 = 130–463 km offshore (U.S. Navy 2019).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19620 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

e Category 1 = 10–200 m depth, Category 2 = 200 m depth–300 km offshore; No stock-specific densities are available so these densities were applied to northern fur seals as a species (U.S. Navy 2019). f Category 1 = 0–40 km offshore, Category 2 = 40–70 km offshore, Category 3 = 0–450 km offshore (U.S. Navy 2019). g Category 1 = shore–200 m depth, Category 2 = 200 m depth–300 m offshore (U.S. Navy 2019). h Category 1 = 0–30 km offshore (U.S. Navy 2019).

Take Calculation and Estimation presented in Table 8 do not include application, however, due to the strict areas ensonified within Canadian operational timelines and availability of Here we describe how the information territorial waters (from 0–12 nmi (22.2 the R/V Langseth, no additional time or provided above is brought together to km) from shore). As discussed above, distance has been added to the survey produce a quantitative take estimate. In NMFS cannot authorize the incidental calculations. 37 days is the absolute order to estimate the number of marine take of marine mammals in the maximum amount of time the R/V mammals predicted to be exposed to territorial seas of foreign nations, as the Langseth is available to conduct seismic sound levels that would result in Level MMPA does not apply in those waters. operations. A or Level B harassment, radial However, NMFS has still calculated the The ensonified areas in Table 8 were distances from the airgun array to level of incidental take in the entire predicted isopleths corresponding to the activity area (including Canadian used to estimate take of marine mammal Level A harassment and Level B territorial waters) as part of the analysis species with densities available for the harassment thresholds are calculated, as supporting our preliminary three depth strata (shallow, described above. Those radial distances determination under the MMPA that the intermediate, and deep waters). For are then used to calculate the area(s) activity will have a negligible impact on other species where densities are around the airgun array predicted to be the affected species. The total estimated available based on other categories (i.e., ensonified to sound levels that exceed take in U.S. and Canadian waters is gray whale, harbor porpoise, northern the Level A and Level B harassment presented in Table 11. fur seal, Guadalupe fur seal, California thresholds. The distance for the 160-dB In past applications, to account for sea lion, Steller sea lion; see Table 7), threshold (based on L–DEO model unanticipated delays in operations, L– GIS was used to determine the areas results) was used to draw a buffer DEO has added 25 percent in the form expected to be ensonified in each around every transect line in GIS to of operational days, which is equivalent density category (see Table B–2 in L– determine the total ensonified area in to adding 25 percent to the proposed DEO’s application for the ensonified each depth category (Table 8). The areas line km to be surveyed. In this areas in each category).

TABLE 8—AREAS (KM2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Relevant Total Survey zone Criteria isopleth ensonified (m) area (km2)

Level B Harassment: Shallow <100 m ...... 160 dB ...... a 12,650 11,433.80 Intermediate 100–1000 m ...... 160 dB ...... b 9,468 24,200.75 Deep >1000 m ...... 160 dB ...... b 6,733 50,924.56

Overall 86,559.11 Level A Harassment All depth zones ...... LF Cetacean ...... 426.9 5,605.34 MF Cetacean ...... 13.6 179.85 HF Cetacean ...... 268.3 3,532.92 Otariid ...... 10.6 140.19 Phocid ...... 43.7 577.63 a Based on L–DEO model results. b Based on data from Crone et al. (2014).

Density estimates for Southern layers of the Level B harassment zones areas expected to be ensonified in each Resident killer whales from the U.S. in each depth category to determine the density category (Table 9). Navy’s MSDD were overlaid with GIS

TABLE 9—SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE DENSITIES AND CORRESPONDING ENSONIFIED AREAS

Ensonified Pod Density area (animals/km2) (km2)

K/L ...... 0.000000 5,883 0.000001—0.002803 17,875 0.002804—0.005615 2,817 0.005616—0.009366 1,200 0.009367—0.015185 320 J ...... 0.000000 7,260 0.000001—0.001991 8,648 0.001992—0.005010 1,128

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19621

TABLE 9—SOUTHERN RESIDENT KILLER WHALE DENSITIES AND CORRESPONDING ENSONIFIED AREAS—Continued

Ensonified Pod Density area (animals/km2) (km2)

0.005011—0.009602 236 0.009603—0.018822 20

The marine mammals predicted to NMFS expects take by Level A Estimated exposures for the proposed occur within these respective areas, harassment to potentially occur, the survey outside of Canadian territorial based on estimated densities or other calculated Level A harassment takes waters are shown in Table 10. occurrence records, are assumed to be have been subtracted from the total incidentally taken. For species where within the Level B harassment zone.

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED TAKING BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

Stock Estimated take Total Percent of Species MMPA stock a proposed abundance Level B Level A take MMPA stock

LF Cetaceans: Humpback whale ...... Central North Pacific ...... 10,103 172 10 b 182 1.80 California/Oregon/Wash- 2,900 6.28 ington. Blue whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 1,647 63 4 67 4.06 Fin whale ...... California/Oregon/Wash- 9,029 89 6 95 1.06 ington. Northeast Pacific ...... 3,168 3.01 Sei whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 27,197 32 2 34 0.13 Minke whale ...... California/Oregon/Wash- 25,000 105 7 112 0.45 ington. Gray whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 26,960 90 2 92 0.34 MF Cetaceans: Sperm whale ...... California/Oregon/Wash- 26,300 71 0 71 0.27 ington. Baird’s beaked whale .. California/Oregon/Wash- 2,697 83 0 83 3.08 ington. Small beaked whale .... California/Oregon/Wash- 6,318 244 0 c 244 3.86 ington. Bottlenose dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Wash- 1,924 1 0 d 13 0.68 ington (offshore). Striped dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Wash- 29,211 7 0 d 46 0.16 ington. Short-beaked common California/Oregon/Wash- 969,861 114 0 d 179 0.02 dolphin. ington. Pacific white-sided dol- California/Oregon/Wash- 26,814 6,452 0 6,452 24.06 phin. ington. Northern right-whale California/Oregon/Wash- 26,556 4,333 0 4,333 16.32 dolphin. ington. Risso’s dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Wash- 6,336 1,906 0 1,906 30.08 ington. False killer whale ...... N.A...... N.A. N.A. N.A. e 5 N.A. Killer whale ...... Southern Resident ...... 75 43 0 43 g 57.33 Northern Resident ...... 302 27 0 f 27 8.94 West Coast Transient ...... 243 26 f 26 10.70 Offshore ...... 300 26 f 26 8.67 Short-finned pilot whale California/Oregon/Wash- 836 24 0 d 29 3.47 ington. HF Cetaceans: Pygmy/dwarf sperm California/Oregon/Wash- 4,111 135 6 141 3.42 whale. ington. Dall’s porpoise ...... California/Oregon/Wash- 27,750 10,869 452 11,321 g 40.80 ington. Harbor porpoise ...... Northern Oregon/Wash- 21,487 12,557 449 13,006 g 60.53 ington Coast. Northern California/South- 35,769 g 36.36 ern Oregon. Otariid Seals: Northern fur seal ...... Eastern Pacific ...... 620,660 4,604 0 4,604 0.74 California ...... 14,050 32.77 Guadalupe fur seal ...... Mexico to California ...... 34,187 2,387 0 2,387 6.98 California sea lion ...... U.S...... 257,606 1140 0 1,140 0.44 Steller sea lion ...... Eastern U.S...... 43,201 7281 0 7,281 16.85

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19622 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED TAKING BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION—Continued

Stock Estimated take Total Percent of Species MMPA stock a proposed abundance Level B Level A take MMPA stock

Phocid Seals: Northern elephant seal California Breeding ...... 179,000 1995 0 1,995 1.11 Harbor seal ...... Oregon/Washington Coast h 24,732 6537 0 6,537 26.43 a In most cases, where multiple stocks are being affected, for the purposes of calculating the percentage of the stock impacted, the take is being analyzed as if all proposed takes occurred within each stock. b Takes are allocated among the three DPSs in the area based on Wade et al. (2017) (Oregon: 32.7% Mexico DPS, 67.2% Central America DPS; Washington/British Columbia: 27.9% Mexico DPS, 8.7% Central America DPS, 63.5% Hawaii DPS). c Total for small beaked whale guild. Requested take includes 7 Blainville’s beaked whales, 86 Stejneger’s beaked whales, 86 Cuvier’s beaked whales, and 74 Hubbs’ beaked whales (see Appendix B of L–DEO’s application for more information). d Proposed take increased to mean group size from Barlow (2016). e Proposed take increased to mean group size from Mobley et al. (2000). f Total estimated take is 86 killer whales. Approximately one-third of calculated takes were assigned to each stock due to expected equal likeli- hood of occurrence in the survey area. g The percentage of these stocks expected to experience take is discussed further in the Small Numbers section later in the document. h As noted in Table 1, there is no current estimate of abundance available for the Oregon/Washington Coast stock of harbor seal. The abun- dance estimate from 1999, included here, is the best available.

The proposed take numbers shown in least practicable adverse impact on Mitigation measures that would be Table 10 are expected to be species or stocks and their habitat, as adopted during the planned surveys conservative. Marine mammals would well as subsistence uses where include (1) Vessel-based visual be expected to move away from a loud applicable, we carefully consider two mitigation monitoring; (2) Vessel-based sound source that represents an aversive primary factors: passive acoustic monitoring; (3) stimulus, such as an airgun array, (1) The manner in which, and the Establishment of an exclusion zone; (4) potentially reducing the number of takes degree to which, the successful Shutdown procedures; (5) Ramp-up by Level A harassment. However, the implementation of the measure(s) is procedures; and (6) Vessel strike extent to which marine mammals would expected to reduce impacts to marine avoidance measures. move away from the sound source is mammals, marine mammal species or Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation difficult to quantify and is therefore not stocks, and their habitat. This considers Monitoring accounted for in the take estimates. the nature of the potential adverse Also, note that in consideration of the impact being mitigated (likelihood, Visual monitoring requires the use of scope, range). It further considers the near-field soundscape of the airgun trained observers (herein referred to as likelihood that the measure will be array, we propose to authorize a visual PSOs) to scan the ocean surface effective if implemented (probability of different number of takes of mid- visually for the presence of marine accomplishing the mitigating result if frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds by mammals. The area to be scanned implemented as planned), the Level A harassment than the number visually includes primarily the likelihood of effective implementation proposed by L–DEO (see Appendix B in exclusion zone, within which (probability implemented as planned); L–DEO’s IHA application). observation of certain marine mammals and Proposed Mitigation (2) the practicability of the measures requires shutdown of the acoustic source, but also the buffer zone. The In order to issue an IHA under for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, buffer zone means an area beyond the Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, impact on operations, and, in the case exclusion zone to be monitored for the NMFS must set forth the permissible of a military readiness activity, presence of marine mammals that may methods of taking pursuant to the personnel safety, practicality of enter the exclusion zone. During pre- activity, and other means of effecting implementation, and impact on the clearance monitoring (i.e., before ramp- the least practicable impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness up begins), the buffer zone also acts as species or stock and its habitat, paying activity. an extension of the exclusion zone in particular attention to rookeries, mating L–DEO has reviewed mitigation that observations of marine mammals grounds, and areas of similar measures employed during seismic within the buffer zone would also significance, and on the availability of research surveys authorized by NMFS prevent airgun operations from the species or stock for taking for certain under previous incidental harassment beginning (i.e. ramp-up). The buffer subsistence uses (latter not applicable authorizations, as well as recommended zone encompasses the area at and below for this action). NMFS regulations best practices in Richardson et al. the sea surface from the edge of the 0– require applicants for incidental take (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and 500 m exclusion zone, out to a radius authorizations to include information Dolman (2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), of 1,000 m from the edges of the airgun about the availability and feasibility Wright (2014), and Wright and array (500–1,000 m). Visual monitoring (economic and technological) of Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated of the exclusion zone and adjacent equipment, methods, and manner of a suite of proposed mitigation measures waters is intended to establish and, conducting the activity or other means into their project description based on when visual conditions allow, maintain of effecting the least practicable adverse the above sources. zones around the sound source that are impact upon the affected species or To reduce the potential for clear of marine mammals, thereby stocks and their habitat (50 CFR disturbance from acoustic stimuli reducing or eliminating the potential for 216.104(a)(11)). associated with the activities, L–DEO injury and minimizing the potential for In evaluating how mitigation may or has proposed to implement mitigation more severe behavioral reactions for may not be appropriate to ensure the measures for marine mammals. animals occurring closer to the vessel.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19623

Visual monitoring of the buffer zone is the array or around the vessel itself). monitoring is intended to further intended to (1) provide additional During use of the acoustic source (i.e., support visual monitoring (during protection to naı¨ve marine mammals anytime airguns are active, including daylight hours) in maintaining an that may be in the area during pre- ramp-up), detections of marine exclusion zone around the sound source clearance, and (2) during airgun use, aid mammals within the buffer zone (but that is clear of marine mammals. In in establishing and maintaining the outside the exclusion zone) shall be cases where visual monitoring is not exclusion zone by alerting the visual communicated to the operator to effective (e.g., due to weather, observer and crew of marine mammals prepare for the potential shutdown of nighttime), acoustic monitoring may be that are outside of, but may approach the acoustic source. used to allow certain activities to occur, and enter, the exclusion zone. During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime as further detailed below. L–DEO must use dedicated, trained, the acoustic source is active, including Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) NMFS-approved Protected Species ramp-up), detections of marine would take place in addition to the Observers (PSOs). The PSOs must have mammals within the buffer zone (but visual monitoring program. Visual no tasks other than to conduct outside the exclusion zone) should be monitoring typically is not effective observational effort, record communicated to the operator to during periods of poor visibility or at observational data, and communicate prepare for the potential shutdown of night, and even with good visibility, is with and instruct relevant vessel crew the acoustic source. Visual PSOs will unable to detect marine mammals when with regard to the presence of marine immediately communicate all they are below the surface or beyond mammals and mitigation requirements. observations to the on duty acoustic visual range. Acoustical monitoring can PSO resumes shall be provided to PSO(s), including any determination by be used in addition to visual NMFS for approval. the PSO regarding species observations to improve detection, At least one of the visual and two of identification, distance, and bearing and identification, and localization of the acoustic PSOs (discussed below) the degree of confidence in the cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring aboard the vessel must have a minimum determination. Any observations of would serve to alert visual PSOs (if on of 90 days at-sea experience working in marine mammals by crew members duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are those roles, respectively, during a deep shall be relayed to the PSO team. During detected. It is only useful when marine penetration (i.e., ‘‘high energy’’) seismic good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; mammals call, but it can be effective survey, with no more than 18 months Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), visual either by day or by night, and does not elapsed since the conclusion of the at- PSOs shall conduct observations when depend on good visibility. It would be sea experience. One visual PSO with the acoustic source is not operating for monitored in real time so that the visual such experience shall be designated as comparison of sighting rates and observers can be advised when the lead for the entire protected species behavior with and without use of the cetaceans are detected. observation team. The lead PSO shall acoustic source and between acquisition The R/V Langseth will use a towed serve as primary point of contact for the periods, to the maximum extent PAM system, which must be monitored vessel operator and ensure all PSO practicable. by at a minimum one on duty acoustic requirements per the IHA are met. To While the R/V Langseth is surveying PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior the maximum extent practicable, the in water depths of 200 m or less, a to ramp-up and at all times during use experienced PSOs should be scheduled second vessel with additional PSOs of the acoustic source. Acoustic PSOs to be on duty with those PSOs with would travel approximately 5 km ahead may be on watch for a maximum of four appropriate training but who have not of the R/V Langseth. Two PSOs would consecutive hours followed by a break yet gained relevant experience. be on watch on the second vessel during of at least one hour between watches During survey operations (e.g., any all such survey operations and would and may conduct a maximum of 12 day on which use of the acoustic source alert PSOs on the R/V Langseth of any hours of observation per 24-hour period. is planned to occur, and whenever the marine mammal observations so that Combined observational duties (acoustic acoustic source is in the water, whether they may be prepared to initiate and visual but not at same time) may activated or not), a minimum of two shutdowns. not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period visual PSOs must be on duty and Visual PSOs on both vessels may be for any individual PSO. conducting visual observations at all on watch for a maximum of four Survey activity may continue for 30 times during daylight hours (i.e., from consecutive hours followed by a break minutes when the PAM system 30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 of at least one hour between watches malfunctions or is damaged, while the minutes following sunset). Visual and may conduct a maximum of 12 PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the monitoring of the exclusion and buffer hours of observation per 24-hour period. diagnosis indicates that the PAM system zones must begin no less than 30 Combined observational duties (visual must be repaired to solve the problem, minutes prior to ramp-up and must and acoustic but not at same time) may operations may continue for an continue until one hour after use of the not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period additional five hours without acoustic acoustic source ceases or until 30 for any individual PSO. monitoring during daylight hours only minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall Passive Acoustic Monitoring under the following conditions: coordinate to ensure 360° visual • Sea state is less than or equal to coverage around the vessel from the Acoustic monitoring means the use of BSS 4; most appropriate observation posts, and trained personnel (sometimes referred to • No marine mammals (excluding shall conduct visual observations using as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) delphinids, other than killer whales) binoculars and the naked eye while free operators, herein referred to as acoustic detected solely by PAM in the from distractions and in a consistent, PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to applicable exclusion zone in the systematic, and diligent manner. acoustically detect the presence of previous two hours; PSOs shall establish and monitor the marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring • NMFS is notified via email as soon exclusion and buffer zones. These zones involves acoustically detecting marine as practicable with the time and shall be based upon the radial distance mammals regardless of distance from location in which operations began from the edges of the acoustic source the source, as localization of animals occurring without an active PAM (rather than being based on the center of may not always be possible. Acoustic system; and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19624 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

• Operations with an active acoustic prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of within the buffer zone do not require source, but without an operating PAM ramp-up). The intent of ramp-up is to shutdown, but such observation shall be system, do not exceed a cumulative total warn protected species of pending communicated to the operator to of five hours in any 24-hour period. seismic operations and to allow prepare for the potential shutdown; sufficient time for those animals to leave • Ramp-up may occur at times of Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up poor visibility, including nighttime, if Zones procedure, involving a step-wise appropriate acoustic monitoring has An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined increase in the number of airguns firing occurred with no detections in the 30 area within which occurrence of a and total array volume until all minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. marine mammal triggers mitigation operational airguns are activated and Acoustic source activation may only action intended to reduce the potential the full volume is achieved, is required occur at times of poor visibility where for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory at all times as part of the activation of operational planning cannot reasonably injury, disruption of critical behaviors. the acoustic source. All operators must avoid such circumstances; The PSOs would establish a minimum adhere to the following pre-clearance • If the acoustic source is shut down EZ with a 500-m radius. The 500-m EZ and ramp-up requirements: for brief periods (i.e., less than 30 would be based on radial distance from • The operator must notify a minutes) for reasons other than that the edge of the airgun array (rather than designated PSO of the planned start of described for shutdown (e.g., being based on the center of the array ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead mechanical difficulty), it may be or around the vessel itself). With certain PSO; the notification time should not be activated again without ramp-up if PSOs exceptions (described below), if a less than 60 minutes prior to the have maintained constant visual and/or marine mammal appears within or planned ramp-up in order to allow the acoustic observation and no visual or enters this zone, the acoustic source PSOs time to monitor the exclusion and acoustic detections of marine mammals would be shut down. buffer zones for 30 minutes prior to the have occurred within the applicable The 500-m EZ is intended to be initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance); exclusion zone. For any longer precautionary in the sense that it would • Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as shutdown, pre-clearance observation be expected to contain sound exceeding to minimize the time spent with the and ramp-up are required. For any the injury criteria for all cetacean source activated prior to reaching the shutdown at night or in periods of poor hearing groups, (based on the dual designated run-in; visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp- criteria of SELcum and peak SPL), while • One of the PSOs conducting pre- up is required, but if the shutdown also providing a consistent, reasonably clearance observations must be notified period was brief and constant observable zone within which PSOs again immediately prior to initiating observation was maintained, pre- would typically be able to conduct ramp-up procedures and the operator clearance watch of 30 minutes is not effective observational effort. must receive confirmation from the PSO required; and Additionally, a 500-m EZ is expected to to proceed; • Testing of the acoustic source minimize the likelihood that marine • Ramp-up may not be initiated if any involving all elements requires ramp- mammals will be exposed to levels marine mammal is within the applicable up. Testing limited to individual source likely to result in more severe exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine elements or strings does not require behavioral responses. Although mammal is observed within the ramp-up but does require pre-clearance significantly greater distances may be applicable exclusion zone or the buffer of 30 min. zone during the 30 minute pre-clearance observed from an elevated platform Shutdown under good conditions, we believe that period, ramp-up may not begin until the 500 m is likely regularly attainable for animal(s) has been observed exiting the The shutdown of an airgun array PSOs using the naked eye during typical zones or until an additional time period requires the immediate de-activation of conditions. has elapsed with no further sightings all individual airgun elements of the An extended EZ of 1,500 m must be (15 minutes for small odontocetes and array. Any PSO on duty will have the enforced for all beaked whales, and pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for all authority to delay the start of survey dwarf and pygmy sperm whales. No mysticetes and all other odontocetes, operations or to call for shutdown of the buffer zone is required. including sperm whales, pygmy sperm acoustic source if a marine mammal is whales, dwarf sperm whales, beaked detected within the applicable Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up whales, pilot whales, false killer whales, exclusion zone. The operator must also Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as and Risso’s dolphins); establish and maintain clear lines of ‘‘soft start’’) means the gradual and • Ramp-up shall begin by activating a communication directly between PSOs systematic increase of emitted sound single airgun of the smallest volume in on duty and crew controlling the levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up the array and shall continue in stages by acoustic source to ensure that shutdown begins by first activating a single airgun doubling the number of active elements commands are conveyed swiftly while of the smallest volume, followed by at the commencement of each stage, allowing PSOs to maintain watch. When doubling the number of active elements with each stage of approximately the both visual and acoustic PSOs are on in stages until the full complement of an same duration. Duration shall not be duty, all detections will be immediately array’s airguns are active. Each stage less than 20 minutes. The operator must communicated to the remainder of the should be approximately the same provide information to the PSO on-duty PSO team for potential duration, and the total duration should documenting that appropriate verification of visual observations by the not be less than approximately 20 procedures were followed; acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections minutes. The intent of pre-clearance • PSOs must monitor the exclusion by visual PSOs. When the airgun array observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no and buffer zones during ramp-up, and is active (i.e., anytime one or more protected species are observed within ramp-up must cease and the source airguns is active, including during the buffer zone prior to the beginning of must be shut down upon detection of a ramp-up) and (1) a marine mammal ramp-up. During pre-clearance is the marine mammal within the applicable appears within or enters the applicable only time observations of protected exclusion zone. Once ramp-up has exclusion zone and/or (2) a marine species in the buffer zone would begun, detections of marine mammals mammal (other than delphinids, see

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19625

below) is detected acoustically and A large body of anecdotal evidence • Any large whale (defined as a localized within the applicable indicates that small dolphins commonly sperm whale or any mysticete species) exclusion zone, the acoustic source will approach vessels and/or towed arrays with a calf (defined as an animal less be shut down. When shutdown is called during active sound production for than two-thirds the body size of an adult for by a PSO, the acoustic source will purposes of bow riding, with no observed to be in close association with be immediately deactivated and any apparent effect observed in those an adult; dispute resolved only following delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012). • An aggregation of six or more large deactivation. Additionally, shutdown The potential for increased shutdowns whales; will occur whenever PAM alone resulting from such a measure would • A North Pacific right whale; and/or • (without visual sighting), confirms require the Langseth to revisit the A killer whale of any ecotype. presence of marine mammal(s) in the missed track line to reacquire data, Vessel Strike Avoidance EZ. If the acoustic PSO cannot confirm resulting in an overall increase in the presence within the EZ, visual PSOs total sound energy input to the marine These measures apply to all vessels will be notified but shutdown is not environment and an increase in the total associated with the planned survey required. L–DEO must also implement duration over which the survey is active activity; however, we note that these shutdown of the airgun array if killer in a given area. Although other mid- requirements do not apply in any case whale vocalizations are detected, frequency hearing specialists (e.g., large where compliance would create an regardless of localization. delphinoids) are no more likely to incur imminent and serious threat to a person Following a shutdown, airgun activity auditory injury than are small dolphins, or vessel or to the extent that a vessel would not resume until the marine they are much less likely to approach is restricted in its ability to maneuver mammal has cleared the 500-m EZ. The vessels. Therefore, retaining a shutdown and, because of the restriction, cannot animal would be considered to have requirement for large delphinoids comply. These measures include the cleared the 500-m EZ if it is visually would not have similar impacts in terms following: 1. Vessel operators and crews must observed to have departed the 500-m of either practicability for the applicant maintain a vigilant watch for all marine EZ, or it has not been seen within the or corollary increase in sound energy mammals and slow down, stop their 500-m EZ for 15 min in the case of small output and time on the water. We do vessel, or alter course, as appropriate odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in anticipate some benefit for a shutdown and regardless of vessel size, to avoid the case of mysticetes and large requirement for large delphinoids in striking any marine mammal. A single odontocetes, including sperm whales, that it simplifies somewhat the total marine mammal at the surface may pygmy sperm whales, dwarf sperm range of decision-making for PSOs and indicate the presence of submerged whales, pilot whales, beaked whales, may preclude any potential for animals in the vicinity of the vessel; false killer whales, and Risso’s physiological effects other than to the therefore, precautionary measures dolphins. auditory system as well as some more The shutdown requirement can be should be exercised when an animal is severe behavioral reactions for any such waived for small dolphins if an observed. A visual observer aboard the animals in close proximity to the source individual is visually detected within vessel must monitor a vessel strike vessel. the exclusion zone. As defined here, the avoidance zone around the vessel small dolphin group is intended to Visual PSOs shall use best (specific distances detailed below), to encompass those members of the Family professional judgment in making the ensure the potential for strike is Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily decision to call for a shutdown if there minimized. Visual observers monitoring approach the source vessel for purposes is uncertainty regarding identification the vessel strike avoidance zone can be of interacting with the vessel and/or (i.e., whether the observed marine either third-party observers or crew airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This mammal(s) belongs to one of the members, but crew members exception to the shutdown requirement delphinid genera for which shutdown is responsible for these duties must be applies solely to specific genera of small waived or one of the species with a provided sufficient training to dolphins—Tursiops, Delphinus, larger exclusion zone). distinguish marine mammals from other Stenella, Lagenorhynchus, and Upon implementation of shutdown, phenomena and broadly to identify a Lissodelphis. the source may be reactivated after the marine mammal to broad taxonomic We include this small dolphin marine mammal(s) has been observed group (i.e., as a large whale or other exception because shutdown exiting the applicable exclusion zone marine mammal); requirements for small dolphins under (i.e., animal is not required to fully exit 2. Vessel speeds must be reduced to all circumstances represent the buffer zone where applicable) or 10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs, practicability concerns without likely following 15 minutes for small pods, or large assemblages of any commensurate benefits for the animals odontocetes and pinnipeds, and 30 marine mammal are observed near a in question. Small dolphins are minutes for mysticetes and all other vessel; generally the most commonly observed odontocetes, including sperm whales, 3. All vessels must maintain a marine mammals in the specific pygmy sperm whales, dwarf sperm minimum separation distance of 100 m geographic region and would typically whales, beaked whales, pilot whales, from large whales (i.e., sperm whales be the only marine mammals likely to and Risso’s dolphins, with no further and all mysticetes); intentionally approach the vessel. As observation of the marine mammal(s). 4. All vessels must attempt to described above, auditory injury is L–DEO must implement shutdown if maintain a minimum separation extremely unlikely to occur for mid- a marine mammal species for which distance of 50 m from all other marine frequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), take was not authorized, or a species for mammals, with an exception made for as this group is relatively insensitive to which authorization was granted but the those animals that approach the vessel; sound produced at the predominant takes have been met, approaches the and frequencies in an airgun pulse while Level A or Level B harassment zones. L– 5. When marine mammals are sighted also having a relatively high threshold DEO must also implement shutdown if while a vessel is underway, the vessel for the onset of auditory injury (i.e., any of the following are observed at any should take action as necessary to avoid permanent threshold shift). distance: violating the relevant separation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19626 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel exclude L–DEO from waters within the • How anticipated responses to to the animal’s course, avoid excessive 200-m isobath for this survey. stressors impact either: (1) Long-term speed or abrupt changes in direction We have carefully evaluated the suite fitness and survival of individual until the animal has left the area). If of mitigation measures described here marine mammals; or (2) populations, marine mammals are sighted within the and considered a range of other species, or stocks; relevant separation distance, the vessel measures in the context of ensuring that • Effects on marine mammal habitat should reduce speed and shift the we prescribe the means of effecting the (e.g., marine mammal prey species, engine to neutral, not engaging the least practicable adverse impact on the acoustic habitat, or other important engines until animals are clear of the affected marine mammal species and physical components of marine area. This recommendation does not stocks and their habitat. Based on our mammal habitat); and apply to any vessel towing gear. evaluation of the proposed measures, as • Mitigation and monitoring well as other measures considered by effectiveness. Operational Restrictions NMFS described above, NMFS has Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring While the R/V Langseth is surveying preliminarily determined that the in waters 200 m deep or less, survey mitigation measures provide the means As described above, PSO observations operations will occur in daylight hours effecting the least practicable impact on would take place during daytime airgun only (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to the affected species or stocks and their operations. During seismic operations, sunrise through 30 minutes following habitat, paying particular attention to at least five visual PSOs would be based sunset) to ensure the ability to use rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of aboard the Langseth. Two visual PSOs visual observation as a detection-based similar significance. would be on duty at all time during mitigation tool and to implement daytime hours, with an additional two shutdown procedures for species or Proposed Monitoring and Reporting PSOs on duty aboard a second scout situations with additional shutdown In order to issue an IHA for an vessel at all times during daylight hours requirements outlined above (e.g., killer activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the when operating in waters shallower whale of any ecotype, aggregation of six MMPA states that NMFS must set forth than 200 m. Monitoring shall be or more large whales, large whale with requirements pertaining to the conducted in accordance with the a calf). monitoring and reporting of such taking. following requirements: The MMPA implementing regulations at • The operator shall provide PSOs Communication 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that with bigeye binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150; Each day of survey operations, L–DEO requests for authorizations must include 2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus; will contact NMFS Northwest Fisheries the suggested means of accomplishing height control) of appropriate quality Science Center, NMFS West Coast the necessary monitoring and reporting (i.e., Fujinon or equivalent) solely for Region, The Whale Museum, Orca that will result in increased knowledge PSO use. These shall be pedestal- Network, Canada’s DFO and/or other of the species and of the level of taking mounted on the deck at the most sources to obtain near real-time or impacts on populations of marine appropriate vantage point that provides reporting for the whereabouts of mammals that are expected to be for optimal sea surface observation, PSO Southern Resident killer whales. present in the proposed action area. safety, and safe operation of the vessel; Effective reporting is critical both to and Mitigation Measures Considered But • Eliminated compliance as well as ensuring that the The operator will work with the most value is obtained from the required selected third-party observer provider to As stated above, in determining monitoring. ensure PSOs have all equipment appropriate mitigation measures, NMFS Monitoring and reporting (including backup equipment) needed considers the practicability of the requirements prescribed by NMFS to adequately perform necessary tasks, measures for applicant implementation, should contribute to improved including accurate determination of which may include such things as cost understanding of one or more of the distance and bearing to observed marine or impact on operations. NMFS has following: mammals. proposed expanding critical habitat for • Occurrence of marine mammal PSOs must have the following Southern Resident killer whales to species or stocks in the area in which requirements and qualifications: include marine waters between the 6.1- take is anticipated (e.g., presence, • PSOs shall be independent, m depth contour and the 200-m depth abundance, distribution, density); dedicated, trained visual and acoustic contour from the U.S. international • Nature, scope, or context of likely PSOs and must be employed by a third- border with Canada south to Point Sur, marine mammal exposure to potential party observer provider; California (84 FR 49214; September 19, stressors/impacts (individual or • PSOs shall have no tasks other than 2019). Though the proposed expansion cumulative, acute or chronic), through to conduct observational effort (visual or has not been finalized, due to the better understanding of: (1) Action or acoustic), collect data, and habitat features of the area and the environment (e.g., source communicate with and instruct relevant higher likelihood of occurrence within characterization, propagation, ambient vessel crew with regard to the presence the area, NMFS considered noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life of protected species and mitigation implementing a closure area and history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence requirements (including brief alerts prohibiting L–DEO from conducting of marine mammal species with the regarding maritime hazards); survey operations between the 200-m action; or (4) biological or behavioral • PSOs shall have successfully isobath and the coastline. However, this context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or completed an approved PSO training measure was eliminated from feeding areas); course appropriate for their designated consideration because the closure • Individual marine mammal task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs would not be practicable for L–DEO, as responses (behavioral or physiological) are required to complete specialized the primary purpose of their proposed to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or training for operating PAM systems and survey is to investigate the geologic cumulative), other stressors, or are encouraged to have familiarity with features that occur within that area. cumulative impacts from multiple the vessel with which they will be Therefore, NMFS is not proposing to stressors; working;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19627

• PSOs can act as acoustic or visual ramp-up of the acoustic source. If • Estimated number of animals (high/ observers (but not at the same time) as required mitigation was not low/best); long as they demonstrate that their implemented, PSOs should record a • Estimated number of animals by training and experience are sufficient to description of the circumstances. At a cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, perform the task at hand; minimum, the following information calves, group composition, etc.); • NMFS must review and approve must be recorded: • Description (as many distinguishing PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant • Vessel names (source vessel and features as possible of each individual training course information packet that other vessels associated with survey) seen, including length, shape, color, includes the name and qualifications and call signs; pattern, scars or markings, shape and (i.e., experience, training completed, or • PSO names and affiliations; size of , shape of head, and educational background) of the • Dates of departures and returns to blow characteristics); instructor(s), the course outline or port with port name; • Detailed behavior observations (e.g., syllabus, and course reference material • Date and participants of PSO number of blows/breaths, number of as well as a document stating successful briefings; surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, • completion of the course; Dates and times (Greenwich Mean feeding, traveling; as explicit and • NMFS shall have one week to Time) of survey effort and times detailed as possible; note any observed approve PSOs from the time that the corresponding with PSO effort; • changes in behavior); necessary information is submitted, Vessel location (latitude/longitude) • Animal’s closest point of approach after which PSOs meeting the minimum when survey effort began and ended and (CPA) and/or closest distance from any requirements shall automatically be vessel location at beginning and end of element of the acoustic source; visual PSO duty shifts; • considered approved; • Platform activity at time of sighting • PSOs must successfully complete Vessel heading and speed at (e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, relevant training, including completion beginning and end of visual PSO duty shooting, data acquisition, other); and shifts and upon any line change; • of all required coursework and passing • Description of any actions (80 percent or greater) a written and/or Environmental conditions while on implemented in response to the sighting oral examination developed for the visual survey (at beginning and end of (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and training program; PSO shift and whenever conditions time and location of the action. • PSOs must have successfully changed significantly), including BSS If a marine mammal is detected while attained a bachelor’s degree from an and any other relevant weather using the PAM system, the following accredited college or university with a conditions including cloud cover, fog, information should be recorded: major in one of the natural sciences, a sun glare, and overall visibility to the • An acoustic encounter minimum of 30 semester hours or horizon; • identification number, and whether the equivalent in the biological sciences, Factors that may have contributed detection was linked with a visual and at least one undergraduate course in to impaired observations during each sighting; math or statistics; and PSO shift change or as needed as • Date and time when first and last • The educational requirements may environmental conditions changed (e.g., heard; be waived if the PSO has acquired the vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); • Types and nature of sounds heard relevant skills through alternate and (e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst • experience. Requests for such a waiver Survey activity information, such as pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of shall be submitted to NMFS and must acoustic source power output while in signal); and include written justification. Requests operation, number and volume of • Any additional information shall be granted or denied (with airguns operating in the array, tow recorded such as water depth of the justification) by NMFS within one week depth of the array, and any other notes hydrophone array, bearing of the animal of receipt of submitted information. of significance (i.e., pre-clearance, ramp- to the vessel (if determinable), species Alternate experience that may be up, shutdown, testing, shooting, ramp- or taxonomic group (if determinable), considered includes, but is not limited up completion, end of operations, spectrogram screenshot, and any other to (1) secondary education and/or streamers, etc.). notable information. experience comparable to PSO duties; The following information should be (2) previous work experience recorded upon visual observation of any Reporting protected species: A report would be submitted to NMFS conducting academic, commercial, or • government-sponsored protected Watch status (sighting made by PSO within 90 days after the end of the species surveys; or (3) previous work on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, cruise. The report would describe the experience as a PSO; the PSO should alternate vessel/platform); operations that were conducted and • PSO who sighted the animal; demonstrate good standing and • sightings of marine mammals near the Time of sighting; operations. The report would provide consistently good performance of PSO • Vessel location at time of sighting; duties. • Water depth; full documentation of methods, results, For data collection purposes, PSOs • Direction of vessel’s travel (compass and interpretation pertaining to all shall use standardized data collection direction); monitoring. The 90-day report would forms, whether hard copy or electronic. • Direction of animal’s travel relative summarize the dates and locations of PSOs shall record detailed information to the vessel; seismic operations, and all marine about any implementation of mitigation • Pace of the animal; mammal sightings (dates, times, requirements, including the distance of • Estimated distance to the animal locations, activities, associated seismic animals to the acoustic source and and its heading relative to vessel at survey activities). The report would also description of specific actions that initial sighting; include estimates of the number and ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), • Identification of the animal (e.g., nature of exposures that occurred above any observed changes in behavior before genus/species, lowest possible the harassment threshold based on PSO and after implementation of mitigation, taxonomic level, or unidentified) and observations and including an estimate and if shutdown was implemented, the the composition of the group if there is of those that were not detected, in length of time before any subsequent a mix of species; consideration of both the characteristics

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19628 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

and behaviors of the species of marine • Vessel’s speed during and leading determine what measures are necessary mammals that affect detectability, as up to the incident; to minimize that likelihood (e.g., well as the environmental factors that • Vessel’s course/heading and what extending the shutdown or moving affect detectability. operations were being conducted (if operations farther away) and to The draft report shall also include applicable); implement those measures as geo-referenced time-stamped vessel • Status of all sound sources in use; appropriate. tracklines for all time periods during • Description of avoidance measures/ Additional Information Requests—if which airguns were operating. requirements that were in place at the NMFS determines that the Tracklines should include points time of the strike and what additional circumstances of any marine mammal recording any change in airgun status measure were taken, if any, to avoid stranding found in the vicinity of the (e.g., when the airguns began operating, strike; activity suggest investigation of the when they were turned off, or when • Environmental conditions (e.g., association with survey activities is they changed from full array to single wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea warranted, and an investigation into the gun or vice versa). GIS files shall be state, cloud cover, visibility) stranding is being pursued, NMFS will provided in ESRI shapefile format and immediately preceding the strike; submit a written request to L–DEO • include the UTC date and time, latitude Species identification (if known) or indicating that the following initial in decimal degrees, and longitude in description of the animal(s) involved; available information must be provided • decimal degrees. All coordinates shall Estimated size and length of the as soon as possible, but no later than 7 animal that was struck business days after the request for be referenced to the WGS84 geographic • coordinate system. In addition to the Description of the behavior of the information: report, all raw observational data shall animal immediately preceding and • Status of all sound source use in the following the strike; 48 hours preceding the estimated time be made available to NMFS. The report • must summarize the information If available, description of the of stranding and within 50 km of the submitted in interim monthly reports as presence and behavior of any other discovery/notification of the stranding well as additional data collected as marine mammals present immediately by NMFS; and • described above and in the IHA. A final preceding the strike; If available, description of the • Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., report must be submitted within 30 days behavior of any marine mammal(s) dead, injured but alive, injured and following resolution of any comments observed preceding (i.e., within 48 moving, blood or tissue observed in the on the draft report. hours and 50 km) and immediately after water, status unknown, disappeared); the discovery of the stranding. Reporting Injured or Dead Marine and In the event that the investigation is Mammals • To the extent practicable, still inconclusive, the investigation of Discovery of injured or dead marine photographs or video footage of the the association of the survey activities is mammals—In the event that personnel animal(s). still warranted, and the investigation is involved in survey activities covered by Actions To Minimize Additional Harm still being pursued, NMFS may provide the authorization discover an injured or to Live-stranded (or Milling) Marine additional information requests, in dead marine mammal, the L–DEO shall Mammals writing, regarding the nature and report the incident to the Office of location of survey operations prior to In the event of a live stranding (or Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and the time period above. near-shore atypical milling) event to the NMFS West Coast Regional within 50 km of the survey operations, Reporting Species of Concern Stranding Coordinator as soon as where the NMFS stranding network is feasible. The report must include the To support NMFS’s goal of improving engaged in herding or other following information: our understanding of occurrence of interventions to return animals to the • Time, date, and location (latitude/ marine mammal species or stocks in the water, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or longitude) of the first discovery (and area (e.g., presence, abundance, designee) will advise L–DEO of the need updated location information if known distribution, density), L–DEO will to implement shutdown procedures for and applicable); immediately report observations of • Species identification (if known) or all active acoustic sources operating Southern Resident killer whales and description of the animal(s) involved; within 50 km of the stranding. North Pacific right whales to OPR, • Condition of the animal(s) Shutdown procedures for live stranding NMFS . (including carcass condition if the or milling marine mammals include the following: If at any time, the marine Negligible Impact Analysis and animal is dead); Determination • Observed behaviors of the mammal the marine mammal(s) die or animal(s), if alive; are euthanized, or if herding/ NMFS has defined negligible impact • If available, photographs or video intervention efforts are stopped, the as an impact resulting from the footage of the animal(s); and Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee) specified activity that cannot be • General circumstances under which will advise the IHA-holder that the reasonably expected to, and is not the animal was discovered. shutdown around the animals’ location reasonably likely to, adversely affect the Vessel strike—In the event of a ship is no longer needed. Otherwise, species or stock through effects on strike of a marine mammal by any vessel shutdown procedures will remain in annual rates of recruitment or survival involved in the activities covered by the effect until the Director of OPR, NMFS (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact authorization, L–DEO shall report the (or designee) determines and advises L– finding is based on the lack of likely incident to OPR, NMFS and to the DEO that all live animals involved have adverse effects on annual rates of NMFS West Coast Regional Stranding left the area (either of their own volition recruitment or survival (i.e., population- Coordinator as soon as feasible. The or following an intervention). level effects). An estimate of the number report must include the following If further observations of the marine of takes alone is not enough information information: mammals indicate the potential for re- on which to base an impact • Time, date, and location (latitude/ stranding, additional coordination with determination. In addition to longitude) of the incident; the IHA-holder will be required to considering estimates of the number of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19629

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ incorporated into this analysis via their population due to differences in through harassment, NMFS considers impacts on the environmental baseline population status, or impacts on habitat, other factors, such as the likely nature (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status NMFS has identified species-specific of any responses (e.g., intensity, of the species, population size and factors to inform the analysis. As duration), the context of any responses growth rate where known, ongoing described above, we proposed to (e.g., critical reproductive time or sources of human-caused mortality, or authorize only the takes estimated to location, migration), as well as effects ambient noise levels). occur outside of Canadian territorial on habitat, and the likely effectiveness To avoid repetition, our analysis waters (Table 10); however, for the of the mitigation. We also assess the applies to all species listed in Tables 10 purposes of our negligible impact number, intensity, and context of and 11, given that NMFS expects the analysis and determination, we consider estimated takes by evaluating this anticipated effects of the planned the total number of takes that are information relative to population geophysical survey to be similar in anticipated to occur as a result of the status. Consistent with the 1989 nature. Where there are meaningful entire proposed survey (including the preamble for NMFS’s implementing differences between species or stocks, or portion of the survey that would occur regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, groups of species, in anticipated within the Canadian territorial waters 1989), the impacts from other past and individual responses to activities, (approximately four percent of the ongoing anthropogenic activities are impact of expected take on the survey) (Table 11).

TABLE 11—TOTAL ESTIMATED TAKE INCLUDING CANADIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS

Estimated take Estimated take Total estimated take (excluding Canadian (Canadian Species territorial waters) territorial waters) Level B Level A Level A Level B Level A Level B

LF Cetaceans: Humpback whale ...... 172 10 23 1 195 11 Blue whale ...... 63 4 8 0 71 4 Fin whale ...... 89 6 2 0 91 6 Sei whale ...... 32 2 2 0 34 2 Minke whale ...... 105 7 6 0 111 7 Gray whale ...... 90 2 24 1 114 3 MF Cetaceans: Sperm whale ...... 71 0 1 0 72 0 Baird’s beaked whale ...... 83 0 1 0 84 0 Small beaked whale ...... 244 0 5 0 249 0 Bottlenose dolphin ...... 13 0 0 0 13 0 Striped dolphin ...... 7 0 0 0 7 0 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... 179 0 4 0 183 0 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... 6,452 0 354 0 6,806 0 Northern right-whale dolphin ...... 4,333 0 123 0 4,457 0 Risso’s dolphin ...... 1,906 0 155 0 2,062 0 False killer whale ...... 5 0 5 0 10 0 Killer whale (Southern Resident) ...... 43 0 2 0 45 0 Killer whale (Northern Resident) ...... 27 0 2 0 29 0 Killer whale (West Coast Transient) 26 0 2 0 28 0 Killer whale (Offshore) ...... 26 0 2 0 28 0 Short-finned pilot whale ...... 29 0 1 0 30 0 HF Cetaceans: Pygmy/dwarf sperm whale ...... 135 6 8 0 143 6 Dall’s porpoise ...... 10,869 452 746 24 11,615 476 Harbor porpoise ...... 12,557 449 2,622 86 15,179 535 Otariid Seals: Northern fur seal ...... 4,604 0 58 0 4,662 0 Guadalupe fur seal ...... 2,387 0 122 0 2,509 0 California sea lion ...... 1,140 0 147 0 1,287 0 Steller sea lion ...... 7,281 0 1,342 0 8,623 0 Phocid Seals: Northern elephant seal ...... 1,995 0 176 0 2,171 0 Harbor seal ...... 6,537 0 1,744 0 8,281 0

NMFS does not anticipate that serious We are proposing to authorize a small degree of PTS, not total deafness, injury or mortality would occur as a limited number of instances of Level A because of the constant movement of result of L–DEO’s planned survey, even harassment of nine species (low- and relative to each other of both the R/V in the absence of mitigation, and none high-frequency cetacean hearing groups Langseth and of the marine mammals in would be authorized. As discussed in only) and Level B harassment of 31 the project areas, as well as the fact that the Potential Effects section, non- marine mammal species. However, we the vessel is not expected to remain in auditory physical effects, stranding, and believe that any PTS incurred in marine any one area in which individual vessel strike are not expected to occur. mammals as a result of the planned marine mammals would be expected to activity would be in the form of only a concentrate for an extended period of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19630 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

time (i.e., since the duration of exposure the Depoe Bay and Cape Blanco and avoidance of the affected area and any to loud sounds will be relatively short) Orford Reef gray whale feeding BIAs off injury or mortality of prey species and, further, would be unlikely to affect Oregon are each used between June and would be localized around the survey the fitness of any individuals. Also, as November. There are also two and not of a degree that would adversely described above, we expect that marine humpback whale feeding BIAs within impact marine mammal foraging. The mammals would be likely to move away the survey area: the Stonewall and duration of fish avoidance of a given from a sound source that represents an Heceta Bank humpback whale feeding area after survey effort stops is aversive stimulus, especially at levels BIA off central Oregon and the northern unknown, but a rapid return to normal that would be expected to result in PTS, Washington BIA off the Washington recruitment, distribution and behavior given sufficient notice of the R/V Olympic Peninsula are each used is expected. Given the short operational Langseth’s approach due to the vessel’s between May and November. seismic time near or traversing BIAs, as relatively low speed when conducting For the humpback whale feeding and well as the ability of cetaceans and prey seismic surveys. We expect that the gray whale feeding and northbound species to move away from acoustic majority of takes would be in the form migration BIAs, L–DEO’s proposed sources, NMFS expects that there would of short-term Level B behavioral survey beginning in June 2020 could be, at worst, minimal impacts to animals harassment in the form of temporary overlap with a period where BIAs and habitat within the designated BIAs. avoidance of the area or decreased represent an important habitat. Critical habitat has been established foraging (if such activity were However, only a portion of seismic on the U.S. West Coast for the eastern occurring), reactions that are considered survey days would actually occur in or DPS of Steller sea lions (58 FR 45269; to be of low severity and with no lasting near these BIAs, and all survey efforts August 27, 1993) and in inland waters biological consequences (e.g., Southall would be completed by mid-July, still in of Washington for Southern Resident et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). the early window of primary use for killer whales (71 FR 69054; November Potential impacts to marine mammal these BIAs. Gray whales are most 29, 2006). Critical habitat for the Mexico habitat were discussed previously in commonly seen migrating northward and Central America DPSs of humpback this document (see Potential Effects of between March and May and southward whales has been proposed along the the Specified Activity on Marine between November and January. As U.S. West Coast (84 FR 54354; October Mammals and their Habitat). Marine proposed, there is no possibility that L– 9, 2019), and NMFS has proposed mammal habitat may be impacted by DEO’s survey impacts the southern expanding Southern Resident killer elevated sound levels, but these impacts migration, and presence of northern whale critical habitat to include coastal would be temporary. Prey species are migrating individuals should be below waters of Washington, Oregon, and mobile and are broadly distributed peak during survey operations California (84 FR 49214; September 19, throughout the project areas; therefore, beginning in June 2020. 2019). Only a portion of L–DEO’s marine mammals that may be Although migrating gray whales may proposed seismic survey will occur in temporarily displaced during survey slightly alter their course in response to or near these critical habitats. activities are expected to be able to the survey, the exposure would not Critical habitat for Steller sea lions resume foraging once they have moved substantially impact their migratory has been established at two rookeries on away from areas with disturbing levels behavior (Malme et al., 1984; Malme the Oregon coast, at Rogue Reef of underwater noise. Because of the and Miles 1985; Richardson et al., (Pyramid Rock) and Orford Reef (Long relatively short duration (37 days) and 1995), and Yazvenko et al. (2007b) Brown Rock and Seal Rock). The critical temporary nature of the disturbance, the reported no apparent changes in the habitat area includes aquatic zones that availability of similar habitat and frequency of feeding activity in Western extend 0.9 km seaward and air zones resources in the surrounding area, the gray whales exposed to airgun sounds in extending 0.9 km above these rookeries impacts to marine mammals and the their feeding grounds near Sakhalin (NMFS 1993). Steller sea lions occupy food sources that they utilize are not Island. Goldbogen et al. (2013) found rookeries and pup from late-May expected to cause significant or long- blue whales feeding on highly through early-July (NMFS 2008), which term consequences for individual concentrated prey in shallow depths coincides with L–DEO’s proposed marine mammals or their populations. (such as the conditions expected within survey. The Orford Reef and Rogue Reef The tracklines of this survey either humpback feeding BIAs) were less critical habitats are located 7 km and 9 traverse or are proximal to BIAs for likely to respond and cease foraging km from the nearest proposed seismic humpback and gray whales (Ferguson et than whales feeding on deep, dispersed transect line, respectively. Impacts to al., 2015). The entire U.S. West Coast prey when exposed to simulated sonar Steller sea lions within these areas, and within 47 km of the coast is a BIA for sources, suggesting that the benefits of throughout the survey area, are expected migrating gray whale potential presence feeding for humpbacks foraging on high- to be limited to short-term behavioral from January to July and October to density prey may outweigh perceived disturbance, with no lasting biological December. The BIA for northbound gray harm from the acoustic stimulus, such consequences. whale migration is broken into two as the seismic survey (Southall et al., Critical habitat for the threatened phases, Phase A (within 8 km of shore) 2016). Additionally, L–DEO will shut Mexico DPS and endangered Central and Phase B (within 5 km of shore), down the airgun array upon observation America DPS humpback whales has which are active from January to July of an aggregation of six or more large been proposed along the U.S. West and March to July, respectively. The whales, which would reduce impacts to Coast (84 FR 54354; October 9, 2019). BIA for southbound migration includes cooperatively foraging animals. For all The proposed critical habitat waters within 10 km of shore and is habitats, no physical impacts to BIA encompasses the humpback whale active from October to March. There are habitat are anticipated from seismic feeding BIAs described above and four gray whale feeding BIAs within the activities. While SPLs of sufficient generally includes waters between the proposed survey area: the Grays Harbor strength have been known to cause 50-m isobath and the 1,200-m isobath, gray whale feeding BIA is used between injury to fish and fish and invertebrate though some areas of the proposed April and November; the Northwest mortality, in feeding habitats, the most critical habitat extend further offshore. Washington gray whale feeding BIA is likely impact to prey species from NMFS determined that prey within used between May and November; and survey activities would be temporary humpback whale feeding areas are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19631

essential to the conservation of each of proposed expanding Southern Resident the near-constant vessel presence in the three DPSs of humpback whales for critical habitat to include waters inland waters. which critical habitat was proposed between the 6.1-m and 200-m depth Approximately 23 percent of L–DEO’s (Mexico, Central America, and Western contours from the U.S. international total tracklines occur within the 200-m North Pacific DPSs). Critical habitat was border with Canada south to Point Sur, isobath along Washington and Oregon. therefore proposed in consideration of California (84 FR 49214; September 19, L–DEO would be required to shut down importance that the whales not only 2019). The proposed expanded critical seismic airguns immediately upon have reliable access to prey within their habitat areas were identified in visual observation or acoustic detection feeding areas, but that prey are of a consideration of physical and biological of killer whales of any ecotype at any sufficient density to support feeding and features essential to conservation of distance to minimize potential the build-up of energy reserves. Southern Resident killer whales exposures of Southern Resident killer Although humpback whales are (essential features): (1) Water quality to whales, and will operate within the 200- generalist predators and prey support growth and development; (2) m isobath in daylight hours only, to increase the ability to visually detect availability can very seasonally and Prey species of sufficient quantity, killer whales and implement spatially, substantial data indicate that quality, and availability to support shutdowns. Southern Resident killer the humpback whales’ diet is individual growth, reproduction, and consistently dominated by euphausiid whales exposed to elevated sound levels development, as well as overall species (of genus Euphausia, from the R/V Langseth and the airgun population growth; and (3) Passage Thysanoessa, Nyctiphanes, and array may reduce foraging time, but the conditions to allow for migration, Nematoscelis) and small pelagic fishes, amount of tracklines that overlap with such as northern anchovy (Engraulis resting, and foraging. NMFS did not the areas of highest estimated densities mordax), Pacific herring (Clupea identify in-water sound levels as a of Southern Resident killer whales (see pallasii), Pacific sardine (Sardinops separate essential feature of existing or Figures 7–9 and 7–11 in the U.S. Navy’s sagax), and capelin (Mallotus villosus) proposed expanded critical habitat MSDD (U.S. Navy 2019)) is low relative (Nemoto 1957, 1959; Klumov 1963; Rice areas, though anthropogenic sound is to the total survey effort. Approximately Krieger and Wing 1984; Baker 1985; recognized as one of the primary threats 360 km of survey tracklines occur Kieckhefer 1992; Clapham et al., 1997; to Southern Resident killer whales within the areas of highest Southern Neilson et al., 2015). While there are (NMFS 2019). Exposure to vessel noise Resident killer whale density (the three possible impacts of seismic activity on and presence of whale watching boats highest density ranges for each pod), plankton and fish species (e.g., can significantly affect the foraging which represents approximately 5 McCauley et al., 2017; Hastings and behavior of Southern Resident killer percent of the total survey tracklines, or Popper 2005), the areas expected to be whales (Williams et al., 2006; Lusseau et just under two days of survey affected by L–DEO’s activities are small al., 2009; Giles and Cendak 2010; operations. If Southern Resident killer relative to the greater habitat areas Senigaglia et al., 2016). Nutritional whales are encountered during the available. stress has also been identified as a survey in these areas and reduce Additionally, humpback whales primary cause of Southern Resident foraging effort in response, the relatively feeding on high-density prey may be killer whale decline (Ayres et al., 2012; small amount of time of altered behavior less likely to cease foraging when the Wasser et al., 2017), suggesting that would not likely affect their overall benefit of energy intake outweighs the reduced foraging effort may have a foraging ability. While Southern perceived harm from acoustic stimulus greater impact than behavioral Resident killer whales may be (Southall et al., 2016). Therefore, this disturbance alone. However, these encountered outside of these areas of seismic activity is not expected to have studies have primarily focused on highest density, the likelihood is a lasting physical impact on humpback effects of whale watch vessels operating significantly decreased and thus the whale proposed critical habitat, prey in close proximity to Southern Resident likelihood of impacts to foraging is within it, or overall humpback whale killer whales, and commercial shipping decreased. Short-term impacts to fitness. Any impact would be a traffic in the Salish Sea (i.e., the inland foraging ability are not likely to result in temporary increase in sound levels waters of Washington and British significant or lasting consequences for individual Southern Resident killer when the survey is occurring in or near Columbia). Commercial whale watch whales or the population as a whole the critical habitat and resulting and private recreational vessels temporary avoidance of prey or marine (Ayres et al., 2012). Due to the mobile operating in the waters around the San mammals themselves due these elevated nature of the survey, animals would not Juan Islands in summer months number sound levels. As stated above, L–DEO be exposed to elevated sounds for an in the dozens (Erbe 2002), and at least will shut down the airgun array upon extended period, and the proposed 400 piloted vessels (commercial vessels observation of an aggregation of six or critical habitat contains a large area of over 350 gross tons and pleasure craft more large whales, which would reduce suitable habitat that would allow direct impacts to groups of humpback over 500 gross tons that are required to Southern Resident killer whales to whales that may be cooperatively be guided in and out of the Port of forage away from the survey. Noren et feeding in the area. Vancouver by al. (2016) reported that although Pilots) transit through Haro Strait each resident killer whales increase energy Southern Resident Killer Whales month (Joy et al., 2002). Concentration expenditure in response to vessel In acknowledgment of our concern of vessel traffic on the outer coast, presence, the increase is considered to regarding the status of Southern where the proposed survey area occurs, be negligible. Resident killer whales, including low is much lower than in the inland waters No permanent hearing impairment abundance and decreasing trend, we (Cominelli et al., 2018), suggesting that (Level A harassment) is anticipated or address impacts to this stock separately effects from vessel noise may be lower proposed to be authorized. Authorized in this section. than in inland waters. Increased noise takes of Southern Resident killer whales L–DEO’s proposed tracklines do not levels from the proposed survey in any would be limited to Level B harassment overlap with existing Southern Resident specific area would be short-term due to in the form of behavioral disturbance. killer whale habitat, but NMFS has the mobile nature of the survey, unlike We anticipate 45 instances of Level B

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19632 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

harassment of Southern Resident killer In summary and as described above, and their habitat, and taking into whales, which we expect would likely the following factors primarily support consideration the implementation of the occur to a smaller subset of the our preliminary determination that the proposed mitigation and monitoring population on only a few days. Limited, impacts resulting from this activity are measures, NMFS preliminarily finds short term behavioral disturbance of the not expected to adversely affect the that the total marine mammal take from nature expected here would not be species or stock through effects on the proposed activity will have a expected to result in fitness-level effects annual rates of recruitment or survival: negligible impact on all affected marine to individual Southern Resident killer • No serious injury or mortality is mammal species or stocks. whales or the population as a whole. anticipated or proposed to be authorized; Small Numbers Negligible Impact Conclusions • The proposed activity is temporary As noted above, only small numbers The proposed survey would be of and of relatively short duration (37 of incidental take may be authorized short duration (37 days of seismic days); under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of operations), and the acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ • The anticipated impacts of the the MMPA for specified activities other of the proposed survey would be small proposed activity on marine mammals than military readiness activities. The relative to the ranges of the marine would primarily be temporary MMPA does not define small numbers mammals that would potentially be behavioral changes due to avoidance of and so, in practice, where estimated affected. Sound levels would increase in the area around the survey vessel; numbers are available, NMFS compares the marine environment in a relatively • The number of instances of the number of individuals taken to the small area surrounding the vessel potential PTS that may occur are most appropriate estimation of compared to the range of the marine expected to be very small in number. abundance of the relevant species or mammals within the proposed survey Instances of potential PTS that are stock in our determination of whether area. Short term exposures to survey incurred in marine mammals are an authorization is limited to small operations are not likely to significantly expected to be of a low level, due to numbers of marine mammals. disrupt marine mammal behavior, and constant movement of the vessel and of Additionally, other qualitative factors the potential for longer-term avoidance the marine mammals in the area, and may be considered in the analysis, such of important areas is limited. the nature of the survey design (not as the temporal or spatial scale of the The proposed mitigation measures are concentrated in areas of high marine activities. expected to reduce the number and/or mammal concentration); There are several stocks for which the severity of takes by allowing for • The availability of alternate areas of estimated instances of take appear high detection of marine mammals in the similar habitat value for marine when compared to the stock abundance vicinity of the vessel by visual and mammals to temporarily vacate the (Table 10), including the Southern acoustic observers, and by minimizing survey area during the proposed survey Resident killer whale stock, the the severity of any potential exposures to avoid exposure to sounds from the California/Oregon/Washington Dall’s via shutdowns of the airgun array. activity; porpoise stock, and the Northern Based on previous monitoring reports • The potential adverse effects on fish California/Southern Oregon and for substantially similar activities that or invertebrate species that serve as prey Northern Oregon/Washington Coast have been previously authorized by species for marine mammals from the harbor porpoise stocks. However, when NMFS, we expect that the proposed proposed survey would be temporary other qualitative factors are used to mitigation will be effective in and spatially limited, and impacts to inform an assessment of the likely preventing, at least to some extent, marine mammal foraging would be number of individual marine mammals potential PTS in marine mammals that minimal; and taken, the resulting numbers are may otherwise occur in the absence of • The proposed mitigation measures, appropriately considered small. We the proposed mitigation (although all including visual and acoustic discuss these in further detail below. authorized PTS has been accounted for monitoring, shutdowns, and enhanced For all other stocks (aside from the in this analysis). Further, for Southern measures for areas of biological four referenced above and described Resident Killer Whales (as described importance (e.g., additional monitoring below), the proposed take is less than above), additional mitigation (e.g., vessel, daylight operations only) are one-third of the best available stock second monitoring vessel, daylight only expected to minimize potential impacts abundance (recognizing that some of surveys) is expected to increase the to marine mammals (both amount and those takes may be repeats of the same ability of PSOs to detect killer whales severity). individual, thus rendering the actual and shut down the airgun array to • Additionally as described above for percentage even lower). reduce the instances and severity of Southern Resident killer whales The expected take of Southern behavioral disturbance. specifically, anticipated impacts are Resident killer whales, as a proportion NMFS concludes that exposures to limited to few days of behavioral of the population abundance, is 57.33 marine mammal species and stocks due disturbance for any one individual and percent, if all takes are assumed to occur to L–DEO’s proposed survey would additional mitigation (e.g., additional for unique individuals. In their NWTT result in only short-term (temporary and monitoring vessel, survey timing, Phase III MSDD, the U.S. Navy created short in duration) effects to individuals shutdowns) are expected to ensure that density estimates of Southern Resident exposed, over relatively small areas of both the numbers and severity of killer whales in their Offshore Study the affected animals’ ranges. Animals impacts to this stock are minimized, Area (U.S. Navy 2019). These density may temporarily avoid the immediate and, therefore the proposed estimates were developed with the area, but are not expected to authorization of Southern Resident assumption that all members of the permanently abandon the area. Major killer whale take is not expected impact Southern Resident population were shifts in habitat use, distribution, or the fitness of any individuals, much less within the Study Area (i.e., no Southern foraging success are not expected. rates of recruitment or survival. Resident killer whales were assumed to NMFS does not anticipate the proposed Based on the analysis contained be in the inland waters of the Salish take estimates to impact annual rates of herein of the likely effects of the Sea). In reality, Southern Resident killer recruitment or survival. specified activity on marine mammals whales have historically spent much of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices 19633

their time in the Salish Sea from spring of the estimated takes are assumed to be IHAs, NMFS consults internally through fall to forage on Fraser River from the Northern Oregon/Washington whenever we propose to authorize take Chinook salmon (Shields et al., 2017) Coast stock. The estimated one-third of for endangered or threatened species. and it is likely that some or all of the total takes assigned to the Northern NMFS is proposing to authorize take population may be in inland waters California/Southern Oregon stock (4,335 of blue whales, fin whales, sei whales, during the proposed survey. Therefore, total Level A and Level B takes) sperm whales, Central America DPS we expect that there will be multiple represent 12.12 percent of the stock humpback whales, Mexico DPS takes of a smaller number of individuals abundance, which NMFS considers to humpback whales, Southern Resident within the action area, such that the be small relative to the stock abundance. killer whale DPS, and Guadalupe fur number of individuals taken will be less In addition, the proposed survey area seal, which are listed under the ESA. than one-third of the population. represents a small portion of the stock’s The NMFS Office of Protected The expected take of the California/ range, and it is likely that there will be Resources (OPR) Permits and Oregon/Washington stock of Dall’s multiple takes of a small portion of Conservation Division has requested porpoises, as a proportion of the individuals, further reducing the initiation of Section 7 consultation with population abundance, is 40.8 percent, number of individuals exposed. The the NMFS OPR ESA Interagency if all takes are assumed to occur for estimated two-thirds of total takes Cooperation Division for the issuance of unique individuals. In reality, it is assigned to the Northern Oregon/ this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA unlikely that all takes would occur to Washington Coast stock (8,671 takes) consultation prior to reaching a different individuals. L–DEO’s proposed represent 40.35 percent of the stock determination regarding the proposed survey area represents a small portion of abundance, which is still considered issuance of the authorization. the stock’s overall range (Caretta et al., high relative to stock abundance. Proposed Authorization 2017), and it is more likely that there However, the Northern Oregon/ will be multiple takes of a smaller Washington Coast stock abundance As a result of these preliminary number of individuals within the action estimate does not include animals in determinations, NMFS proposes to issue area. In addition, Best et al. (2015) Canadian waters (Caretta et al., 2017). an IHA to L–DEO for conducting a estimated the population of Dall’s Best et al. (2015) estimated a population marine geophysical survey in the porpoise in British Columbia to be 5,303 abundance of 8,091 harbor porpoises in northeast Pacific Ocean beginning in porpoises based on systematic line- British Columbia. The estimated takes of June 2020, provided the previously transect surveys of the Strait of Georgia, animals in the northern portion of the mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and Johnstone Strait, Queen Charlotte survey area (north of Lincoln City) reporting requirements are incorporated. Sound, Hecate Strait, and Dixon represent 29.32 percent of the combined A draft of the proposed IHA can be Entrance between 2004 and 2007. In British Columbia and Northern Oregon/ found at https:// consideration of the greater abundance Washington Coast abundance estimates, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ estimate combining the U.S. stock and which NMFS considers to be small incidental-take-authorizations-under- animals in British Columbia, and the relative to estimated abundance. marine-mammal-protection-act. likelihood of repeated takes of Based on the analysis contained Request for Public Comments individuals, it is unlikely that more than herein of the proposed activity one-third of the stock would be exposed (including the proposed mitigation and We request comment on our analyses, to the seismic survey. monitoring measures) and the the proposed authorization, and any When assuming all takes of harbor anticipated take of marine mammals, other aspect of this Notice of Proposed porpoise would occur to either the NMFS preliminarily finds that small IHA for the proposed geophysical Northern Oregon/Washington Coast or numbers of marine mammals will be survey. We also request at this time Northern California/Southern Oregon taken relative to the population size of comment on the potential Renewal of stocks, the take appears high relative to the affected species or stocks. this proposed IHA as described in the stock abundance (60.53 and 36.36 paragraph below. Please include with percent, respectively). In reality, takes Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis your comments any supporting data or will occur to both stocks, and therefore, and Determination literature citations to help inform the number of takes of each stock will There are no relevant subsistence uses decisions on the request for this IHA or be much lower. NMFS has no of the affected marine mammal stocks or a subsequent Renewal IHA. commonly used method to estimate the species implicated by this action. On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may relative proportion of each stock that Therefore, NMFS has determined that issue a one-year Renewal IHA following would experience take, but here we the total taking of affected species or notice to the public providing an propose to apportion the takes between stocks would not have an unmitigable additional 15 days for public comments the two stocks based on the stock adverse impact on the availability of when (1) up to another year of identical, boundary (Lincoln City, Oregon) and the such species or stocks for taking for or nearly identical, activities as approximate proportion of the survey subsistence purposes. described in the Specified Activities area that will occur on either side of the section of this notice is planned or (2) stock boundary. North of Lincoln City, Endangered Species Act (ESA) the activities as described in the Oregon, harbor porpoises belong to the Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Specified Activities section of this Northern Oregon/Washington Coast Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. notice would not be completed by the stock, and south of Lincoln City, harbor 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal time the IHA expires and a Renewal porpoises belong to the Northern agency insure that any action it would allow for completion of the California/Southern Oregon stock. authorizes, funds, or carries out is not activities beyond that described in the Approximately one-third of the likely to jeopardize the continued Dates and Duration section of this proposed survey occurs south of existence of any endangered or notice, provided all of the following Lincoln City, therefore one-third of the threatened species or result in the conditions are met: total estimated takes are assumed to be destruction or adverse modification of • A request for renewal is received no from the Northern California/Southern designated critical habitat. To ensure later than 60 days prior to the needed Oregon stock. The remaining two-thirds ESA compliance for the issuance of Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2 19634 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 7, 2020 / Notices

that the Renewal IHA expiration date mitigation and monitoring pertinent information, NMFS cannot extend beyond one year from requirements, or take estimates (with determines that there are no more than expiration of the initial IHA); the exception of reducing the type or minor changes in the activities, the • The request for renewal must amount of take); and mitigation and monitoring measures include the following: (2) A preliminary monitoring report will remain the same and appropriate, showing the results of the required and the findings in the initial IHA (1) An explanation that the activities remain valid. to be conducted under the requested monitoring to date and an explanation Renewal IHA are identical to the showing that the monitoring results do Dated: April 1, 2020. activities analyzed under the initial not indicate impacts of a scale or nature Donna S. Wieting, IHA, are a subset of the activities, or not previously analyzed or authorized. Director, Office of Protected Resources, include changes so minor (e.g., • Upon review of the request for National Marine Fisheries Service. reduction in pile size) that the changes Renewal, the status of the affected [FR Doc. 2020–07289 Filed 4–6–20; 8:45 am] do not affect the previous analyses, species or stocks, and any other BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Apr 06, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\07APN2.SGM 07APN2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES2