26940 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and will generally be posted online at limitations indicated above and https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ amended the definition of ‘‘harassment’’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric incidental-take-authorizations-under- as it applies to a ‘‘military readiness Administration marine--protection-act without activity.’’ The definitions of all change. All personal identifying applicable MMPA statutory terms cited RIN 0648–XG948 information (e.g., name, address) above are included in the relevant Takes of Marine Incidental to voluntarily submitted by the commenter sections below. may be publicly accessible. Do not Specified Activities; Taking Marine National Environmental Policy Act Mammals Incidental to Marine submit confidential business Geophysical Surveys in the Northeast information or otherwise sensitive or To comply with the National Pacific Ocean protected information. Environmental Policy Act of 1969 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Amy Fowler, Office of Protected NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 216–6A, NMFS must review our Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Electronic copies of the application and proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an Commerce. supporting documents, as well as a list incidental harassment authorization) ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental of the references cited in this document, with respect to potential impacts on the harassment authorization; request for may be obtained online at: https:// human environment. comments on proposed authorization www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ Accordingly, NMFS is preparing an and possible renewal. incidental-take-authorizations-under- Environmental Assessment (EA) to marine-mammal-protection-act. In case consider the environmental impacts SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request of problems accessing these documents, associated with the issuance of the from the Lamont-Doherty Earth please call the contact listed above. proposed IHA. NMFS’ EA will be made Observatory of Columbia University (L– available at https:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEO) for authorization to take marine www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ mammals incidental to a marine Background incidental-take-authorizations-under- geophysical survey in the northeast The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of marine-mammal-protection-act. Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine marine mammals, with certain We will review all comments Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and submitted in response to this notice is requesting comments on its proposal (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et prior to concluding our NEPA process to issue an incidental harassment seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce or making a final decision on the IHA authorization (IHA) to incidentally take (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request. marine mammals during the specified request, the incidental, but not Summary of Request activities. NMFS is also requesting intentional, taking of small numbers of comments on a possible one-year marine mammals by U.S. citizens who On December 21, 2018, NMFS renewal that could be issued under engage in a specified activity (other than received a request from L–DEO for an certain circumstances and if all commercial fishing) within a specified IHA to take marine mammals incidental requirements are met, as described in geographical region if certain findings to a marine geophysical survey of the Request for Public Comments at the end are made and either regulations are Axial Seamount in the Northeast Pacific of this notice. NMFS will consider issued or, if the taking is limited to Ocean. The application was deemed public comments prior to making any harassment, a notice of a proposed adequate and complete on May 3, 2019. final decision on the issuance of the incidental take authorization may be L–DEO’s request is for take of a small requested MMPA authorizations and provided to the public for review. number of 26 of marine agency responses will be summarized in Authorization for incidental takings mammals by Level B harassment and the final notice of our decision. shall be granted if NMFS finds that the Level A harassment. Neither L–DEO nor DATES: Comments and information must taking will have a negligible impact on NMFS expects serious injury or be received no later than July 10, 2019. the species or stock(s) and will not have mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. ADDRESSES: Comments should be an unmitigable adverse impact on the addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, availability of the species or stock(s) for Description of Proposed Activity Permits and Conservation Division, taking for subsistence uses (where Office of Protected Resources, National relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe Overview Marine Fisheries Service. Physical the permissible methods of taking and Researchers from the University of comments should be sent to 1315 East- other ‘‘means of effecting the least Texas at Austin, University of Nevada West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 practicable adverse impact’’ on the Reno, University of California San and electronic comments should be sent affected species or stocks and their Diego, with funding from the U.S. to [email protected]. habitat, paying particular attention to National Science Foundation (NSF), Instructions: NMFS is not responsible rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of propose to conduct high-energy seismic for comments sent by any other method, similar significance, and on the surveys from Research Vessel (R/V) to any other address or individual, or availability of such species or stocks for Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth) in the received after the end of the comment taking for certain subsistence uses Northeast Pacific Ocean during summer period. Comments received (referred to in shorthand as 2019. The NSF-owned Langseth is electronically, including all ‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements operated by Columbia University’s L– attachments, must not exceed a 25- pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring DEO under an existing Cooperative megabyte file size. Attachments to and reporting of such takings are set Agreement. The proposed two- electronic comments will be accepted in forth. dimensional (2–D) and three- Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF The NDAA (Pub. L. 108–136) dimensional (3–D) seismic surveys file formats only. All comments removed the ‘‘small numbers’’ and would occur in International Waters received are a part of the public record ‘‘specified geographical region’’ outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26941

Zone (EEZ). The 2–D survey would use complex magma chamber structure, Specific Geographic Region a 36-airgun towed array with a total caldera dynamics, fluid pathways, and discharge volume of ∼6,600 cubic inches hydrothermal venting. Seismic data The proposed surveys would occur (in3); the 3–D survey would employ an acquired during the proposed study within ∼45.5–46.5° N, ∼129.5–130.5° W. 18-airgun array with a discharge volume could be used to evaluate earthquake, Representative survey tracklines are of ∼3,300 in3. tsunami, and submarine landslide shown in Figure 1. Some deviation in The primary objectives of the surveys hazards. actual track lines, including the order of proposed by researchers from the survey operations, could be necessary Dates and Duration University of Texas at Austin Institute for reasons such as science drivers, poor for Geophysics (UTIG), the Nevada The proposed surveys would be data quality, inclement weather, or Seismological Laboratory at the expected to last for 33 days, including mechanical issues with the research University of Nevada Reno (UNR) and approximately 19 days of seismic vessel and/or equipment. Thus, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography operations (approximately 16 days for tracklines could occur anywhere within (SIO) at the University of California San the 3–D survey and three days for the 2– the coordinates noted above. The Diego, is to create a detailed 3–D image D survey), seven days of equipment proposed surveys would be conducted of the main and satellite magma deployment/retrieval, three days of in International Waters outside the U.S. reservoirs that set the Axial volcano’s operational contingency time (e.g., EEZ. The surveys would occur in water framework, image the 3–D fracture infill, weather delays, etc.), two days for network and how they influence the turns (no airguns firing) during the 3– depths ranging from 1,400 to 2,800 magma bodies, and to connect the D survey, and roughly two days of meters (m). The proposed survey area is subsurface observations to the surface transit. R/V Langseth would leave out of approximately 423 kilometers (km) (229 features. The main goal of the seismic and return to port in Astoria, OR, during miles (mi)) from shore at its closest program is to explore linkages between summer (July/August) 2019. point.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 EN10JN19.000 26942 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

Detailed Description of Specific Activity are towed along the survey lines, the mammal-stock-assessments) and more The procedures to be used for the hydrophone streamer(s) would transfer general information about these species proposed surveys would be similar to the data to the on-board processing (e.g., physical and behavioral those used during previous seismic system, and the OBSs would receive descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s surveys by L–DEO and would use and store the returning acoustic signals website (https:// conventional seismic methodology. The internally for later analysis. www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). ∼ surveys would involve one source A total of 3,760 km of transect lines Table 1 lists all species with expected vessel, R/V Langseth, which is owned would be surveyed in the Northeast ∼ potential for occurrence in the survey by NSF and operated on its behalf by L– Pacific Ocean: 3,196 km during the 3– area and summarizes information DEO. D survey (including run ins and run related to the population or stock, R/V Langseth would first deploy four outs) and 564 km during the 2–D including regulatory status under the survey. There could be additional 6-km streamers and 18 airguns to MMPA and ESA and potential seismic operations associated with conduct the 3–D multichannel seismic biological removal (PBR), where known. turns, airgun testing, and repeat survey to examine the Axial volcano For , we follow Committee on coverage of any areas where initial data and associated rift axes within an Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the quality is sub-standard. To account for approximate 17 x 40 km area. The 3–D MMPA as the maximum number of unanticipated delays, 25 percent has survey would consist of a racetrack , not including natural been added in the form of operational formation with 57 40-km long lines and mortalities, that may be removed from a days, which is equivalent to adding 25 a turning diameter of 8.5 km (Figure 1); marine mammal stock while allowing percent to the proposed line km to be no airguns would be firing during turns. that stock to reach or maintain its ∼ surveyed. The survey speed would be 4.5 knots optimum sustainable population (as In addition to the operations of the (kn) (8.3 km/hour) for the 3–D survey. described in NMFS’s SARs). While no airgun array, a multibeam echosounder The airgun array and streamers would mortality is anticipated or authorized (MBES), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP), then be recovered, and one 15-km here, PBR and annual serious injury and and an Acoustic Doppler Current streamer would be deployed along with mortality from anthropogenic sources ∼ Profiler (ADCP) would be operated from 36 airguns to acquire eight 26-km-long are included here as gross indicators of R/V Langseth continuously during the source-receiver offset 2–D reflection the status of the species and other seismic surveys, but not during transit profiles that would look at deep-seated threats. structure of magma delivery. During the to and from the survey area. All planned 2–D survey, the airguns would be firing geophysical data acquisition activities Marine mammal abundance estimates during turns to the next line, and the would be conducted by L–DEO with on- presented in this document represent survey speed would be ∼4.2 kn (7.8 km/ board assistance by the scientists who the total number of individuals that hour). have proposed the studies. The vessel make up a given stock or the total The receiving system would consist of would be self-contained, and the crew number estimated within a particular hydrophone streamers and up to eight would live aboard the vessel. study or survey area. NMFS’s stock ocean bottom seismometers (OBSs). The Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and abundance estimates for most species OBSs are long-term broadband reporting measures are described in represent the total estimate of instruments that would be left out for ∼1 detail later in this document (please see individuals within the geographic area, year and recovered by another vessel. Proposed Mitigation and Proposed if known, that comprises that stock. For They have a height and diameter of ∼1 Monitoring and Reporting). some species, this geographic area may m, with an 80 kg anchor. To retrieve extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed OBSs, an acoustic release transponder Description of Marine Mammals in the stocks in this region are assessed in (pinger) is used to interrogate the Area of Specified Activities NMFS’s U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs instrument at a frequency of 8–11 kHz, Sections 3 and 4 of the application (Caretta et al., 2018; Muto et al., 2018). and a response is received at a summarize available information All values presented in Table 1 are the frequency of 11.5–13 kHz. The burn- regarding status and trends, distribution most recent available at the time of wire release assembly is then activated, and habitat preferences, and behavior publication and are available in the and the instrument is released to float and life history, of the potentially 2017 SARs (Caretta et al., 2018; Muto et to the surface from the anchor which is affected species. Additional information al., 2018) and draft 2018 SARs not retrieved. Four 6-km long regarding population trends and threats (available online at: https:// hydrophone streamers would be used may be found in NMFS’s Stock www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ during 3–D data acquisition and one 15- Assessment Reports (SARs; https:// marine-mammal-protection/draft- km long streamer would be employed www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ marine-mammal-stock-assessment- for 2–D data acquisition. As the airguns marine-mammal-protection/marine- reports). TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA

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

Order Cetartiodactyla——Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen )

Family : Gray ...... Eschrichtius robustus ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... -/-; N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 ...... 138 2016). Western North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 175 (0.05, 167, 2016) ... 0.07 ...... Unknown Family : North Pacific ... Eubalaena japonica ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 31 (0.226, 26, 2015) ..... 0.05 ...... 0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26943

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

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

Family Balaenopteridae (): ...... Megaptera novaeangliae ...... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; Y 1,918 (0.03, 1,876, 11 ...... >9.2 2014). ...... acutorostrata .... California/Oregon/Washington -/-; N 636 (0.72, 369, 2014) ... 3.5 ...... >1.3 ...... Balaenoptera borealis ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 519 (0.4, 374, 2014) ..... 0.75 ...... 0 ...... Balaenoptera physalus ...... California/Oregon/Washington E/D; Y 9,029 (0.12, 8,127, 81 ...... >2.0 2014). ...... Balaenoptera musculus ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... E/D; Y 1,647 (0.07, 1,551, 2.3 ...... >0.2 2011).

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, , and )

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

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions): Northern fur seal ...... Callorhinus ursinus ...... Eastern Pacific ...... -/D; Y 620,660 (0.2, 525,333, 11,295 ...... 457 California ...... -/D; N 2016). 451 ...... 1.8 14,050 (N/A, 7,524, 2013). California sea lion ...... Zalophus californianus ...... U.S ...... -/-; N 257,606 (N/A, 233,515, 14,011 ...... >197 2014). Steller sea lion ...... Eumetopias jubatus ...... Eastern U.S ...... -/-; N 41,638 (see SAR, 2,498 ...... 108 41,638, 2015). Guadalupe fur seal ...... Arctocephalus townsendi ...... Mexico ...... T/D; Y 20,000 (N/A, 15,830, 542 ...... >3.2 2010). Family Phocidae (earless seals): Harbor seal ...... Phoca vitulina ...... Oregon/Washington Coastal ... -/-; N Unknown (Unknown, Undeter- 10.6 Unknown, 1999). mined.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26944 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

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

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

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

All species that could potentially the western Pacific, particularly around northward migration in spring and occur in the proposed survey areas are the Ogasawara and Ryukyu islands in summer and southward migration in included in Table 1. However, the southern Japan and the northern autumn (Stewart and Leatherwood temporal and/or spatial occurrence of Philippines (Calambokidis et al., 2008; 1985). In the North Pacific, the summer gray whales, Southern Resident and Bettridge et al., 2015). These breeding range of the minke whale extends to the Northern Resident killer whales, harbor areas have been designated as DPSs, but Chukchi Sea; in the winter, the whales porpoise, harbor seal, California sea feeding areas have no DPS status move farther south to within 2° of the lion, and Steller sea lion is such that (Bettridge et al., 2015; NMFS 2016b). Equator (Perrin and Brownell 2009). take is not expected to occur, and they Individuals encountered in the The International are not discussed further beyond the proposed survey area most likely would Commission (IWC) recognizes three explanation provided here. These come from the Central America and stocks of minke whales in the North species are found in the eastern North Mexico distinct population segments Pacific: The Sea of Japan/East China Pacific, but are generally found in (DPSs), although some individuals from Sea, the rest of the western Pacific west coastal waters and are not expected to the Hawaii DPS may also feed in these of 180° N, and the remainder of the occur offshore in the survey area. waters. There is a low level of Pacific (Donovan 1991). Minke whales interchange of whales among the main are relatively common in the Bering and Humpback Whale wintering areas and among feeding areas Chukchi seas and in the Gulf of Alaska, The humpback whale is found (e.g., Darling and Cerchio 1993; Salden but are not considered abundant in any throughout all of the oceans of the et al., 1999; Calambokidis et al., 2001, other part of the eastern Pacific world (Clapham 2009). The worldwide 2008). (Brueggeman et al., 1990). In the far population of humpbacks is divided The humpback whale is the most north, minke whales are thought to be into northern and southern ocean common species of large cetacean migratory, but they are believed to be populations, but genetic analyses reported off the coasts of Oregon and year-round residents in coastal waters suggest some gene flow (either past or Washington from May to November off the U.S. West Coast (Dorsey et al., present) between the North and South (Green et al., 1992; Calambokidis et al., 1990). Pacific (e.g., Baker et al., 1993; Caballero 2000, 2004). The highest numbers have Sei Whale et al., 2001). Geographical overlap of been reported off Oregon during May these populations has been documented and June and off Washington during The distribution of the sei whale is only off Central America (Acevedo and July–September. However, off Oregon not well known, but it is found in all Smultea 1995; Rasmussen et al., 2004, and Washington, humpbacks occur oceans and appears to prefer mid- 2007). Although considered to be primarily over the continental shelf and latitude temperate waters (Jefferson et mainly a coastal species, humpback slope during the summer, with few al., 2015). The sei whale is pelagic and whales often traverse deep pelagic areas reported in offshore pelagic waters generally not found in coastal waters while migrating (Clapham and Mattila (Green et al., 1992; Calambokidis et al., (Jefferson et al., 2015). It is found in 1990; Norris et al., 1999; Calambokidis 2004, 2015; Becker et al., 2012; Menza deeper waters characteristic of the et al., 2001). et al., 2016). Biologically important continental shelf edge region (Hain et Humpback whales migrate between areas (BIAs) for feeding humpback al., 1985) and in other regions of steep summer feeding grounds in high whales along the coasts of Oregon and bathymetric relief such as seamounts latitudes and winter calving and Washington, which have been and canyons (Kenney and Winn 1987; breeding grounds in tropical waters designated from May to November, are Gregr and Trites 2001). On feeding (Clapham and Mead 1999). North all within ∼80 km offshore grounds, sei whales associate with Pacific humpback whales summer in (Calambokidis et al., 2015). oceanic frontal systems (Horwood 1987) feeding grounds along the Pacific Rim such as the cold eastern currents in the and in the Bering and Okhotsk seas Minke Whale North Pacific (Perry et al., 1999a). Sei (Pike and MacAskie 1969; Rice 1978; The minke whale has a cosmopolitan whales migrate from temperate zones Winn and Reichley 1985; Calambokidis distribution that spans from tropical to occupied in winter to higher latitudes in et al., 2000, 2001, 2008). Humpbacks polar regions in both hemispheres the summer, where most feeding takes winter in four different breeding areas: (Jefferson et al., 2015). In the Northern place (Gambell 1985a). During summer (1) Along the coast of Mexico; (2) along Hemisphere, the minke whale is usually in the North Pacific, the sei whale can the coast of Central America; (3) around seen in coastal areas, but can also be be found from the Bering Sea to the Gulf the main Hawaiian Islands; and (4) in seen in pelagic waters during its of Alaska and down to southern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26945

California, as well as in the western winter in the eastern tropical Pacific as deep as ∼2 km and possibly deeper Pacific from Japan to Korea. Its winter (Stafford et al., 1999, 2001). on rare occasions for periods of over 1 distribution is concentrated at ∼20° N The distribution of the species, at h; however, most of their foraging (Rice 1998). least during times of the year when occurs at depths of ∼300–800 m for 30– feeding is a major activity, occurs in 45 min (Whitehead 2003). Fin Whale areas that provide large seasonal Sperm whales are distributed widely The fin whale is widely distributed in concentrations of euphausiids (Yochem across the North Pacific (Rice 1989). Off all the world’s oceans (Gambell 1985b), and Leatherwood 1985). The eastern California, they occur year-round (Dohl but typically occurs in temperate and North Pacific stock feeds in California et al., 1983; Barlow 1995; Forney et al., polar regions from 20–70° north and waters from June–November 1995), with peak abundance from April south of the Equator (Perry et al., (Calambokidis et al., 1990; Mate et al., to mid-June and from August to mid- 1999b). Northern and southern fin 1999). There are nine BIAs for feeding November (Rice 1974). Off Oregon, whale populations are distinct and are blue whales off the coast of California sperm whales are seen in every season sometimes recognized as different (Calambokidis et al., 2015), and core except winter (Green et al., 1992). subspecies (Aguilar 2009). Fin whales areas have also been identified there Oleson et al. (2009) noted a significant occur in coastal, shelf, and oceanic (Irvine et al., 2014). Blue whales have diel pattern in the occurrence of sperm waters. Sergeant (1977) suggested that been detected acoustically off Oregon whale clicks at offshore and inshore fin whales tend to follow steep slope (McDonald et al., 1995; Stafford et al., monitoring locations off Washington, contours, either because they detect 1998; Von Saunder and Barlow 1999), whereby clicks were more commonly them readily or because biological but sightings are uncommon (Carretta et heard during the day at the offshore site productivity is high along steep al., 2018). Densities along the U.S. West and were more common at night at the contours because of tidal mixing and Coast, including Oregon, were predicted inshore location, suggesting possible perhaps current mixing. Stafford et al., to be highest in shelf waters, with lower diel movements up and down the slope (2009) noted that sea-surface densities in deeper offshore areas in search of prey. Sperm whale acoustic temperature is a good predictor variable (Becker et al., 2012; Calambokidis et al., detections were also reported at the for fin whale call detections in the 2015). Buchanan et al., (2001) inshore site from June through January North Pacific. considered blue whales to be rare off 2009, with an absence of calls during Fin whales appear to have complex Oregon and Washington. However, February to May (Sˆ irovic´ et al., 2012). In seasonal movements and are seasonal based on the absolute dynamic addition, sperm whales were sighted migrants; they mate and calve in topography of the region, blue whales during surveys off Washington in June temperate waters during the winter and could occur in relatively high densities 2011 and off Oregon in October 2011 migrate to feed at northern latitudes off Oregon during July–December (Pardo (Adams et al., 2014). during the summer (Gambell 1985b). et al., 2015). The North Pacific population summers Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales from the Chukchi Sea to California and Sperm Whale The pygmy and dwarf sperm whales winters from California southwards The sperm whale is the largest of the are distributed widely throughout (Gambell 1985b). Aggregations of fin toothed whales, with an extensive tropical and temperate seas, but their whales are found year-round off worldwide distribution (Rice 1989). precise distributions are unknown as southern and central California (Dohl et Sperm whale distribution is linked to most information on these species al., 1980, 1983; Forney et al., 1995; social structure: Mixed groups of adult comes from strandings (McAlpine Barlow 1997) and in the summer off females and juvenile animals of both 2009). They are difficult to sight at sea, Oregon (Green et al., 1992; Edwards et sexes generally occur in tropical and perhaps because of their avoidance al., 2015). Vocalizations from fin whales subtropical waters, whereas adult males reactions to ships and behavior changes have also been detected year-round off are commonly found alone or in same- in relation to survey aircraft (Wu¨ rsig et northern California, Oregon, and sex aggregations, often occurring in al., 1998). The two species are difficult Washington (Moore et al., 1998, 2006; higher latitudes outside the breeding to distinguish from one another when Watkins et al., 2000a, b; Stafford et al., season (Best 1979; Watkins and Moore sighted (McAlpine 2009). 2007, 2009; Edwards et al., 2015). 1982; Arnbom and Whitehead 1989; Both Kogia species are sighted Whitehead and Waters 1990). Males can primarily along the continental shelf Blue Whale migrate north in the summer to feed in edge and slope and over deeper waters The blue whale has a cosmopolitan the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and off the shelf (Hansen et al., 1994; Davis distribution and tends to be pelagic, waters around the Aleutian Islands et al., 1998). Several studies have only coming nearshore to feed and (Kasuya and Miyashita 1988). Mature suggested that pygmy sperm whales live possibly to breed (Jefferson et al., 2015). male sperm whales migrate to warmer mostly beyond the continental shelf Although it has been suggested that waters to breed when they are in their edge, whereas dwarf sperm whales tend there are at least five subpopulations of late twenties (Best 1979). to occur closer to shore, often over the blue whales in the North Pacific (NMFS Sperm whales generally are continental shelf (Rice 1998; Wang et 1998), analysis of blue whale calls distributed over large areas that have al., 2002; MacLeod et al., 2004). Barros monitored from the U.S. Navy Sound high secondary productivity and steep et al., (1998), on the other hand, Surveillance System (SOSUS) and other underwater topography, in waters at suggested that dwarf sperm whales offshore hydrophones (see Stafford et least 1000 m deep (Jaquet and could be more pelagic and dive deeper al., 1999, 2001, 2007; Watkins et al., Whitehead 1996; Whitehead 2009). than pygmy sperm whales. It has also 2000a; Stafford 2003) suggests that there They are often found far from shore, but been suggested that the pygmy sperm are two separate populations: One in the can be found closer to oceanic islands whale is more temperate and the dwarf eastern and one in the western North that rise steeply from deep ocean waters sperm whale more tropical, based at Pacific (Sears and Perrin 2009). Broad- (Whitehead 2009). Adult males can least partially on live sightings at sea scale acoustic monitoring indicates that occur in water depths <100 m and as from a large database from the eastern blue whales occurring in the northeast shallow as 40 m (Whitehead et al. 1992; tropical Pacific (Wade and Gerrodette Pacific during summer and fall may Scott and Sadove 1997). They can dive 1993). This idea is also supported by the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26946 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

distribution of strandings in South the eastern North Pacific Ocean, it is ´ American waters (Mun˜ oz-Hincapie et distributed from Alaska to southern The bottlenose dolphin is distributed al., 1998). California (Mead et al., 1982; Mead worldwide in coastal and shelf waters of 1989). Most stranding records are from Cuvier’s Beaked Whale tropical and temperate oceans (Jefferson Alaskan waters, and the Aleutian et al., 2015). There are two distinct Cuvier’s beaked whale is probably the Islands appear to be its center of most widespread of the beaked whales, bottlenose dolphin types: A shallow distribution (MacLeod et al., 2006). water type, mainly found in coastal although it is not found in polar waters After Cuvier’s beaked whale, Stejneger’s (Heyning 1989). Cuvier’s beaked whale waters, and a deep water type, mainly beaked whale was the second most found in oceanic waters (Duffield et al., appears to prefer steep continental slope commonly stranded beaked whale waters (Jefferson et al., 2015) and is 1983; Hoelzel et al., 1998; Walker et al., species in Oregon and Washington 1999). Coastal common bottlenose most common in water depths >1,000 m (Norman et al., 2004). (Heyning 1989). It is mostly known from dolphins exhibit a range of movement strandings and strands more commonly Hubb’s Beaked Whale patterns including seasonal migration, than any other beaked whale (Heyning year-round residency, and a Hubbs’ beaked whale occurs in combination of long-range movements 1989). Its inconspicuous blows, deep- temperate waters of the North Pacific diving behavior, and tendency to avoid and repeated local residency (Wells and (Mead 1989). Its distribution appears to Scott 2009). vessels all help to explain the infrequent be correlated with the deep subarctic sightings (Barlow and Gisiner 2006). current (Mead et al., 1982). Numerous Short-Beaked The population in the California Current stranding records have been reported for Large Marine Ecosystem seems to be The short-beaked common dolphin is the U.S. West Coast (MacLeod et al., found in tropical and warm temperate declining (Moore and Barlow 2013). 2006). Most of the records are from MacLeod et al., (2006) reported oceans around the world (Perrin 2009). California, but it has been sighted as far ° numerous sightings and strandings It ranges as far south as 40 S in the north as Prince Rupert, British Pacific Ocean, is common in coastal along the Pacific coast of the U.S. Columbia (Mead 1989). Two strandings Cuvier’s beaked whale is the most waters 200–300 m deep and is also are known from Washington/Oregon associated with prominent underwater common beaked whale off the U.S. West (Norman et al., 2004). Hubbs’ beaked Coast (Barlow 2010), and it is the topography, such as seamounts (Evans whales are often killed in drift gillnets 1994). Short-beaked common dolphins beaked whale species that has stranded off California (Reeves et al., 2002). most frequently on the coasts of Oregon have been sighted as far as 550 km from and Washington. From 1942–2010, there There are no sightings of Hubbs’ shore (Barlow et al., 1997). were 23 reported Cuvier’s beaked whale beaked whales near the proposed survey The distribution of short-beaked strandings in Oregon and Washington area in the OBIS database (OBIS 2018). common dolphins along the U.S. West (Moore and Barlow 2013). Most (75 There is one sighting of an unidentified Coast is variable and likely related to percent) Cuvier’s beaked whale species of Mesoplodont whale near the oceanographic changes (Heyning and strandings reported occurred in Oregon survey area in the OBIS database that Perrin 1994; Forney and Barlow 1998). (Norman et al., 2004). was made in July 1996 during the It is the most abundant cetacean off SWFSC ORCAWALE Marine Mammal California; some sightings have been Blainville’s Beaked Whale Survey (OBIS 2018). During the 2016 made off Oregon, in offshore waters Blainville’s beaked whale is found in SWFSC PASCAL study using drifting (Carretta et al., 2017). During surveys off tropical and warm temperate waters of acoustic recorders, detections were the west coast in 2014 and 2017, all oceans (Pitman 2009). It has the made of beaked whale sounds presumed sightings were made as far north as 44° widest distribution throughout the to be from Hubbs’ beaked whales near N (Barlow 2016; SIO n.d.). Based on the world of all mesoplodont species and the proposed survey area during August absolute dynamic topography of the appears to be relatively common (Griffiths et al., submitted manuscript region, short-beaked common dolphins (Pitman 2009). Like other beaked cited in Keating et al., 2018). In could occur in relatively high densities whales, Blainville’s beaked whale is addition, at least two sightings just to off Oregon during July–December (Pardo generally found in waters 200–1400 m the south of the proposed survey area et al., 2015). In contrast, habitat deep (Gannier 2000; Jefferson et al., were reported in Carretta et al., (2018). modeling predicted moderate densities 2015). Occasional occurrences in cooler, This species seems to be less common of common dolphins off the Columbia higher-latitude waters are presumably in the proposed survey area than some River mouth during summer, with lower related to warm-water incursions of the other beaked whales. densities off southern Oregon (Becker et (Reeves et al., 2002). MacLeod et al., Baird’s Beaked Whale al., 2014). (2006) reported stranding and sighting Striped Dolphin records in the eastern Pacific ranging Baird’s beaked whale has a fairly from 37.3° N to 41.5° S. However, none extensive range across the North Pacific, The striped dolphin has a of the 36 beaked whale stranding with concentrations occurring in the Sea cosmopolitan distribution in tropical to records in Oregon and Washington of Okhotsk and Bering Sea (Rice 1998; warm temperate waters (Perrin et al., during 1930–2002 included Blainville’s Kasuya 2009). In the eastern Pacific, 1994) and is generally seen south of 43° beaked whale (Norman et al., 2004). Baird’s beaked whale is reported to N (Archer 2009). However, in the One Blainville’s beaked whale was occur as far south as San Clemente eastern North Pacific, its distribution found stranded (dead) on the Island, California (Rice 1998; Kasuya extends as far north as Washington Washington coast in November 2016 2009). Baird’s beaked whales that occur (Jefferson et al., 2015). The striped (COASST 2016). off the U.S. west coast are of the gray dolphin is typically found in waters form, unlike some individuals outside the continental shelf and is Stejneger’s Beaked Whale that are found in Alaska and Japan, often associated with convergence zones Stejneger’s beaked whale occurs in which are of the black form and thus and areas of upwelling (Archer 2009). subarctic and cool temperate waters of could be a new species (Morin et al., However, it has also been observed the North Pacific Ocean (Mead 1989). In 2017). approaching shore where there is deep

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26947

water close to the coast (Jefferson et al., waters of the North Pacific, from the seamounts and escarpments (Kruse et 2015). Gulf of Alaska to near northern Baja al., 1999). Off the U.S. West Coast, California, ranging from 30° N to 50° N Risso’s dolphin is believed to make Pacific White-Sided Dolphin (Reeves et al., 2002). In the eastern seasonal north-south movements related The Pacific white-sided dolphin is North Pacific Ocean, including waters to water temperature, spending colder found in cool temperate waters of the off Oregon, the northern right whale winter months off California and North Pacific from the southern Gulf of dolphin is one of the most common moving north to waters off Oregon/ California to Alaska. Across the North marine mammal species, occurring Washington during the spring and Pacific, it appears to have a relatively primarily in shelf and slope waters ∼100 summer as northern waters begin to ° narrow distribution between 38 N and to >2,000 m deep (Green et al., 1993; warm (Green et al., 1992, 1993; ° 47 N (Brownell et al., 1999). In the Barlow 2003). The northern right whale Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow 2003; eastern North Pacific Ocean, including dolphin comes closer to shore where Becker 2007). waters off Oregon, the Pacific white- there is deep water, such as over The distribution and abundance of sided dolphin is one of the most submarine canyons (Reeves et al., 2002). Risso’s dolphins are highly variable common cetacean species, occurring Aerial and shipboard surveys suggest from California to Washington, primarily in shelf and slope waters seasonal inshore–offshore and north– presumably in response to changing (Green et al., 1993; Barlow 2003, 2010). south movements in the eastern North oceanographic conditions on both It is known to occur close to shore in Pacific Ocean between California and annual and seasonal time scales (Forney certain regions, including (seasonally) Oregon/Washington; the movements are and Barlow 1998; Buchanan et al., southern California (Brownell et al., believed to be related to oceanographic 2001). The highest densities were 1999). influences, particularly water Results of aerial and shipboard predicted along the coasts of temperature and presumably prey Washington, Oregon, and central and surveys strongly suggest seasonal north– distribution and availability (Green et south movements of the species southern California (Becker et al., 2012). al., 1993; Forney and Barlow 1998; Off Oregon and Washington, Risso’s between California and Oregon/ Buchanan et al., 2001). Green et al., dolphins are most abundant over Washington; the movements apparently (1992, 1993) found that northern right continental slope and shelf waters are related to oceanographic influences, whale dolphins were most abundant off during spring and summer, less so particularly water temperature (Green et Oregon/Washington during fall, less during fall, and rare during winter al., 1993; Forney and Barlow 1998; abundant during spring and summer, (Green et al., 1992, 1993). Green et al., Buchanan et al., 2001). During winter, and absent during winter, when this (1992, 1993) reported most Risso’s this species is most abundant in species presumably moves south to dolphin groups off Oregon between ∼45 California slope and offshore areas; as warmer California waters (Green et al., and 47° N. Several sightings were made northern waters begin to warm in the 1992, 1993; Forney 1994; Forney et al., off southern Oregon during surveys in spring, it appears to move north to slope 1995; Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow and offshore waters off Oregon/ 2003). Considerable interannual 1991–2014 (Carretta et al., 2017). Washington (Green et al., 1992, 1993; variations in abundance also have been Sightings during ship surveys in summer/fall 2008 were mostly between Forney 1994; Forney et al., 1995; found. ∼ ° Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow 2003). Becker et al., (2014) predicted 30 and 38 N; none were reported in The highest encounter rates off Oregon relatively high densities off southern Oregon/Washington (Barlow 2010). and Washington have been reported Oregon, and moderate densities off Based on 2014 survey data, the during March–May in slope and northern Oregon and Washington. Based abundance for Oregon/Washington was offshore waters (Green et al., 1992). on year-round aerial surveys off Oregon/ estimated at 430 (Barlow 2016). Similarly, Becker et al., (2014) predicted Washington, the northern right whale relatively high densities off southern dolphin was the third most abundant Oregon in shelf and slope waters. cetacean species, concentrated in slope The false killer whale is found in all Based on year-round aerial surveys off waters but also occurring in water out tropical and warmer temperate oceans, Oregon/Washington, the Pacific white- to ∼550 km offshore (Green et al., 1992, especially in deep, offshore waters sided dolphin was the most abundant 1993). Barlow (2003, 2010) also found (Odell and McClune 1999). However, it cetacean species, with nearly all (97 that the northern is also known to occur in nearshore percent) sightings occurring in May was one of the most abundant marine areas (e.g., Stacey and Baird 1991). In (Green et al., 1992, 1993). Barlow (2003) mammal species off Oregon/Washington the eastern North Pacific, it has been also found that the Pacific white-sided during 1996, 2001, 2005, and 2008 ship reported only rarely north of Baja dolphin was one of the most abundant surveys. Offshore sightings were made California (Leatherwood et al., 1982, marine mammal species off Oregon/ in the waters of Oregon during summer, 1987; Mangels and Gerrodette 1994); Washington during 1996 and 2001 ship fall, and winter surveys in 2011 and however, the waters off the U.S. West surveys, and it was the second most 2012 (Adams et al., 2014). Coast all the way north to Alaska are abundant species reported during 2008 considered part of its secondary range Risso’s Dolphin surveys (Barlow 2010). Adams et al., (Jefferson et al., 2015). Its occurrence in (2014) reported numerous offshore Risso’s dolphin is distributed Washington/Oregon is associated with sightings off Oregon during summer, worldwide in temperate and tropical warm-water incursions (Buchanan et al., fall, and winter surveys in 2011 and oceans (Baird 2009), although it shows 2001). One pod of false killer whales 2012. Based on surveys conducted a preference for mid-temperate waters of occurred in Puget Sound for several during 2014, the abundance was the shelf and slope between 30° and 45° months during the 1990s (USN 2015). estimated at 20,711 for Oregon/ (Jefferson et al., 2014). Although it is Two were reported stranded along the Washington (Barlow 2016). known to occur in coastal and oceanic Washington coast during 1930–2002, habitats (Jefferson et al., 2014), it both in El Nin˜ o years (Norman et al., Northern Right Whale Dolphin appears to prefer steep sections of the 2004). One sighting was made off The northern right whale dolphin is continental shelf, 400–1,000 m deep southern California during 2014 (Barlow found in cool temperate and sub-arctic (Baird 2009), and is known to frequent 2016).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26948 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

Killer Whale in relation to water temperature (Becker most of the world’s population of The killer whale is cosmopolitan and 2007). northern fur seals occurs on the Pribilof Off Oregon and Washington, Dall’s globally fairly abundant; it has been and Bogoslof islands (NMFS 2007). The porpoise is widely distributed over shelf observed in all oceans of the world main breeding season is in July (Gentry and slope waters, with concentrations (Ford 2009). It is very common in 2009). Adult males usually occur near shelf edges, but is also commonly onshore from May to August, though temperate waters and also frequents sighted in pelagic offshore waters some may be present until November; tropical waters, at least seasonally (Morejohn 1979; Green et al., 1992; females are usually found ashore from (Heyning and Dahlheim 1988). Becker et al., 2014; Carretta et al., 2018). June to November (Muto et al., 2018). Currently, there are eight killer whale Combined results of various surveys out Nearly all fur seals from the Pribilof stocks recognized in the U.S. Pacific: (1) to ∼550 km offshore indicate that the Island rookeries are foraging at sea from Alaska Residents, occurring from distribution and abundance of Dall’s fall through late spring. In November, southeast Alaska to the Aleutians and porpoise varies between seasons and females and pups leave the Pribilof Bering Sea; (2) Northern Residents, from years. North–south movements are Islands and migrate through the Gulf of BC through parts of southeast Alaska; believed to occur between Oregon/ Alaska to feeding areas primarily off the (3) Southern Residents, mainly in Washington and California in response coasts of BC, Washington, Oregon, and inland waters of Washington State and to changing oceanographic conditions, California before migrating north again southern BC; (4) Gulf of Alaska, particularly temperature and to the rookeries in spring (Ream et al., Aleutians, and Bering Sea Transients, distribution and abundance of prey 2005; Pelland et al., 2014). Immature from Prince William Sound (PWS) (Green et al., 1992, 1993; Mangels and seals can remain in southern foraging through to the Aleutians and Bering Sea; Gerrodette 1994; Barlow 1995; Forney areas year-round until they are old (5) AT1 Transients, from PWS through and Barlow 1998; Buchanan et al., enough to mate (NMFS 2007). Adult the Kenai Fjords; (6) West Coast 2001). Becker et al., (2014) predicted males migrate only as far south as the Transients, from California through high densities off southern Oregon Gulf of Alaska or to the west off the southeast Alaska; (7) Offshore, from throughout the year, with moderate Kuril Islands (Kajimura 1984). Pups California through Alaska; and (8) densities to the north. According to from the California stock also migrate to Hawaiian (Carretta et al., 2018). predictive density distribution maps, Washington, Oregon, and northern Individuals from the Offshore and West the highest densities off southern California after weaning (Lea et al., Coast Transient stocks could be Washington and Oregon occur along the 2009). encountered in the proposed project 500-m isobath (Menza et al., 2016). The northern fur seals spends ∼90 area. Encounter rates reported by Green et percent of its time at sea, typically in Green et al. (1992) noted that most al., (1992) during aerial surveys off areas of upwelling along the continental groups seen during their surveys off Oregon/Washington were highest in fall, slopes and over seamounts (Gentry Oregon and Washington were likely lowest during winter, and intermediate 1981). The remainder of its life is spent transients; during those surveys, killer during spring and summer. Encounter on or near rookery islands or haulouts. whales were sighted only in shelf rates during the summer were similarly While at sea, northern fur seals usually waters. Killer whales were sighted off high in slope and shelf waters, and occur singly or in pairs, although larger Washington in July and September 2012 somewhat lower in offshore waters groups can form in waters rich with (Adams et al., 2014). Two of 17 killer (Green et al., 1992). Dall’s porpoise was prey (Antonelis and Fiscus 1980; Gentry whales that stranded in Oregon were the most abundant species sighted off 1981). Northern fur seals dive to confirmed as transient (Stevens et al., Oregon/Washington during 1996, 2001, relatively shallow depths to feed: 100– 1989 in Norman et al., 2004). 2005, and 2008 ship surveys up to ∼550 200 m for females, and <400 m for males Short-Finned Pilot Whale km from shore (Barlow 2003, 2010). (Gentry 2009). Tagged adult female fur seals were shown to remain within 200 Northern Fur Seal The short-finned pilot whale is found km of the shelf break (Pelland et al., in tropical, subtropical, and warm The northern fur seal is endemic to 2014). temperate waters (Olson 2009); it is seen the North Pacific Ocean and occurs from Bonnell et al. (1992) noted the as far south as ∼40° S and as far north southern California to the Bering Sea, presence of northern fur seals year- as ∼50° N (Jefferson et al., 2015). Pilot Sea of Okhotsk, and Sea of Japan round off Oregon/Washington, with the whales are generally nomadic, but may (Jefferson et al., 2015). The worldwide greatest numbers (87 percent) occurring be resident in certain locations, population of northern fur seals has in January–May. Northern fur seals were including California and Hawaii (Olson declined substantially from 1.8 million seen as far out from the coast as 185 km, 2009). Short-finned pilot whales were animals in the 1950s (Muto et al., 2018). and numbers increased with distance common off southern California (Dohl et They were subjected to large-scale from land; they were 5–6 times more al., 1980) until an El Nin˜ o event harvests on the Pribilof Islands to abundant in offshore waters than over occurred in 1982–1983 (Carretta et al., supply a lucrative fur trade. Two stocks the shelf or slope (Bonnell et al., 1992). 2017). are recognized in U.S. waters: The The highest densities were seen in the Eastern North Pacific and the California Columbia River plume (∼46° N) and in Dall’s Porpoise stocks. The Eastern Pacific stock ranges deep offshore waters (>2,000 m) off Dall’s porpoise is found in temperate from southern California during winter central and southern Oregon (Bonnell et to subantarctic waters of the North to the Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof al., 1992). The waters off Washington Pacific and adjacent seas (Jefferson et Island in the Bering Sea during summer are a known foraging area for adult al., 2015). It is widely distributed across (Carretta et al., 2018; Muto et al., 2018). females, and concentrations of fur seals the North Pacific over the continental Abundance of the Eastern Pacific Stock were also reported to occur near Cape shelf and slope waters, and over deep (≤ has been decreasing at the Pribilof Blanco, Oregon, at ∼42.8° N (Pelland et 2,500 m) oceanic waters (Hall 1979). It Islands since the 1940s and increasing al., 2014). Tagged adult fur seals were is probably the most abundant small on Bogoslof Island. tracked from the Pribilof Islands to the cetacean in the North Pacific Ocean, and Most northern fur seals are highly waters off Washington/Oregon/ its abundance changes seasonally, likely migratory. During the breeding season, California, with recorded movement

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26949

throughout the proposed project area unusual mortality event during which and August (migrating to and from (Pelland et al., 2014). 29 Guadalupe fur seals were reported molting periods) and November and stranded throughout the Pacific February (migrating to and from Guadalupe Fur Seal Northwest from 2007 to 2009. The breeding periods), but likely their Guadalupe fur seals were once strandings involved one live adult presence there is transient and short- plentiful on the California coast, ranging female and 28 dead yearlings of both lived. Adult females and juveniles from the Gulf of the Farallones near San sexes. The stranding data support the forage in the California current off Francisco, to the Revillagigedo Islands, more recent telemetry data indicating California to BC (Le Boeuf et al. 1986, Mexico (Aurioles-Gamboa et al., 1999), that fur seals less than 2 years of age are 1993, 2000). Bonnell et al., (1992) but they were over-harvested in the 19th more likely to occur in the survey area reported that northern elephant seals century to near extinction. After being than older fur seals. were distributed equally in shelf, slope, protected, the population grew slowly; and offshore waters during surveys Northern Elephant Seal mature individuals of the species were conducted off Oregon and Washington, observed occasionally in the Southern The northern elephant seal breeds in as far as 150 km from shore, in waters California Bight starting in the 1960s California and Baja California, primarily >2,000 m deep. Telemetry data indicate (Stewart et al., 1993), and, in 1997, a on offshore islands, from Cedros off the that they range much farther offshore female and pup were observed on San west coast of Baja California, north to than that (Stewart and DeLong 1995). Miguel Island (Melin & DeLong, 1999). the Farallons in Central California Since then, a small group has persisted (Stewart et al., 1994). Pupping has also Marine Mammal Hearing in that area (Aurioles-Gamboa et al., been observed at Shell Island (∼43.3° N) Hearing is the most important sensory 2010). off southern Oregon, suggesting a range modality for marine mammals The distribution of Guadalupe fur expansion (Bonnell et al., 1992; Hodder underwater, and exposure to seals and occurrence in the survey area et al., 1998). anthropogenic sound can have is dependent on life stage and season. Adult elephant seals engage in two deleterious effects. To appropriately During the breeding season, June long northward migrations per year, one assess the potential effects of exposure through August, adult males are following the breeding season, and to sound, it is necessary to understand expected to be on shore on Guadalupe another following the annual molt the frequency ranges marine mammals Island and at smaller rookeries in the (Stewart and DeLong 1995). Between the are able to hear. Current data indicate San Benito archipelago (Carretta et al., two foraging periods, they return to land that not all marine mammal species 2017b; Norris, 2017b). No satellite to molt, with females returning earlier have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., telemetry data are available for adult than males (March–April vs. July– Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and males; however, following the breeding August). After the molt, adults then Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). season most adult males are expected to return to their northern feeding areas To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) move north of breeding grounds to until the next winter breeding season. recommended that marine mammals be forage. Breeding occurs from December to divided into functional hearing groups From 2015 through 2017, 26 stranded March (Stewart and Huber 1993). based on directly measured or estimated and rehabilitated fur seals between the Females arrive in late December or hearing ranges on the basis of available ages of 11 and 15 months were released January and give birth within ∼1 week behavioral response data, audiograms with satellite tags in central California. of their arrival. Pups are weaned after derived using auditory evoked potential These animals frequently migrated just 27 days and are abandoned by their techniques, anatomical modeling, and north of Point Cabrillo and several mothers. Juvenile elephant seals other data. Note that no direct moved into waters as far north as British typically leave the rookeries in April or measurements of hearing ability have Columbia, Canada. However, it is May and head north, traveling an been successfully completed for unclear if the migratory patterns of average of 900–1,000 km. Hindell (2009) mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency rehabilitated and released fur seals are noted that traveling likely takes place at cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) representative of the free-ranging depths >200 m. Most elephant seals described generalized hearing ranges for population migrating north from return to their natal rookeries when they these marine mammal hearing groups. Guadalupe Island. For example, the start breeding (Huber et al., 1991). Generalized hearing ranges were chosen rehabilitated fur seals remained closer When not at their breeding rookeries, based on the approximately 65 decibel to shore than the free-ranging fur seals adults feed at sea far from the rookeries. (dB) threshold from the normalized as they migrated north (Norris, 2017b). Males may feed as far north as the composite audiograms, with the The satellite telemetry data indicate eastern Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of exception for lower limits for low- that Guadalupe fur seals more than two Alaska, whereas females feed south of frequency cetaceans where the lower years old are likely uncommon in the 45° N (Le Boeuf et al., 1993; Stewart and bound was deemed to be biologically survey area, but a majority of fur seals Huber 1993). Adult male elephant seals implausible and the lower bound from under two years old may migrate into migrate north via the California current Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine the survey area and may be present to the Gulf of Alaska during foraging mammal hearing groups and their throughout the year (Norris, 2017b). trips, and could potentially be passing associated hearing ranges are provided Lambourn et al. (2012) described an through the area off Washington in May 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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26950 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS—Continued [NMFS, 2018]

Hearing group Generalized hearing range *

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 inasmuch as the information is relevant Sound exposure level (SEL; group was modified from Southall et al. to the specified activity and to a represented as dB re 1 mPa2 - s) (2007) on the basis of data indicating discussion of the potential effects of the represents the total energy contained that phocid species have consistently specified activity on marine mammals within a pulse and considers both demonstrated an extended frequency found later in this document. intensity and duration of exposure. Peak range of hearing compared to otariids, Sound travels in waves, the basic sound pressure (also referred to as zero- especially in the higher frequency range components of which are frequency, to-peak sound pressure or 0-p) is the (Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. maximum instantaneous sound pressure 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). Frequency is the number of pressure measurable in the water at a specified For more detail concerning these waves that pass by a reference point per distance from the source and is groups and associated frequency ranges, unit of time and is measured in hertz represented in the same units as the rms please see NMFS (2018) for a review of (Hz) or cycles per second. Wavelength is sound pressure. Another common available information. 26 marine the distance between two peaks or metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure mammal species (23 cetacean and three corresponding points of a sound wave (pk-pk), which is the algebraic pinniped (two otariid and one phocid) (length of one cycle). Higher frequency difference between the peak positive species) have the reasonable potential to sounds have shorter wavelengths than and peak negative sound pressures. co-occur with the proposed survey lower frequency sounds, and typically Peak-to-peak pressure is typically approximately 6 dB higher than peak activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, pressure (Southall et al., 2007). cetacean species that may be present, except in certain cases in shallower When underwater objects vibrate or five are classified as low-frequency water. Amplitude is the height of the cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 15 activity occurs, sound-pressure waves sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ are created. These waves alternately are classified as mid-frequency of a sound and is typically described cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid compress and decompress the water as using the relative unit of the dB. A the sound wave travels. Underwater species and the sperm whale), and three sound pressure level (SPL) in dB is are classified as high-frequency sound waves radiate in a manner similar described as the ratio between a to ripples on the surface of a pond and cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and measured pressure and a reference Kogia spp.). may be either directed in a beam or pressure (for underwater sound, this is beams or may radiate in all directions m Potential Effects of Specified Activities 1 microPascal ( Pa)) and is a (omnidirectional sources), as is the case on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat logarithmic unit that accounts for large for pulses produced by the airgun arrays variations in amplitude; therefore, a This section includes a summary and considered here. The compressions and relatively small change in dB discussion of the ways that components decompressions associated with sound corresponds to large changes in sound of the specified activity may impact waves are detected as changes in pressure. The source level (SL) marine mammals and their habitat. The pressure by aquatic life and man-made represents the SPL referenced at a Estimated Take by Incidental sound receptors such as hydrophones. distance of 1 m from the source Harassment section later in this Even in the absence of sound from the (referenced to 1 mPa) while the received document includes a quantitative specified activity, the underwater level is the SPL at the listener’s position analysis of the number of individuals environment is typically loud due to (referenced to 1 mPa). that are expected to be taken by this ambient sound. Ambient sound is activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis Root mean square (rms) is the defined as environmental background and Determination section considers the quadratic mean sound pressure over the sound levels lacking a single source or content of this section, the Estimated duration of an impulse. Root mean point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the Take by Incidental Harassment section, square is calculated by squaring all of sound level of a region is defined by the and the Proposed Mitigation section, to the sound amplitudes, averaging the total acoustical energy being generated draw conclusions regarding the likely squares, and then taking the square root by known and unknown sources. These impacts of these activities on the of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean sources may include physical (e.g., reproductive success or survivorship of square accounts for both positive and wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, individuals and how those impacts on negative values; squaring the pressures atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., individuals are likely to impact marine makes all values positive so that they sounds produced by marine mammals, mammal species or stocks. may be accounted for in the summation fish, and invertebrates), and of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, Description of Active Acoustic Sound 2005). This measurement is often used construction) sound. A number of Sources in the context of discussing behavioral sources contribute to ambient sound, This section contains a brief technical effects, in part because behavioral including the following (Richardson et background on sound, the effects, which often result from auditory al., 1995): characteristics of certain sound types, cues, may be better expressed through • Wind and waves: The complex and on metrics used in this proposal averaged units than by peak pressures. interactions between wind and water

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26951

surface, including processes such as may be a negligible addition to the local Acoustic Effects breaking waves and wave-induced environment or could form a distinctive bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a signal that may affect marine mammals. Here, we discuss the effects of active main source of naturally occurring Details of source types are described in acoustic sources on marine mammals. ambient sound for frequencies between the following text. Potential Effects of Underwater 200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In Sounds are often considered to fall Sound—Please refer to the information general, ambient sound levels tend to into one of two general types: Pulsed given previously (‘‘Description of Active increase with increasing wind speed and non-pulsed (defined in the Acoustic Sources’’) regarding sound, and wave height. Surf sound becomes following). The distinction between characteristics of sound types, and important near shore, with these two sound types is important metrics used in this document. measurements collected at a distance of because they have differing potential to Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 8.5 km from shore showing an increase cause physical effects, particularly with range of frequencies and sound levels of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in and can have a range of highly variable during heavy surf conditions; Southall et al., 2007). Please see impacts on marine life, from none or • Precipitation: Sound from rain and Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth minor to potentially severe responses, hail impacting the water surface can discussion of these concepts. depending on received levels, duration become an important component of total Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, of exposure, behavioral context, and sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, various other factors. The potential possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet impact pile driving) produce signals effects of underwater sound from active times; that are brief (typically considered to be acoustic sources can potentially result • Biological: Marine mammals can less than one second), broadband, atonal in one or more of the following: contribute significantly to ambient transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, Temporary or permanent hearing sound levels, as can some fish and 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and impairment, non-auditory physical or snapping shrimp. The frequency band occur either as isolated events or physiological effects, behavioral for biological contributions is from repeated in some succession. Pulsed disturbance, stress, and masking approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz; sounds are all characterized by a (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., and relatively rapid rise from ambient • 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value al., 2007; Go¨tz et al., 2009). The degree sound related to human activity include followed by a rapid decay period that of effect is intrinsically related to the transportation (surface vessels), may include a period of diminishing, signal characteristics, received level, dredging and construction, oil and gas oscillating maximal and minimal distance from the source, and duration drilling and production, seismic pressures, and generally have an of the sound exposure. In general, surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean increased capacity to induce physical sudden, high level sounds can cause acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically injury as compared with sounds that hearing loss, as can longer exposures to dominates the total ambient sound for lack these features. lower level sounds. Temporary or frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, permanent loss of hearing will occur general, the frequencies of narrowband, or broadband, brief or almost exclusively for noise within an anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz prolonged, and may be either ’s hearing range. We first describe and, if higher frequency sound levels continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, specific manifestations of acoustic are created, they attenuate rapidly. 1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non- effects before providing discussion Sound from identifiable anthropogenic pulsed sounds can be transient signals sources other than the activity of of short duration but without the specific to the use of airgun arrays. interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid Richardson et al. (1995) described sometimes termed background sound, as rise time). Examples of non-pulsed zones of increasing intensity of effect opposed to ambient sound. sounds include those produced by that might be expected to occur, in The sum of the various natural and vessels, aircraft, machinery operations relation to distance from a source and anthropogenic sound sources at any such as drilling or dredging, vibratory assuming that the signal is within an given location and time—which pile driving, and active sonar systems animal’s hearing range. First is the area comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ (such as those used by the U.S. Navy). within which the acoustic signal would sound—depends not only on the source The duration of such sounds, as be audible (potentially perceived) to the levels (as determined by current received at a distance, can be greatly animal, but not strong enough to elicit weather conditions and levels of extended in a highly reverberant any overt behavioral or physiological biological and human activity) but also environment. response. The next zone corresponds on the ability of sound to propagate Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals with the area where the signal is audible through the environment. In turn, sound with energy in a frequency range from to the animal and of sufficient intensity propagation is dependent on the about 10–2,000 Hz, with most energy to elicit behavioral or physiological spatially and temporally varying radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. responsiveness. Third is a zone within properties of the water column and sea The amplitude of the acoustic wave which, for signals of high intensity, the floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a emitted from the source is equal in all received level is sufficient to potentially result of the dependence on a large directions (i.e., omnidirectional), but cause discomfort or tissue damage to number of varying factors, ambient airgun arrays do possess some auditory or other systems. Overlaying sound levels can be expected to vary directionality due to different phase these zones to a certain extent is the widely over both coarse and fine spatial delays between guns in different area within which masking (i.e., when a and temporal scales. Sound levels at a directions. Airgun arrays are typically sound interferes with or masks the given frequency and location can vary tuned to maximize functionality for data ability of an animal to detect a signal of by 10–20 dB from day to day acquisition purposes, meaning that interest that is above the absolute (Richardson et al., 1995). The result is sound transmitted in horizontal hearing threshold) may occur; the that, depending on the source type and directions and at higher frequencies is masking zone may be highly variable in its intensity, sound from a given activity minimized to the extent possible. size.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26952 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

We describe the more severe effects of threshold shift approximates PTS onset; bottlenose dolphins before and after certain non-auditory physical or e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) exposure to ten pulses produced by a physiological effects only briefly as we that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB seismic airgun in order to study TTS do not expect that use of airgun arrays threshold shift approximates TTS onset; induced after exposure to multiple are reasonably likely to result in such e.g., Southall et al., 2007). Based on data pulses. Exposures began at relatively effects (see below for further from terrestrial mammals, a low levels and gradually increased over discussion). Potential effects from precautionary assumption is that the a period of several months, with the impulsive sound sources can range in PTS thresholds for impulse sounds highest exposures at peak SPLs from severity from effects such as behavioral (such as airgun pulses as received close 196 to 210 dB and cumulative disturbance or tactile perception to to the source) are at least 6 dB higher (unweighted) SELs from 193–195 dB. physical discomfort, slight injury of the than the TTS threshold on a peak- No substantial TTS was observed. In internal organs and the auditory system, pressure basis and PTS cumulative addition, behavioral reactions were or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). sound exposure level thresholds are 15 observed that indicated that animals can Non-auditory physiological effects or to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative learn behaviors that effectively mitigate injuries that theoretically might occur in sound exposure level thresholds noise exposures (although exposure marine mammals exposed to high level (Southall et al., 2007). Given the higher patterns must be learned, which is less underwater sound or as a secondary level of sound or longer exposure likely in wild animals than for the effect of extreme behavioral reactions duration necessary to cause PTS as captive animals considered in this (e.g., change in dive profile as a result compared with TTS, it is considerably study). The authors note that the failure of an avoidance reaction) caused by less likely that PTS could occur. to induce more significant auditory exposure to sound include neurological For mid-frequency cetaceans in effects likely due to the intermittent effects, bubble formation, resonance particular, potential protective nature of exposure, the relatively low effects, and other types of organ or mechanisms may help limit onset of peak pressure produced by the acoustic tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall TTS or prevent onset of PTS. Such source, and the low-frequency energy in et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; mechanisms include dampening of airgun pulses as compared with the Tal et al., 2015). The survey activities hearing, auditory adaptation, or frequency range of best sensitivity for considered here do not involve the use behavioral amelioration (e.g., Nachtigall dolphins and other mid-frequency of devices such as explosives or mid- and Supin, 2013; Miller et al., 2012; cetaceans. frequency tactical sonar that are Finneran et al., 2015; Popov et al., Currently, TTS data only exist for four associated with these types of effects. 2016). species of cetaceans (bottlenose Threshold Shift—Marine mammals TTS is the mildest form of hearing dolphin, , harbor porpoise, exposed to high-intensity sound, or to impairment that can occur during and Yangtze ) exposed lower-intensity sound for prolonged exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While to a limited number of sound sources periods, can experience hearing experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of rises, and a sound must be at a higher noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, hearing sensitivity at certain frequency level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 2015). In general, harbor porpoises have ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be and marine mammals, TTS can last from a lower TTS onset than other measured permanent (PTS), in which case the loss minutes or hours to days (in cases of cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). of hearing sensitivity is not fully strong TTS). In many cases, hearing Additionally, the existing marine recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in sensitivity recovers rapidly after mammal TTS data come from a limited which case the animal’s hearing exposure to the sound ends. Few data number of individuals within these threshold would recover over time on sound levels and durations necessary species. There are no data available on (Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound to elicit mild TTS have been obtained noise-induced hearing loss for exposure that leads to TTS could cause for marine mammals. mysticetes. PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can Marine mammal hearing plays a Critical questions remain regarding be total or partial deafness, while in critical role in communication with the rate of TTS growth and recovery most cases the animal has an impaired conspecifics, and interpretation of after exposure to intermittent noise and ability to hear sounds in specific environmental cues for purposes such the effects of single and multiple pulses. frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). as predator avoidance and prey capture. Data at present are also insufficient to When PTS occurs, there is physical Depending on the degree (elevation of construct generalized models for damage to the sound receptors in the ear threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery recovery and determine the time (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS time), and frequency range of TTS, and necessary to treat subsequent exposures represents primarily tissue fatigue and the context in which it is experienced, as independent events. More is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In TTS can have effects on marine information is needed on the addition, other investigators have mammals ranging from discountable to relationship between auditory evoked suggested that TTS is within the normal serious. For example, a marine mammal potential and behavioral measures of bounds of physiological variability and may be able to readily compensate for TTS for various stimuli. For summaries tolerance and does not represent a brief, relatively small amount of TTS of data on TTS in marine mammals or physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). in a non-critical frequency range that for further discussion of TTS onset Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS occurs during a time where ambient thresholds, please see Southall et al. to constitute auditory injury. noise is lower and there are not as many (2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Relationships between TTS and PTS competing sounds present. Finneran (2015), and NMFS (2016a). thresholds have not been studied in Alternatively, a larger amount and Behavioral Effects—Behavioral marine mammals, and there is no PTS longer duration of TTS sustained during disturbance may include a variety of data for cetaceans but such relationships time when communication is critical for effects, including subtle changes in are assumed to be similar to those in successful mother/calf interactions behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance humans and other terrestrial mammals. could have more serious impacts. of an area or changes in vocalizations), PTS typically occurs at exposure levels Finneran et al. (2015) measured more conspicuous changes in similar at least several dBs above (a 40-dB hearing thresholds in three captive behavioral activities, and more

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26953

sustained and/or potentially severe Nowacek et al., 2007). However, many between prey availability, foraging effort reactions, such as displacement from or delphinids approach acoustic source and success, and the life history stage of abandonment of high-quality habitat. vessels with no apparent discomfort or the animal. Behavioral responses to sound are obvious behavioral change (e.g., Visual tracking, passive acoustic highly variable and context-specific and Barkaszi et al., 2012). monitoring, and movement recording any reactions depend on numerous Available studies show wide variation tags were used to quantify sperm whale intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., in response to underwater sound; behavior prior to, during, and following species, state of maturity, experience, therefore, it is difficult to predict exposure to airgun arrays at received current activity, reproductive state, specifically how any given sound in a levels in the range 140–160 dB at auditory sensitivity, time of day), as particular instance might affect marine distances of 7–13 km, following a phase- well as the interplay between factors mammals perceiving the signal. If a in of sound intensity and full array (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et marine mammal does react briefly to an exposures at 1–13 km (Madsen et al., al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, underwater sound by changing its 2006; Miller et al., 2009). Sperm whales 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral behavior or moving a small distance, the did not exhibit horizontal avoidance reactions can vary not only among impacts of the change are unlikely to be behavior at the surface. However, individuals but also within an significant to the individual, let alone foraging behavior may have been individual, depending on previous the stock or population. However, if a affected. The sperm whales exhibited 19 experience with a sound source, sound source displaces marine percent less vocal (buzz) rate during full context, and numerous other factors mammals from an important feeding or exposure relative to post exposure, and (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary breeding area for a prolonged period, the whale that was approached most depending on characteristics associated impacts on individuals and populations closely had an extended resting period with the sound source (e.g., whether it could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and and did not resume foraging until the is moving or stationary, number of Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, airguns had ceased firing. The sources, distance from the source). 2005). However, there are broad remaining whales continued to execute Please see Appendices B–C of Southall categories of potential response, which foraging dives throughout exposure; et al. (2007) for a review of studies we describe in greater detail here, that however, swimming movements during involving marine mammal behavioral include alteration of dive behavior, foraging dives were 6 percent lower responses to sound. alteration of foraging behavior, effects to during exposure than control periods breathing, interference with or alteration (Miller et al., 2009). These data raise Habituation can occur when an of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. concerns that seismic surveys may animal’s response to a stimulus wanes Changes in dive behavior can vary impact foraging behavior in sperm with repeated exposure, usually in the widely, and may consist of increased or whales, although more data are required absence of unpleasant associated events decreased dive times and surface to understand whether the differences (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most intervals as well as changes in the rates were due to exposure or natural likely to habituate to sounds that are of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., variation in sperm whale behavior predictable and unvarying. It is Frankel and Clark, 2000; Ng and Leung, (Miller et al., 2009). important to note that habituation is 2003; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen Variations in respiration naturally appropriately considered as a et al., 2013a, b). Variations in dive vary with different behaviors and ‘‘progressive reduction in response to behavior may reflect interruptions in alterations to breathing rate as a stimuli that are perceived as neither biologically significant activities (e.g., function of acoustic exposure can be aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, foraging) or they may be of little expected to co-occur with other more generally, moderation in response biological significance. The impact of an behavioral reactions, such as a flight to human disturbance (Bejder et al., alteration to dive behavior resulting response or an alteration in diving. 2009). The opposite process is from an acoustic exposure depends on However, respiration rates in and of sensitization, when an unpleasant what the animal is doing at the time of themselves may be representative of experience leads to subsequent the exposure and the type and annoyance or an acute stress response. responses, often in the form of magnitude of the response. Various studies have shown that avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. Disruption of feeding behavior can be respiration rates may either be As noted, behavioral state may affect the difficult to correlate with anthropogenic unaffected or could increase, depending type of response. For example, animals sound exposure, so it is usually inferred on the species and signal characteristics, that are resting may show greater by observed displacement from known again highlighting the importance in behavioral change in response to foraging areas, the appearance of understanding species differences in the disturbing sound levels than animals secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets tolerance of underwater noise when that are highly motivated to remain in or sediment plumes), or changes in dive determining the potential for impacts an area for feeding (Richardson et al., behavior. As for other types of resulting from anthropogenic sound 1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). behavioral response, the frequency, exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, Controlled experiments with captive duration, and temporal pattern of signal 2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007, 2016). marine mammals have showed presentation, as well as differences in Marine mammals vocalize for pronounced behavioral reactions, species sensitivity, are likely different purposes and across multiple including avoidance of loud sound contributing factors to differences in modes, such as whistling, echolocation sources (Ridgway et al., 1997). Observed response in any given circumstance click production, calling, and singing. responses of wild marine mammals to (e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., Changes in vocalization behavior in loud pulsed sound sources (typically 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et response to anthropogenic noise can seismic airguns or acoustic harassment al., 2007). A determination of whether occur for any of these modes and may devices) have been varied but often foraging disruptions incur fitness result from a need to compete with an consist of avoidance behavior or other consequences would require increase in background noise or may behavioral changes suggesting information on or estimates of the reflect increased vigilance or a startle discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; energetic requirements of the affected response. For example, in the presence see also Richardson et al., 1995; individuals and the relationship of potentially masking signals,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26954 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

humpback whales and killer whales 10 km from the acoustic source vessel temporary exertion and displacement have been observed to increase the (estimated received level 143 dB pk-pk). from the area where the signal provokes length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; Blackwell et al. (2013) found that flight to, in extreme cases, marine Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), call rates dropped mammal strandings (Evans and while right whales have been observed significantly at onset of airgun use at England, 2001). However, it should be to shift the frequency content of their sites with a median distance of 41–45 noted that response to a perceived calls upward while reducing the rate of km from the survey. Blackwell et al. predator does not necessarily invoke calling in areas of increased (2015) expanded this analysis to show flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). that whales actually increased calling whether individuals are solitary or in In some cases, animals may cease sound rates as soon as airgun signals were groups may influence the response. production during production of detectable before ultimately decreasing Behavioral disturbance can also aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994). calling rates at higher received levels impact marine mammals in more subtle Cerchio et al. (2014) used passive (i.e., 10-minute SELcum of ∼127 dB). ways. Increased vigilance may result in acoustic monitoring to document the Overall, these results suggest that costs related to diversion of focus and presence of singing humpback whales bowhead whales may adjust their vocal attention (i.e., when a response consists off the coast of northern Angola and to output in an effort to compensate for of increased vigilance, it may come at opportunistically test for the effect of noise before ceasing vocalization effort the cost of decreased attention to other seismic survey activity on the number of and ultimately deflecting from the critical behaviors such as foraging or singing whales. Two recording units acoustic source (Blackwell et al., 2013, resting). These effects have generally not were deployed between March and 2015). These studies demonstrate that been demonstrated for marine December 2008 in the offshore even low levels of noise received far mammals, but studies involving fish environment; numbers of singers were from the source can induce changes in and terrestrial animals have shown that counted every hour. Generalized vocalization and/or behavior for increased vigilance may substantially Additive Mixed Models were used to mysticetes. reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp assess the effect of survey day Avoidance is the displacement of an and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; (seasonality), hour (diel variation), individual from an area or migration Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, moon phase, and received levels of path as a result of the presence of a chronic disturbance can cause noise (measured from a single pulse sound or other stressors, and is one of population declines through reduction during each ten minute sampled period) the most obvious manifestations of of fitness (e.g., decline in body on singer number. The number of disturbance in marine mammals condition) and subsequent reduction in singers significantly decreased with (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, reproductive success, survival, or both increasing received level of noise, gray whales are known to change (e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan suggesting that humpback whale direction—deflecting from customary et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). breeding activity was disrupted to some migratory paths—in order to avoid noise However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported extent by the survey activity. from seismic surveys (Malme et al., that increased vigilance in bottlenose Castellote et al. (2012) reported 1984). Humpback whales showed dolphins exposed to sound over a five- acoustic and behavioral changes by fin avoidance behavior in the presence of day period did not cause any sleep whales in response to shipping and an active seismic array during deprivation or stress effects. airgun noise. Acoustic features of fin observational studies and controlled Many animals perform vital functions, whale song notes recorded in the exposure experiments in western such as feeding, resting, traveling, and Mediterranean Sea and northeast Australia (McCauley et al., 2000). socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour Atlantic Ocean were compared for areas Avoidance may be short-term, with cycle). Disruption of such functions with different shipping noise levels and animals returning to the area once the resulting from reactions to stressors traffic intensities and during a seismic noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., such as sound exposure are more likely airgun survey. During the first 72 h of 1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; to be significant if they last more than the survey, a steady decrease in song Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et one diel cycle or recur on subsequent received levels and bearings to singers al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is days (Southall et al., 2007). indicated that whales moved away from possible, however, which may lead to Consequently, a behavioral response the acoustic source and out of the study changes in abundance or distribution lasting less than one day and not area. This displacement persisted for a patterns of the affected species in the recurring on subsequent days is not time period well beyond the 10-day affected region if habituation to the considered particularly severe unless it duration of seismic airgun activity, presence of the sound does not occur could directly affect reproduction or providing evidence that fin whales may (e.g., Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that avoid an area for an extended period in 2006). there is a difference between multi-day the presence of increased noise. The A flight response is a dramatic change substantive behavioral reactions and authors hypothesize that fin whale in normal movement to a directed and multi-day anthropogenic activities. For acoustic communication is modified to rapid movement away from the example, just because an activity lasts compensate for increased background perceived location of a sound source. for multiple days does not necessarily noise and that a sensitization process The flight response differs from other mean that individual animals are either may play a role in the observed avoidance responses in the intensity of exposed to activity-related stressors for temporary displacement. the response (e.g., directed movement, multiple days or, further, exposed in a Seismic pulses at average received rate of travel). Relatively little manner resulting in sustained multi-day levels of 131 dB re 1 mPa2-s caused blue information on flight responses of substantive behavioral responses. whales to increase call production (Di marine mammals to anthropogenic Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea Iorio and Clark, 2010). In contrast, signals exist, although observations of observations during 1,196 seismic McDonald et al. (1995) tracked a blue flight responses to the presence of surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large whale with seafloor seismometers and predators have occurred (Connor and arrays of airguns (considered to be 500 reported that it stopped vocalizing and Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight in 3 or more) were firing, lateral changed its travel direction at a range of response could range from brief, displacement, more localized

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26955

avoidance, or other changes in behavior costs of a stress response, energy Under certain circumstances, marine were evident for most odontocetes. resources must be diverted from other mammals experiencing significant However, significant responses to large functions. This state of distress will last masking could also be impaired from arrays were found only for the minke until the animal replenishes its maximizing their performance fitness in whale and fin whale. Behavioral energetic reserves sufficiently to restore survival and reproduction. Therefore, responses observed included changes in normal function. when the coincident (masking) sound is swimming or surfacing behavior, with Relationships between these man-made, it may be considered indications that cetaceans remained physiological mechanisms, animal harassment when disrupting or altering near the water surface at these times. behavior, and the costs of stress critical behaviors. It is important to Cetaceans were recorded as feeding less responses are well-studied through distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist often when large arrays were active. controlled experiments and for both after the sound exposure, from masking, Behavioral observations of gray whales laboratory and free-ranging animals which occurs during the sound during a seismic survey monitored (e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., exposure. Because masking (without whale movements and respirations pre- 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et resulting in TS) is not associated with during, and post-seismic survey (Gailey al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress abnormal physiological function, it is et al., 2016). Behavioral state and water responses due to exposure to not considered a physiological effect, depth were the best ‘natural’ predictors anthropogenic sounds or other stressors but rather a potential behavioral effect. of whale movements and respiration and their effects on marine mammals The frequency range of the potentially and, after considering natural variation, have also been reviewed (Fair and masking sound is important in none of the response variables were Becker 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, determining any potential behavioral significantly associated with seismic more rarely, studied in wild populations impacts. For example, low-frequency survey or vessel sounds. (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For signals may have less effect on high- Stress Responses—An animal’s example, Rolland et al. (2012) found frequency echolocation sounds perception of a threat may be sufficient that noise reduction from reduced ship produced by odontocetes but are more to trigger stress responses consisting of traffic in the Bay of Fundy was likely to affect detection of mysticete some combination of behavioral associated with decreased stress in communication calls and other responses, autonomic nervous system North Atlantic right whales. These and potentially important natural sounds responses, neuroendocrine responses, or other studies lead to a reasonable such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of immune responses (e.g., Seyle 1950; expectation that some marine mammals Moberg 2000). In many cases, an communication signals by will experience physiological stress animal’s first and sometimes most anthropogenic noise may be considered responses upon exposure to acoustic economical (in terms of energetic costs) as a reduction in the communication stressors and that it is possible that response is behavioral avoidance of the space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) some of these would be classified as potential stressor. Autonomic nervous and may result in energetic or other ‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal system responses to stress typically costs as animals change their experiencing TTS would likely also involve changes in heart rate, blood vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., experience stress responses (NRC, pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2003). These responses have a relatively short 2007; Di Iorio and Clark 2009; Holt et duration and may or may not have a Auditory Masking—Sound can al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in significant long-term effect on an disrupt behavior through masking, or situations where the signal and noise animal’s fitness. interfering with, an animal’s ability to come from different directions Neuroendocrine stress responses often detect, recognize, or discriminate (Richardson et al., 1995), through involve the hypothalamus-pituitary- between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., amplitude modulation of the signal, or adrenal system. Virtually all those used for intraspecific through other compensatory behaviors neuroendocrine functions that are communication and social interactions, (Houser and Moore 2014). Masking can affected by stress—including immune prey detection, predator avoidance, be tested directly in captive species competence, reproduction, metabolism, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; (e.g., Erbe 2008), but in wild and behavior—are regulated by pituitary Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when populations it must be either modeled hormones. Stress-induced changes in the receipt of a sound is interfered with or inferred from evidence of masking the secretion of pituitary hormones have by another coincident sound at similar compensation. There are few studies been implicated in failed reproduction, frequencies and at similar or higher addressing real-world masking sounds altered metabolism, reduced immune intensity, and may occur whether the likely to be experienced by marine competence, and behavioral disturbance sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et (e.g., Moberg 1987; Blecha 2000). wind, waves, precipitation) or al., 2013). Increases in the circulation of anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, Masking affects both senders and glucocorticoids are also equated with seismic exploration) in origin. The receivers of acoustic signals and can stress (Romano et al., 2004). ability of a noise source to mask potentially have long-term chronic The primary distinction between biologically important sounds depends effects on marine mammals at the stress (which is adaptive and does not on the characteristics of both the noise population level as well as at the normally place an animal at risk) and source and the signal of interest (e.g., individual level. Low-frequency ‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. signal-to-noise ratio, temporal ambient sound levels have increased by During a stress response, an animal uses variability, direction), in relation to each as much as 20 dB (more than three times glycogen stores that can be quickly other and to an animal’s hearing in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean replenished once the stress is alleviated. abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency from pre-industrial periods, with most In such circumstances, the cost of the range, critical ratios, frequency of the increase from distant commercial stress response would not pose serious discrimination, directional shipping (Hildebrand 2009). All fitness consequences. However, when discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), anthropogenic sound sources, but an animal does not have sufficient and existing ambient noise and especially chronic and lower-frequency energy reserves to satisfy the energetic propagation conditions. signals (e.g., from vessel traffic),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26956 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

contribute to elevated ambient sound are the ears of the small odontocetes 2014; Papale et al. 2015; Bittencourt et levels, thus intensifying masking. that have been studied directly (e.g., al. 2016; Dahlheim and Castellote 2016; Masking effects of pulsed sounds MacGillivray et al. 2014). The sounds Gospic´ and Picciulin 2016; Gridley et al. (even from large arrays of airguns) on important to small odontocetes are 2016; Heiler et al. 2016; Martins et al. marine mammal calls and other natural predominantly at much higher 2016; O’Brien et al. 2016; Tenessen and sounds are expected to be limited, frequencies than are the dominant Parks 2016). Harp seals did not increase although there are few specific data on components of airgun sounds, thus their call frequencies in environments this. Because of the intermittent nature limiting the potential for masking. In with increased low-frequency sounds and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, general, masking effects of seismic (Terhune and Bosker 2016). Holt et al. animals can emit and receive sounds in pulses are expected to be minor, given (2015) reported that changes in vocal the relatively quiet intervals between the normally intermittent nature of modifications can have increased pulses. However, in exceptional seismic pulses. energetic costs for individual marine situations, reverberation occurs for Ship Noise mammals. A negative correlation much or all of the interval between between the presence of some cetacean pulses (e.g., Simard et al., 2005; Clark Vessel noise from the Langseth could species and the number of vessels in an and Gagnon 2006), which could mask affect marine animals in the proposed area has been demonstrated by several calls. Situations with prolonged strong survey areas. Houghton et al. (2015) studies (e.g., Campana et al. 2015; reverberation are infrequent. However, proposed that vessel speed is the most Culloch et al. 2016). important predictor of received noise it is common for reverberation to cause Baleen whales are thought to be more some lesser degree of elevation of the levels, and Putland et al. (2017) also sensitive to sound at these low background level between airgun pulses reported reduced sound levels with frequencies than are toothed whales (e.g., Gedamke 2011; Guerra et al., 2011, decreased vessel speed. Sounds (e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2014), possibly 2016; Klinck et al., 2012; Guan et al., produced by large vessels generally causing localized avoidance of the 2015), and this weaker reverberation dominate ambient noise at frequencies proposed survey area during seismic presumably reduces the detection range from 20 to 300 Hz (Richardson et al. operations. Reactions of gray and of calls and other natural sounds to 1995). However, some energy is also humpback whales to vessels have been some degree. Guerra et al. (2016) produced at higher frequencies studied, and there is limited reported that ambient noise levels (Hermannsen et al. 2014); low levels of information available about the between seismic pulses were elevated as high-frequency sound from vessels has a result of reverberation at ranges of 50 been shown to elicit responses in harbor reactions of right whales and rorquals km from the seismic source. Based on porpoise (Dyndo et al. 2015). Increased (fin, blue, and minke whales). Reactions measurements in deep water of the levels of ship noise have been shown to of humpback whales to boats are Southern Ocean, Gedamke (2011) affect foraging by porpoise (Teilmann et variable, ranging from approach to estimated that the slight elevation of al. 2015; Wisniewska et al. 2018); avoidance (Payne 1978; Salden 1993). background levels during intervals Wisniewska et al. (2018) suggest that a Baker et al. (1982, 1983) and Baker and between pulses reduced blue and fin decrease in foraging success could have Herman (1989) found humpbacks often whale communication space by as much long-term fitness consequences. move away when vessels are within as 36–51 percent when a seismic survey Ship noise, through masking, can several kilometers. Humpbacks seem was operating 450–2,800 km away. reduce the effective communication less likely to react overtly when actively Based on preliminary modeling, distance of a marine mammal if the feeding than when resting or engaged in Wittekind et al. (2016) reported that frequency of the sound source is close other activities (Krieger and Wing 1984, airgun sounds could reduce the to that used by the animal, and if the 1986). Increased levels of ship noise communication range of blue and fin sound is present for a significant have been shown to affect foraging by whales 2000 km from the seismic fraction of time (e.g., Richardson et al. humpback whales (Blair et al. 2016). Fin source. Nieukirk et al. (2012) and 1995; Clark et al. 2009; Jensen et al. whale sightings in the western Blackwell et al. (2013) noted the 2009; Gervaise et al. 2012; Hatch et al. Mediterranean were negatively potential for masking effects from 2012; Rice et al. 2014; Dunlop 2015; correlated with the number of vessels in seismic surveys on large whales. Erbe et al. 2015; Jones et al. 2017; the area (Campana et al. 2015). Minke Some baleen and toothed whales are Putland et al. 2017). In addition to the whales and gray seals have shown slight known to continue calling in the frequency and duration of the masking displacement in response to presence of seismic pulses, and their sound, the strength, temporal pattern, construction-related vessel traffic calls usually can be heard between the and location of the introduced sound (Anderwald et al. 2013). Many pulses (e.g., Nieukirk et al. 2012; Thode also play a role in the extent of the odontocetes show considerable et al. 2012; Bro¨ker et al. 2013; Sciacca masking (Branstetter et al. 2013, 2016; tolerance of vessel traffic, although they et al. 2016). As noted above, Cerchio et Finneran and Branstetter 2013; Sills et sometimes react at long distances if al. (2014) suggested that the breeding al. 2017). Branstetter et al. (2013) confined by ice or shallow water, if display of humpback whales off Angola reported that time-domain metrics are previously harassed by vessels, or have could be disrupted by seismic sounds, also important in describing and had little or no recent exposure to ships as singing activity declined with predicting masking. In order to (Richardson et al. 1995). Dolphins of increasing received levels. In addition, compensate for increased ambient noise, many species tolerate and sometimes some cetaceans are known to change some cetaceans are known to increase approach vessels (e.g., Anderwald et al. their calling rates, shift their peak the source levels of their calls in the 2013). Some dolphin species approach frequencies, or otherwise modify their presence of elevated noise levels from moving vessels to ride the bow or stern vocal behavior in response to airgun shipping, shift their peak frequencies, or waves (Williams et al. 1992). Pirotta et sounds (e.g., Di Iorio and Clark 2010; otherwise change their vocal behavior al. (2015) noted that the physical Castellote et al. 2012; Blackwell et al. (e.g., Parks et al. 2011, 2012, 2016a, b; presence of vessels, not just ship noise, 2013, 2015). The hearing systems of Castellote et al. 2012; Melco´n et al. disturbed the foraging activity of baleen whales are undoubtedly more 2012; Azzara et al. 2013; Tyack and bottlenose dolphins. Sightings of striped sensitive to low-frequency sounds than Janik 2013; Luı´s et al. 2014; Sairanen dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, sperm whale,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26957

and Cuvier’s beaked whale in the Higher speeds during collisions result in incident report indicated that an animal western Mediterranean were negatively greater force of impact, but higher apparently was struck by the vessel’s correlated with the number of vessels in speeds also appear to increase the propeller as it was intentionally the area (Campana et al. 2015). chance of severe injuries or death swimming near the vessel. While There are few data on the behavioral through increased likelihood of indicative of the type of unusual events reactions of beaked whales to vessel collision by pulling whales toward the that cannot be ruled out, neither of these noise, though they seem to avoid vessel (Clyne 1999; Knowlton et al. instances represents a circumstance that approaching vessels (e.g., Wu¨ rsig et al. 1995). In a separate study, Vanderlaan would be considered reasonably 1998) or dive for an extended period and Taggart (2007) analyzed the foreseeable or that would be considered when approached by a vessel (e.g., probability of lethal mortality of large preventable. Kasuya 1986). Based on a single whales at a given speed, showing that Although the likelihood of the vessel observation, Aguilar Soto et al. (2006) the greatest rate of change in the striking a marine mammal is low, we suggest foraging efficiency of Cuvier’s probability of a lethal injury to a large require a robust ship strike avoidance beaked whales may be reduced by close whale as a function of vessel speed protocol (see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’), approach of vessels. occurs between 8.6 and 15 kn. The which we believe eliminates any In summary, project vessel sounds chances of a lethal injury decline from foreseeable risk of ship strike. We would not be at levels expected to cause approximately 80 percent at 15 kn to anticipate that vessel collisions anything more than possible localized approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn. At involving a seismic data acquisition and temporary behavioral changes in speeds below 11.8 kn, the chances of vessel towing gear, while not marine mammals, and would not be lethal injury drop below 50 percent, impossible, represent unlikely, expected to result in significant negative while the probability asymptotically unpredictable events for which there are effects on individuals or at the increases toward one hundred percent no preventive measures. Given the population level. In addition, in all above 15 kn. required mitigation measures, the oceans of the world, large vessel traffic The Langseth travels at a speed of 4.1 relatively slow speed of the vessel is currently so prevalent that it is kn (7.6 km/h) while towing seismic towing gear, the presence of bridge crew commonly considered a usual source of survey gear (LGL 2018). At this speed, watching for obstacles at all times ambient sound (NSF–USGS 2011). both the possibility of striking a marine (including marine mammals), and the Ship Strike mammal and the possibility of a strike presence of marine mammal observers, resulting in serious injury or mortality we believe that the possibility of ship Vessel collisions with marine are discountable. At average transit strike is discountable and, further, that mammals, or ship strikes, can result in speed, the probability of serious injury were a strike of a large whale to occur, death or serious injury of the animal. or mortality resulting from a strike is it would be unlikely to result in serious Wounds resulting from ship strike may less than 50 percent. However, the injury or mortality. No incidental take include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, likelihood of a strike actually happening resulting from ship strike is anticipated, broken bones, or propeller lacerations is again discountable. Ship strikes, as and this potential effect of the specified (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal analyzed in the studies cited above, activity will not be discussed further in at the surface may be struck directly by generally involve commercial shipping, the following analysis. a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the which is much more common in both Stranding—When a living or dead bottom of a vessel, or an animal just space and time than is geophysical marine mammal swims or floats onto below the surface may be cut by a survey activity. Jensen and Silber (2004) shore and becomes ‘‘beached’’ or vessel’s propeller. Superficial strikes summarized ship strikes of large whales incapable of returning to sea, the event may not kill or result in the death of the worldwide from 1975–2003 and found is a ‘‘stranding’’ (Geraci et al., 1999; animal. These interactions are typically that most collisions occurred in the Perrin and Geraci 2002; Geraci and associated with large whales (e.g., fin open ocean and involved large vessels Lounsbury 2005; NMFS 2007). The legal whales), which are occasionally found (e.g., commercial shipping). No such definition for a stranding under the 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26958 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

series. However, the cause or causes of mortality. The most likely impact to fish This may include incidental emissions most strandings are unknown (Geraci et from survey activities at the project area from sources such as vessel traffic, or al., 1976; Eaton 1979; Odell et al., 1980; would be temporary avoidance of the may be intentionally introduced to the Best 1982). Numerous studies suggest area. The duration of fish avoidance of marine environment for data acquisition that the physiology, behavior, habitat a given area after survey effort stops is purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). relationships, age, or condition of unknown, but a rapid return to normal Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its cetaceans may cause them to strand or recruitment, distribution and behavior frequency content, duration, and might pre-dispose them to strand when is anticipated. loudness and these characteristics exposed to another phenomenon. These Information on seismic airgun greatly influence the potential habitat- suggestions are consistent with the impacts to zooplankton, which mediated effects to marine mammals conclusions of numerous other studies represent an important prey type for (please see also the previous discussion that have demonstrated that mysticetes, is limited. However, on masking under ‘‘Acoustic Effects’’), combinations of dissimilar stressors McCauley et al. (2017) reported that which may range from local effects for commonly combine to kill an animal or experimental exposure to a pulse from brief periods of time to chronic effects dramatically reduce its fitness, even a 150 in3 airgun decreased zooplankton over large areas and for long durations. though one exposure without the other abundance when compared with Depending on the extent of effects to does not produce the same result controls, as measured by sonar and net habitat, animals may alter their (Chroussos 2000; Creel 2005; DeVries et tows, and caused a two- to threefold communications signals (thereby al., 2003; Fair and Becker 2000; Foley et increase in dead adult and larval potentially expending additional al., 2001; Moberg 2000; Relyea 2005a, zooplankton. Although no adult krill energy) or miss acoustic cues (either 2005b; Romero 2004; Sih et al., 2004). were present, the study found that all conspecific or adventitious). For more Use of military tactical sonar has been larval krill were killed after air gun detail on these concepts see, e.g., Barber implicated in a majority of investigated passage. Impacts were observed out to et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 2011; stranding events. Most known stranding the maximum 1.2 km range sampled. Francis and Barber 2013; Lillis et al., events have involved beaked whales, In general, impacts to marine mammal 2014. though a small number have involved prey are expected to be limited due to Problems arising from a failure to deep-diving delphinids or sperm whales the relatively small temporal and spatial detect cues are more likely to occur (e.g., Mazzariol et al., 2010; Southall et overlap between the proposed survey when noise stimuli are chronic and al., 2013). In general, long duration (∼1 and any areas used by marine mammal overlap with biologically relevant cues second) and high-intensity sounds (≤235 prey species. The proposed use of used for communication, orientation, dB SPL) have been implicated in airguns as part of an active seismic array and predator/prey detection (Francis stranding events (Hildebrand 2004). survey would occur over a relatively and Barber 2013). Although the signals With regard to beaked whales, mid- short time period (∼19 days) at two emitted by seismic airgun arrays are frequency sound is typically implicated locations and would occur over a very generally low frequency, they would (when causation can be determined) small area relative to the area available also likely be of short duration and (Hildebrand, 2004). Although seismic as marine mammal habitat in the transient in any given area due to the airguns create predominantly low- northeast Pacific Ocean near the Axial nature of these surveys. As described frequency energy, the signal does Seamount. We believe any impacts to previously, exploratory surveys such as include a mid-frequency component. marine mammals due to adverse effects these cover a large area but would be We have considered the potential for the to their prey would be insignificant due transient rather than focused in a given proposed surveys to result in marine to the limited spatial and temporal location over time and therefore would mammal stranding and have concluded impact of the proposed survey. not be considered chronic in any given that, based on the best available However, adverse impacts may occur to location. information, stranding is not expected a few species of fish and to zooplankton. In summary, activities associated with to occur. Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is the proposed action are not likely to Effects to Prey—Marine mammal prey the soundscape—which encompasses have a permanent, adverse effect on any varies by species, season, and location all of the sound present in a particular fish habitat or populations of fish and, for some, is not well documented. location and time, as a whole—when species or on the quality of acoustic Fish react to sounds which are considered from the perspective of the habitat. Thus, any impacts to marine especially strong and/or intermittent animals experiencing it. Animals mammal habitat are not expected to low-frequency sounds. Short duration, produce sound for, or listen for sounds cause significant or long-term sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle produced by, conspecifics consequences for individual marine changes in fish behavior and local (communication during feeding, mating, mammals or their populations. distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) and other social activities), other identified several studies that suggest animals (finding prey or avoiding Estimated Take fish may relocate to avoid certain areas predators), and the physical This section provides an estimate of of sound energy. Additional studies environment (finding suitable habitats, the number of incidental takes proposed have documented effects of pulsed navigating). Together, sounds made by for authorization through this IHA, sound on fish, although several are animals and the geophysical which will inform both NMFS’ based on studies in support of environment (e.g., produced by consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and construction projects (e.g., Scholik and earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, the negligible impact determination. Yan 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings waves) make up the natural Harassment is the only type of take 2009). Sound pulses at received levels contributions to the total acoustics of a expected to result from these activities. of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in place. These acoustic conditions, Except with respect to certain activities fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause termed acoustic habitat, are one not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson attribute of an animal’s total habitat. MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs Soundscapes are also defined by, and of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, of sufficient strength have been known acoustic habitat influenced by, the total which (i) has the potential to injure a to cause injury to fish and fish contribution of anthropogenic sound. marine mammal or marine mammal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26959

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); distance at which the near-field of 28.8 m, resulting in a near-field or (ii) has the potential to disturb a transitions to the far-field by: distance of 138.7 m at 1 kHz (NSF and marine mammal or marine mammal USGS 2011). Field measurements of this stock in the wild by causing disruption array indicate that the source behaves of behavioral patterns, including, but like multiple discrete sources, rather not limited to, migration, breathing, λ than a directional point source, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering with the condition that D > , and where beginning at approximately 400 m (deep (Level B harassment). D is the distance, L is the longest site) to 1 km (shallow site) from the dimension of the array, and λ is the Authorized takes would primarily be center of the array (Tolstoy et al., 2009), wavelength of the signal (Lurton 2002). by Level B harassment, as use of seismic distances that are actually greater than Given that λ can be defined by: airguns has the potential to result in four times the calculated 140-m near- disruption of behavioral patterns for field distance. Within these distances, individual marine mammals. There is the recorded received levels were also some potential for auditory injury always lower than would be predicted (Level A harassment) for mysticetes and where f is the frequency of the sound based on calculations that assume a high frequency cetaceans (i.e., kogiidae signal and v is the speed of the sound directional point source, and spp.), due to larger predicted auditory in the medium of interest, one can increasingly so as one moves closer injury zones for those functional hearing rewrite the equation for D as: towards the array (Tolstoy et al., 2009). groups. The proposed mitigation and Similarly, the 3,300 in3 airgun array monitoring measures are expected to used in the 3D survey has an minimize the severity of such taking to approximate diagonal of 17.9 m, the extent practicable. resulting in a near-field distance of 53.5 and calculate D directly given a m at 1 kHz (NSF and USGS 2011). Given Auditory injury is unlikely to occur particular frequency and known speed for mid-frequency cetaceans, otariid this, relying on the calculated distances of sound (here assumed to be 1,500 (138.7 m for the 2D survey and 53.5 m pinnipeds, and phocid pinnipeds given meters per second in water, although very small modeled zones of injury for for the 3D survey) as the distances at this varies with environmental which we expect to be in the near-field those species (up to 43.7 m). Moreover, conditions). the source level of the array is a is a conservative approach since even To determine the closest distance to beyond this distance the acoustic theoretical definition assuming a point the arrays at which the source level source and measurement in the far-field modeling still overestimates the actual predictions in Table 1 are valid (i.e., received level. Within the near-field, in of the source (MacGillivray, 2006). As maximum extent of the near-field), we described by Caldwell and Dragoset order to explicitly evaluate the calculated D based on an assumed likelihood of exceeding any particular (2000), an array is not a point source, frequency of 1 kHz. A frequency of 1 acoustic threshold, one would need to but one that spans a small area. In the kHz is commonly used in near-field/far- consider the exact position of the far-field, individual elements in arrays field calculations for airgun arrays animal, its relationship to individual will effectively work as one source (Zykov and Carr 2014; MacGillivray array elements, and how the individual because individual pressure peaks will 2006; NSF and USGS 2011), and based acoustic sources propagate and their have coalesced into one relatively broad on representative airgun spectrum data acoustic fields interact. Given that pulse. The array can then be considered and field measurements of an airgun within the near-field and dimensions of a ‘‘point source.’’ For distances within array used on the R/V Marcus G. the array source levels would be below the near-field, i.e., approximately 2–3 Langseth, nearly all (greater than 95 those in Table 5, we believe exceedance times the array dimensions, pressure percent) of the energy from airgun of the peak pressure threshold would peaks from individual elements do not arrays is below 1 kHz (Tolstoy et al., only be possible under highly unlikely arrive simultaneously because the 2009). Thus, using 1 kHz as the upper circumstances. observation point is not equidistant cut-off for calculating the maximum Therefore, we expect the potential for from each element. The effect is extent of the near-field should Level A harassment of mid-frequency destructive interference of the outputs reasonably represent the near-field cetaceans, otariid pinnipeds, and of each element, so that peak pressures extent in field conditions. phocid pinnipeds to be de minimis, in the near-field will be significantly If the largest distance to the peak even before the likely moderating effects lower than the output of the largest sound pressure level threshold was of aversion and/or other compensatory individual element. Here, the 230 dB equal to or less than the longest behaviors (e.g., Nachtigall et al., 2018) peak isopleth distances would in all dimension of the array (i.e., under the are considered. We do not believe that cases be expected to be within the near- array), or within the near-field, then Level A harassment is a likely outcome field of the array where the definition of received levels that meet or exceed the for any mid-frequency cetacean, otariid source level breaks down. Therefore, threshold in most cases are not expected pinniped, or phocid pinniped and do actual locations within this distance of to occur. This is because within the not propose to authorize any Level A the array center where the sound level near-field and within the dimensions of harassment for these species. exceeds 230 dB peak SPL would not the array, the source levels specified in As described previously, no mortality necessarily exist. In general, Caldwell Table 1 are overestimated and not is anticipated or proposed to be and Dragoset (2000) suggest that the applicable. In fact, until one reaches a authorized for this activity. Below we near-field for airgun arrays is considered distance of approximately three or four describe how the take is estimated. to extend out to approximately 250 m. times the near-field distance the average Generally speaking, we estimate take In order to provide quantitative intensity of sound at any given distance by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds support for this theoretical argument, from the array is still less than that above which NMFS believes the best we calculated expected maximum based on calculations that assume a available science indicates marine distances at which the near-field would directional point source (Lurton 2002). mammals will be behaviorally harassed transition to the far-field (Table 5). For The 6,600 in3 airgun array used in the or incur some degree of permanent a specific array one can estimate the 2D survey has an approximate diagonal hearing impairment; (2) the area or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 EN10JN19.001 EN10JN19.002 EN10JN19.003 26960 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

volume of water that will be ensonified disturbance from anthropogenic noise impulsive seismic sources. Therefore, above these levels in a day; (3) the exposure is also informed to varying the 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is density or occurrence of marine degrees by other factors related to the applicable for analysis of Level B mammals within these ensonified areas; source (e.g., frequency, predictability, harassment. and, (4) and the number of days of duty cycle), the environment (e.g., Level A harassment for non-explosive activities. We note that while these bathymetry), and the receiving animals sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance basic factors can contribute to a basic (hearing, motivation, experience, for Assessing the Effects of calculation to provide an initial demography, behavioral context) and Anthropogenic Sound on Marine prediction of takes, additional can be difficult to predict (Southall et Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) information that can qualitatively al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies inform take estimates is also sometimes what the available science indicates and dual criteria to assess auditory injury available (e.g., previous monitoring the practical need to use a threshold (Level A harassment) to five different results or average group size). Below, we based on a factor that is both predictable marine mammal groups (based on describe the factors considered here in and measurable for most activities, hearing sensitivity) as a result of more detail and present the proposed NMFS uses a generalized acoustic exposure to noise from two different take estimate. threshold based on received level to types of sources (impulsive or non- Acoustic Thresholds estimate the onset of behavioral impulsive. L–DEO’s proposed seismic Using the best available science, harassment. NMFS predicts that marine survey includes the use of impulsive NMFS has developed acoustic mammals are likely to be behaviorally (seismic airguns) sources. thresholds that identify the received harassed in a manner we consider Level These thresholds are provided in the level of underwater sound above which B harassment when exposed to table below. The references, analysis, exposed marine mammals would be underwater anthropogenic noise above and methodology used in the reasonably expected to be behaviorally received levels of 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) development of the thresholds are harassed (equated to Level B for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile- described in NMFS 2018 Technical harassment) or to incur PTS of some driving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 Guidance, which may be accessed at degree (equated to Level A harassment). mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ Level B Harassment for non-explosive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent national/marine-mammal-protection/ sources—Though significantly driven by (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. L–DEO’s marine-mammal-acoustic-technical- received level, the onset of behavioral proposed activity includes the use of guidance.

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * Health 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 determine the 160-dBrms radius for the been reported in deep water 18-airgun array, 36-airgun array, and 40- (approximately 1,600 m), intermediate Here, we describe operational and in3 airgun in deep water (>1,000 m) water depth on the slope (approximately environmental parameters of the activity down to a maximum water depth of 600–1,100 m), and shallow water that will feed into identifying the area 2,000 m. Received sound levels were (approximately 50 m) in the Gulf of ensonified above the acoustic predicted by L–DEO’s model (Diebold et Mexico in 2007–2008 (Tolstoy et al., thresholds, which include source levels al., 2010) which uses ray tracing for the 2009; Diebold et al., 2010). and transmission loss coefficient. direct wave traveling from the array to For deep and intermediate-water The proposed 3D survey would the receiver and its associated source cases, the field measurements cannot be acquire data with the 18-airgun array ghost (reflection at the air-water used readily to derive Level A and Level with a total discharge of 3,300 in3 towed interface in the vicinity of the array), in B isopleths, as at those sites the at a depth of 10 m. The proposed 2D a constant-velocity half-space (infinite calibration hydrophone was located at a survey would acquire data using the 36- homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded roughly constant depth of 350–500 m, airgun array with a total discharge of by a seafloor). In addition, propagation which may not intersect all the sound 6,600 in3 at a maximum tow depth of 12 measurements of pulses from the 36- pressure level (SPL) isopleths at their m. L–DEO model results are used to airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have widest point from the sea surface down

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26961

to the maximum relevant water depth they may be imperfectly sampled by ones by applying a correction factor for marine mammals of ∼2,000 m. At measurements recorded at a single (multiplication) of 1.5, such that short ranges, where the direct arrivals depth. At greater distances, the observed levels at very near offsets fall dominate and the effects of seafloor calibration data show that seafloor- below the corrected mitigation curve interactions are minimal, the data reflected and sub-seafloor-refracted (See Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF– recorded at the deep and slope sites are arrivals dominate, whereas the direct USGS, 2011). suitable for comparison with modeled arrivals become weak and/or levels at the depth of the calibration incoherent. Aside from local topography Measurements have not been reported 3 hydrophone. At longer ranges, the effects, the region around the critical for the single 40-in airgun. L–DEO comparison with the model— distance is where the observed levels model results are used to determine the constructed from the maximum SPL rise closest to the model curve. 160-dB (rms) radius for the 40-in3 through the entire water column at However, the observed sound levels are airgun at a 12 m tow depth in deep varying distances from the airgun found to fall almost entirely below the water (See LGL 2018, Figure A–2). For array—is the most relevant. model curve. Thus, analysis of the Gulf intermediate-water depths, a correction In deep and intermediate-water of Mexico calibration measurements factor of 1.5 was applied to the deep- depths, comparisons at short ranges demonstrates that although simple, the water model results. between sound levels for direct arrivals L–DEO model is a robust tool for L–DEO’s modeling methodology is recorded by the calibration hydrophone conservatively estimating isopleths. described in greater detail in the IHA and model results for the same array For deep water (>1,000 m), L–DEO application (LGL 2018). The estimated tow depth are in good agreement (Fig. used the deep-water radii obtained from 12 and 14 in Appendix H of NSF–USGS, model results down to a maximum distances to the Level B harassment 2011). Consequently, isopleths falling water depth of 2000 m. The radii for isopleth for the Langseth’s 18-airgun 3 within this domain can be predicted intermediate water depths (100–1,000 array, 36-airgun array, and single 40-in reliably by the L–DEO model, although m) were derived from the deep-water airgun are shown in Table 4.

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

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

Single Bolt airgun (40 in3) ...... 12 431 2 strings, 18 airguns (3,300 in3) ...... 10 3,758 4 strings, 36 airguns (6,600 in3) ...... 12 6,733 a Distance based on L–DEO model results.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26962 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

TABLE 5—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS BASED ON MODIFIED FARFIELD SIGNATURE FOR THE R/V LANGSETH 3,300 in3 AIRGUN ARRAY, 6,600 in3 AIRGUN ARRAY, AND SINGLE 40 in3 AIRGUN

Low 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)

3,300 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) ...... 245.29 250.97 243.61 246.00 251.92 3 3.300 in airgun array (SELcum) .. 226.38 226.33 226.66 226.33 227.07 6,600 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) ...... 252.06 252.65 253.24 252.25 252.52 3 6,600 in airgun array (SELcum) .. 232.98 232.83 233.08 232.83 232.07 3 40 in airgun (Peak SPLflat) ...... 223.93 N.A. 223.92 223.95 N.A. 3 40 in airgun (SELcum) ...... 202.99 202.89 204.37 202.89 202.35

In order to more realistically incorporated within the User Table 5. User Spreadsheets used by L– incorporate the Technical Guidance’s Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the DEO to estimate distances to Level A weighting functions over the seismic Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting harassment isopleths for the 18-airgun array’s full acoustic band, unweighted factor adjustment). Using the User array, 36-airgun array, and single 40 in3 spectrum data for the Langseth’s airgun Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ airgun for the surveys are shown in array (modeled in 1 hertz (Hz) bands) methodology for mobile sources Tables A–3, A–6, and A–10 in was used to make adjustments (dB) to (described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the Appendix A of the IHA application. the unweighted spectrum levels, by hearing group-specific weighted source Outputs from the User Spreadsheets in frequency, according to the weighting levels, and inputs assuming spherical the form of estimated distances to Level functions for each relevant marine spreading propagation and source A harassment isopleths for the surveys velocities and shot intervals specific to mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ are shown in Table 6. As described each of the three planned surveys weighted spectrum levels were then provided in the IHA application, above, NMFS considers onset of PTS converted to pressures (mPa) in order to potential radial distances to auditory (Level A harassment) to have occurred integrate them over the entire injury zones were then calculated for when either one of the dual metrics broadband spectrum, resulting in (SELcum and Peak SPLflat) is exceeded SELcum thresholds. broadband weighted source levels by Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the (i.e., metric resulting in the largest hearing group that could be directly form of estimated SLs are shown in isopleth).

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

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

Single Bolt airgun (40 in3): a PTS SELcum ...... 0.5 0 0 0 0 PTS Peak ...... 1.76 0.51 12.5 1.98 0.4 2 strings, 18 airguns (3300 in3): PTS SELcum ...... 75.6 0 0.3 2.9 0 PTS Peak ...... 23.2 11.2 118.7 25.1 9.9 4 strings, 36 airguns (6600 in3): PTS SELcum ...... 426.9 0 1.3 13.9 0 PTS Peak ...... 38.9 13.6 268.3 43.7 10.6

Note that because of some of the traveled by the animal in a straight line limited. To calculate pinniped densities assumptions included in the methods at a constant speed. in the survey area, L–DEO utilized used, isopleths produced may be methods described in U.S. Navy (2010) Marine Mammal Occurrence overestimates to some degree, which which calculated density estimates for will ultimately result in some degree of In this section we provide the pinnipeds off Washington at different overestimate of Level A harassment. information about the presence, density, times of the year using information on However, these tools offer the best way or group dynamics of marine mammals breeding and migration, population to predict appropriate isopleths when that will inform the take calculations. estimates from shore counts, and areas more sophisticated modeling methods In developing their IHA application, used by different species while at sea. are not available, and NMFS continues L–DEO utilized estimates of cetacean The densities calculated by the Navy to develop ways to quantitatively refine densities in the survey area synthesized were updated by L–DEO using stock these tools and will qualitatively by Barlow (2016). Observations from abundances presented in the latest SARs address the output where appropriate. NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science (e.g., Caretta et al., 2018). For mobile sources, such as the Center (SWFSC) ship surveys off of While the IHA application was in proposed seismic survey, the User Oregon and Washington (up to 556 km review by NMFS, the U.S. Navy Spreadsheet predicts the closest from shore) between 1991 and 2014 published the Marine Species Density distance at which a stationary animal were pooled. Systematic, offshore, at-sea Database Phase III for the Northwest would not incur PTS if the sound source survey data for pinnipeds are more Training and Testing (NWTT) Study

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26963

Area (Navy 2018). The proposed variation are often used in conjunction near the proposed survey area in the geophysical survey area is located near with abundance estimates from known 2014 NMFS Southwest Fisheries the western boundary of the defined haulout sites to assign an in-water Science Center (SWFSC) California NWTT Offshore Study Area. abundance estimate for a given area. Current Ecosystem (CCE) vessel survey For several cetacean species, the Navy The total abundance divided by the area (Barlow 2016). updated densities estimated by line- of the region provides a representative Minke Whale transect surveys or mark-recapture in-water density estimate for each studies (e.g., Barlow 2016). These species in a different location, which Density values for minke whales are methods usually produce a single value enables analyses of in-water stressors available for the SWFSC Oregon/ for density that is an averaged estimate resulting from at-sea Navy testing or Washington and Northern California across very large geographical areas, training activities. In addition to using offshore strata for summer/fall (Barlow such as waters within the U.S. EEZ off shore counts to estimate pinniped 2016). Density data are not available for California, Oregon, and Washington density, traditional line-transect derived the NWTT Offshore area northwest of (referred to as a ‘‘uniform’’ density estimates are also used, particularly in the SWFSC strata, so data from the estimate). This is the general approach open ocean areas. SWFSC Oregon/Washington stratum applied in estimating cetacean Because the Navy’s density were used as representative estimates. abundance in the NMFS stock calculations for many species included Sightings have been made off Oregon assessment reports. The disadvantage of spatial habitat modeling and and Washington in shelf and deeper these methods is that they do not demographic information, we utilized waters (Green et al., 1992; Adams et al., provide information on varied the Navy Marine Species Density 2014; Carretta et al., 2017). An concentrations of species in sub-regions Database (NMSDD) to estimate densities estimated abundance of 211 minke of very large areas, and do not estimate and resulting take of marine mammals whales was reported for the Oregon/ density for other seasons or timeframes from the proposed geophysical survey. Washington region based on sightings that were not surveyed. More recently, Where available, the appropriate data from 1991–2005 (Barlow and a newer method called spatial habitat seasonal density estimate from the Forney 2007), whereas a 2008 survey modeling has been used to estimate NMSDD was used in the estimation here did not record any minke whales while cetacean densities that address some of (i.e., summer). For species with a on survey effort (Barlow 2010). The these shortcomings (e.g., Barlow et al., quantitative density range within or abundance for Oregon/Washington for 2009; Becker et al., 2010, 2012a, 2014; around the proposed survey area, the 2014 was estimated at 507 minke Becker et al., 2016; Ferguson et al., maximum presented density was whales (Barlow 2016). There were no 2006; Forney et al., 2012, 2015; Redfern conservatively used. Background sightings of minke whales off et al., 2006). (Note that spatial habitat information on the density calculations Washington/Oregon during the June– models are also referred to as ‘‘species for each species/guild as well as July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca plate distribution models’’ or ‘‘habitat-based reported sightings in nearby waters are seismic survey or during the July 2012 density models.’’) These models reported here. Density estimates for L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon, estimate density as a continuous each species/guild are found in Table 7. southeast of the proposed survey area function of habitat variables (e.g., sea (RPS 2012b, c). One minke whale was Humpback Whale surface temperature, seafloor depth) and seen during the July 2012 L–DEO thus, within the study area that was NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE seismic survey off southern Washington, modeled, densities can be predicted at habitat-based density model for north of the proposed survey area (RPS all locations where these habitat humpback whales which provides 2012a). No sightings of minke whales variables can be measured or estimated. spatially explicit density estimates off were made near the proposed survey Spatial habitat models therefore allow the U.S. West Coast for summer and fall area during the 2014 SWFSC CCE vessel estimates of cetacean densities on finer based on survey data collected between survey (Barlow 2016). scales than traditional line-transect or 1991 and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Sei Whale mark-recapture analyses. Density data are not available for the The methods used to estimate NWTT Offshore area northwest of the Density values for sei whales are pinniped at-sea densities are typically SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based available for the SWFSC Oregon/ different than those used for cetaceans, density values in the northernmost Washington and Northern California because pinnipeds are not limited to the pixels adjoining this region were offshore strata for summer/fall (Barlow water and spend a significant amount of interpolated based on the nearest- 2016). Density data are not available for time on land (e.g., at rookeries). neighbor approach to provide the NWTT Offshore area northwest of Pinniped abundance is generally representative density estimates for this the SWFSC strata, so data from the estimated via shore counts of animals area. SWFSC Oregon/Washington stratum on land at known haulout sites or by Six humpback whale sightings (8 were used as representative estimates. counting number of pups weaned at animals) were made off Washington/ Sei whales are rare in the waters off rookeries and applying a correction Oregon during the June–July 2012 L– California, Oregon, and Washington factor to estimate the abundance of the DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey; (Brueggeman et al., 1990; Green et al., population (for example Harvey et al., all were well inshore of the proposed 1992; Barlow 1994, 1997). Only 16 1990; Jeffries et al., 2003; Lowry 2002; survey area (RPS 2012b). There were 98 confirmed sightings were reported for Sepulveda et al., 2009). Estimating in- humpback whale sightings (213 California, Oregon, and Washington water densities from land-based counts animals) made during the July 2012 L– during extensive surveys from 1991– is difficult given the variability in DEO seismic survey off southern 2014 (Green et al., 1992, 1993; Hill and foraging ranges, migration, and haulout Washington, northeast of the proposed Barlow 1992; Carretta and Forney 1993; behavior between species and within survey area (RPS 2012a), and 11 Mangels and Gerrodette 1994; Von each species, and is driven by factors sightings (23 animals) during the July Saunder and Barlow 1999; Barlow 2003; such as age class, sex class, breeding 2012 L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon, Forney 2007; Barlow 2010; Carretta et cycles, and seasonal variation. Data southeast of the proposed survey area al., 2017). Based on surveys conducted such as age class, sex class, and seasonal (RPS 2012c). No sightings were made in 1991–2008, the estimated abundance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26964 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

of sei whales off the coasts of Oregon Blue Whale 2007). Barlow (2016) provided stratified and Washington was 52 (Barlow 2010); NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE density estimates for Kogia spp. for for 2014, the abundance estimate was habitat-based density model for blue waters off California, Oregon, and 468 (Barlow 2016). Two sightings of whales which provides spatially explicit Washington; these were used for all four individuals were made during the density estimates off the U.S. West seasons for both the Northern California June–July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca Coast for summer and fall based on and Oregon/Washington strata. In the plate seismic survey off Washington/ survey data collected between 1991 and absence of other data, the Barlow (2016) Oregon (RPS 2012b); these were well 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Density Oregon/Washington estimate was also inshore of the proposed survey area data are not available for the NWTT used for the area northwest of the (∼125° W). No sei whales were sighted Offshore area northwest of the SWFSC SWFSC strata for all seasons. during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic strata, so the habitat-based density Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are surveys north and south of the proposed values in the northernmost pixels rarely sighted off Oregon and survey area (RPS 2012a, c). adjoining this region were interpolated Washington, with only one sighting of Fin Whale based on the nearest-neighbor approach an unidentified Kogia sp. beyond the NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE to provide representative density U.S. EEZ, during the 1991–2014 NOAA habitat-based density model for fin estimates for this area. vessel surveys (Carretta et al., 2017). whales which provides spatially explicit The nearest sighting of blue whales is This sighting was made in October 1993 ∼ density estimates off the U.S. West 55 km to the southwest (OBIS 2018), during the SWFSC PODS Marine Coast for summer and fall based on and there are several other sightings in Mammal Survey ∼150 km to the south survey data collected between 1991 and adjacent waters (Carretta et al., 2018; of the proposed survey area (OBIS 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Density OBIS 2018). Satellite telemetry suggests 2018). Norman et al. (2004) reported data are not available for the NWTT that blue whales are present in waters eight confirmed stranding records of Offshore area northwest of the SWFSC offshore of Oregon and Washington pygmy sperm whales for Oregon and strata, so the habitat-based density during fall and winter (Bailey et al., Washington, five of which occurred values in the northernmost pixels 2009; Hazen et al., 2017). during autumn and winter. adjoining this region were interpolated Sperm Whale based on the nearest-neighbor approach Baird’s Beaked Whale NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE to provide representative density NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE estimates for this area. habitat-based density model for sperm whales which provides spatially explicit habitat-based density model for Baird’s Fin whales are routinely sighted beaked whale which provides spatially during surveys off Oregon and density estimates off the U.S. West Coast for summer and fall based on explicit density estimates off the U.S. Washington (Barlow and Forney 2007; West Coast for summer and fall based Barlow 2010; Adams et al., 2014; survey data collected between 1991 and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Density on survey data collected between 1991 Calambokidis et al., 2015; Edwards et and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). al., 2015; Carretta et al., 2017), data are not available for the NWTT Density data are not available for the including in coastal as well as offshore Offshore area northwest of the SWFSC NWTT Offshore area northwest of the waters. They have also been detected strata, so the habitat-based density SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based acoustically near the proposed study values in the northernmost pixels density values in the northernmost area during June–August (Edwards et adjoining this region were interpolated pixels adjoining this region were al., 2015). There is one sighting of a fin based on the nearest-neighbor approach interpolated based on the nearest- whale in the Ocean Biogeographic to provide representative density neighbor approach to provide Information System (OBIS) database estimates for this area. representative density estimates for this within the proposed survey area, which There is one sighting of a sperm area. was made in August 2005 during the whale in the vicinity of the survey area SWFSC Collaborative Survey of in the OBIS database that was made in Green et al. (1992) sighted five groups Cetacean Abundance and the Pelagic July 1996 during the SWFSC during 75,050 km of aerial survey effort Ecosystem (CSCAPE) Marine Mammal ORCAWALE Marine Mammal Survey in 1989–1990 off Washington/Oregon Survey, and several other sightings in (OBIS 2018), and several other sightings spanning coastal to offshore waters: adjacent waters (OBIS 2018). Eight fin in adjacent waters (Carretta et al., 2018; Two in slope waters and three in whale sightings (19 animals) were made OBIS 2018). Sperm whale sightings offshore waters. Two groups were off Washington/Oregon during the June– were also made in the vicinity of the sighted during summer/fall 2008 July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca plate proposed survey area during the 2014 surveys off Washington/Oregon, in seismic survey, including two sightings SWFSC vessel survey (Barlow 2016). A waters >2,000 m deep (Barlow 2010). (4 animals) in the vicinity of the single sperm whale was sighted during Acoustic monitoring offshore proposed survey area; sightings were the 2009 ETOMO survey, north of the Washington detected Baird’s beaked made in waters 2,369–3,940 m deep proposed survey area (Holst 2017). whale pulses during January through (RPS 2012b). Fourteen fin whale Sperm whales were detected November 2011, with peaks in February sightings (28 animals) were made during acoustically in waters near the proposed and July (Sˆ irovic´ et al., 2012b in USN the July 2012 L–DEO seismic surveys off survey area in August 2016 during the 2015). Baird’s beaked whales were southern Washington, northeast of the SWFSC Passive Acoustics Survey of detected acoustically near the proposed proposed survey area (RPS 2012a). No Cetacean Abundance Levels (PASCAL) survey area in August 2016 during the fin whales were sighted during the July study using drifting acoustic recorders SWFSC PASCAL study using drifting 2012 L–DEO seismic survey off Oregon, (Keating et al., 2018). acoustic recorders (Keating et al., 2018). southeast of the proposed survey area There is one sighting of a Baird’s beaked (RPS 2012c). Fin whales were also seen Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales (Kogia whale near the survey area in the OBIS off southern Oregon during July 2012 in Guild) database that was made in August 2005 water >2,000 m deep during surveys by Kogia species are treated as a guild off during the SWFSC CSCAPE Marine Adams et al. (2014). the U.S. West Coast (Barlow & Forney Mammal Survey (OBIS 2018).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26965

Small Beaked Whale Guild beaked whales were not detected California (Barlow 2010, 2016). Based NMFS has developed habitat-based acoustically in waters near the proposed on sighting data collected by SWFSC density models for a small beaked whale survey area in August 2016 during the during systematic surveys in the guild in the CCE (Becker et al., 2012b; SWFSC PASCAL study using drifting Northeast Pacific between 1986 and Forney et al., 2012). The small beaked acoustic recorders (Keating et al., 2018). 2005, there were few sightings of Although Blainville’s beaked whales offshore bottlenose dolphins north of whale guild includes Cuvier’s beaked ° whale and beaked whales of the genus could be encountered during the about 40 N (Hamilton et al., 2009). Mesoplodon, including Blainville’s proposed survey, an encounter would NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE habitat- beaked whale, Hubbs’ beaked whale, be unlikely because the proposed survey based density model for bottlenose and Stejneger’s beaked whale. NMFS area is beyond the northern limits of dolphins which provides spatially SWFSC developed a CCE habitat-based this tropical species’ usual distribution. explicit density estimates off the U.S. Stejneger’s beaked whale calls were density model for the small beaked West Coast for summer and fall based detected during acoustic monitoring on survey data collected between 1991 whale guild which provides spatially offshore Washington between January and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). explicit density estimates off the U.S. and June 2011, with an absence of calls Density data are not available for the West Coast for summer and fall based from mid-July to November 2011 NWTT Offshore area northwest of the on survey data collected between 1991 (Sˆ irovic´ et al., 2012b in USN 2015). SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). Analysis of these data suggest that this density values in the northernmost Density data are not available for the species could be more than twice as pixels adjoining this region were NWTT Offshore area northwest of the prevalent in this area than Baird’s interpolated based on the nearest- SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based beaked whale (Baumann-Pickering et neighbor approach to provide density values in the northernmost al., 2014). Stejneger’s beaked whales representative density estimates for this pixels adjoining this region were were also detected acoustically in area. interpolated based on the nearest- waters near the proposed survey area in Bottlenose dolphins occur frequently neighbor approach to provide August 2016 during the SWFSC off the coast of California, and sightings representative density estimates for this PASCAL study using drifting acoustic have been made as far north as 41° N, area. recorders (Keating et al., 2018). There but few records exist for Oregon/ Four beaked whale sightings were are no sightings of Stejneger’s beaked Washington (Carretta et al., 2017). Three reported in water depths >2,000 m off whales near the proposed survey area in sightings and one stranding of Oregon/Washington during surveys in the OBIS database (OBIS 2018). There is bottlenose dolphins have been 2008 (Barlow 2010). None were seen in one sighting of an unidentified species documented in Puget Sound since 2004 1996 or 2001 (Barlow 2003), and several of Mesoplodont beaked whale near the (Cascadia Research 2011 in USN 2015). were recorded from 1991 to 1995 survey area in the OBIS database that It is possible that offshore bottlenose (Barlow 1997). One Cuvier’s beaked was made during July 1996 during the dolphins may range as far north as the whale sighting was made east of the SWFSC ORCAWALE Marine Mammal proposed survey area during warm- proposed survey area during 2014 Survey (OBIS 2018). water periods (Carretta et al., 2017). (Barlow 2016). Acoustic monitoring in Baird’s beaked whale is sometimes Adams et al. (2014) made one sighting Washington offshore waters detected seen close to shore where deep water off Washington during September 2012. Cuvier’s beaked whale pulses between approaches the coast, but its primary There are no sightings of bottlenose ˆ January and November 2011 (Sirovic´ et habitat is over or near the continental dolphins near the proposed survey area al., 2012b in USN 2015). There is one slope and oceanic seamounts (Jefferson in the OBIS database (OBIS 2018). sighting of a Cuvier’s beaked whale near et al., 2015). Along the U.S. West Coast, the proposed survey area in the OBIS Baird’s beaked whales have been Striped Dolphin database that was made in July 1996 sighted primarily along the continental Striped dolphin encounters increase during the SWFSC ORCAWALE Marine slope (Green et al., 1992; Becker et al., in deep, relatively warmer waters off the Mammal Survey (OBIS 2018), and 2012; Carretta et al., 2018) from late U.S. West Coast, and their abundance several other sightings were made in spring to early fall (Green et al., 1992). decreases north of about 42° N (Barlow adjacent waters, primarily to the south The whales move out from those areas et al., 2009; Becker et al., 2012b; Becker and east of the proposed survey area in winter (Reyes 1991). In the eastern et al., 2016; Forney et al., 2012). (Carretta et al., 2018; OBIS 2018). North Pacific Ocean, Baird’s beaked Although striped dolphins typically do Cuvier’s beaked whales were detected whales apparently spend the winter and not occur north of California, there are acoustically in waters near the proposed spring far offshore, and in June, they a few sighting records off Oregon and survey area in August 2016 during the move onto the continental slope, where Washington (Barlow 2003, 2010; Von SWFSC PASCAL study using drifting peak numbers occur during September Saunder & Barlow 1999), and multiple acoustic recorders (Keating et al., 2018). and October. Green et al. (1992) noted sightings in 2014 when water There are no sightings of Blainville’s that Baird’s beaked whales on the U.S. temperatures were anomalously warm beaked whales near the proposed survey West Coast were most abundant in the (Barlow 2016). NMFS SWFSC area in the OBIS database (OBIS 2018). summer, and were not sighted in the fall developed a CCE habitat-based density There is one sighting of an unidentified or winter. MacLeod et al. (2006) model for striped dolphins which species of Mesoplodont whale near the reported numerous sightings and provides spatially explicit density survey area in the OBIS database that strandings of Berardius spp. off the U.S. estimates off the U.S. West Coast for was made in July 1996 during the West Coast. summer and fall based on survey data SWFSC ORCAWALE Marine Mammal collected between 1991 and 2014 Survey (OBIS 2018). There was one Bottlenose Dolphin (Becker et al., in prep). Density data are acoustic encounter with Blainville’s During surveys off the U.S. West not available for the NWTT Offshore beaked whales recorded in Quinault Coast, offshore bottlenose dolphins were area northwest of the SWFSC strata, so Canyon off Washington in waters 1,400 generally found at distances greater than the habitat-based density values in the m deep during 2011 (Baumann- 1.86 miles (3 km) from the coast and northernmost pixels adjoining this Pickering et al., 2014). Blainville’s were most abundant off southern region were interpolated based on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26966 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

nearest-neighbor approach to provide provides spatially explicit density dolphin sightings (278 animals) made representative density estimates for this estimates off the U.S. West Coast for during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic area. summer and fall based on survey data surveys off southern Washington, Striped dolphins regularly occur off collected between 1991 and 2014 northeast of the proposed survey area California (Becker et al., 2012), where (Becker et al., in prep). Density data are (RPS 2012a). This species was not they have been seen as far as the ∼300 not available for the NWTT Offshore sighted during the July 2012 L–DEO n.mi. limit during the NOAA Fisheries area northwest of the SWFSC strata, so seismic survey off Oregon, southeast of vessel surveys (Carretta et al., 2017). the habitat-based density values in the the proposed survey area (RPS 2012c). Strandings have occurred along the northernmost pixels adjoining this Risso’s Dolphin coasts of Oregon and Washington region were interpolated based on the (Carretta et al., 2016). During surveys off nearest-neighbor approach to provide NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE the U.S. West Coast in 2014, striped representative density estimates for this habitat-based density model for Risso’s dolphins were seen as far north as 44° area. dolphins which provides spatially N (Barlow 2016). Fifteen Pacific white-sided dolphin explicit density estimates off the U.S. sightings (231 animals) were made off West Coast for summer and fall based Short-Beaked Common Dolphin Washington/Oregon during the June– on survey data collected between 1991 Short-beaked common dolphins are July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca plate and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). found off the U.S. West Coast seismic survey; none were near the Density data are not available for the throughout the year, distributed proposed survey area (RPS 2012b). NWTT Offshore area northwest of the between the coast and at least 345 miles There were fifteen Pacific white-sided SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based (556 km) from shore (Barlow 2010; dolphin sightings (462 animals) made density values in the northernmost Becker et al., 2017; Carretta et al., during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic pixels adjoining this region were 2017b). The short-beaked common surveys off southern Washington, interpolated based on the nearest- dolphin is the most abundant cetacean northeast of the proposed survey area neighbor approach to provide species off California (Barlow 2016; (RPS 2012a). This species was not representative density estimates for this Carretta et al., 2017b; Forney et al., sighted during the July 2012 L–DEO area. 1995); however, their abudance seismic survey off Oregon, southeast of Two sightings of 38 individuals were decreases dramatically north of about the proposed survey area (RPS 2012c). recorded off Washington from August 40° N (Barlow et al., 2009; Becker et al., One group of 10 Pacific white-sided 2004 to September 2008 (Oleson et al., 2012c; Becker et al., 2016; Forney et al., dolphins was sighted during the 2009 2009). Risso’s dolphins were sighted off 2012). Short-beaked common dolphins ETOMO survey north of the proposed Oregon, in June and October 2011 are occasionally sighted in waters off survey area (Holst 2017). (Adams et al., 2014). There were three Oregon and Washington, and one group Risso’s dolphin sightings (31 animals) Northern Right Whale Dolphin of approximately 40 short-beaked made during the July 2012 L–DEO common dolphins was sighted off Survey data suggest that, at least in seismic surveys off southern northern Washington in 2005 at about the eastern North Pacific, seasonal Washington, northeast of the proposed 48° N (Forney 2007), and multiple inshore-offshore and north-south survey area (RPS 2012a). This species groups were sighted as far north as 44° movements are related to prey was not sighted during the July 2012 L– N during anomalously warm conditions availability, with peak abundance in the DEO seismic survey off Oregon, in 2014 (Barlow 2016). NMFS SWFSC Southern California Bight during winter southeast of the proposed survey area developed a CCE habitat-based density and distribution shifting northward into (RPS 2012c), or off Washington/Oregon model for short-beaked common Oregon and Washington as water during the June–July 2012 L–DEO Juan dolphins which provides spatially temperatures increase during late spring de Fuca plate seismic survey (RPS explicit density estimates off the U.S. and summer (Barlow 1995; Becker et al., 2012b). West Coast for summer and fall based 2014; Forney et al., 1995; Forney & on survey data collected between 1991 Barlow 1998; Leatherwood & Walker False Killer Whale and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). 1979). NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE False killer whales were not included Density data are not available for the habitat-based density model for in the NMSDD, as they are very rarely NWTT Offshore area northwest of the northern right whale dolphins which encountered in the northeast Pacific. SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based provides spatially explicit density Density estimates for false killer whales density values in the northernmost estimates off the U.S. West Coast for were also not presented in Barlow pixels adjoining this region were summer and fall based on survey data (2016), as no sightings occurred during interpolated based on the nearest- collected between 1991 and 2014 surveys conducted between 1986 and neighbor approach to provide (Becker et al., in prep). Density data are 2008 (Ferguson and Barlow 2001, 2003; representative density estimates for this not available for the NWTT Offshore Forney 2007; Barlow 2003, 2010). One area. area northwest of the SWFSC strata, so sighting was made off of southern There are no sightings of short-beaked the habitat-based density values in the California during 2014 (Barlow 2016). dolphins near the proposed survey area northernmost pixels adjoining this There are no sightings of false killer in the OBIS database (OBIS 2018). region were interpolated based on the whales near the survey area in the OBIS nearest-neighbor approach to provide database (OBIS 2018). Pacific White-Sided Dolphin representative density estimates for this Pacific white-sided dolphins occur area. Killer Whale year-round in the offshore region of the Seven northern right whale dolphin Due to the difficulties associated with NWTT Study Area, with increased sightings (231 animals) were made off reliably distinguishing the different abundance in the summer/fall (Barlow Washington/Oregon during the June– stocks of killer whales from at-sea 2010; Forney & Barlow 1998; Oleson et July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca plate sightings, density estimates for the al., 2009). NMFS SWFSC developed a seismic survey; none were seen near the Offshore region of the NWTT Study CCE habitat-based density model for proposed survey area (RPS 2012b). Area are presented for the species as a Pacific white-sided dolphins which There were eight northern right whale whole (i.e., includes the Offshore, West

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26967

Coast Transient, Northern Resident, and Dall’s Porpoise shore, and 130 km to 463 km from shore Southern Resident stocks). Density NMFS SWFSC developed a CCE (the western Study Area boundary). L– values for killer whales are available for habitat-based density model for Dall’s DEO’s proposed survey is 423 km from the SWFSC Oregon/Washington and porpoise which provides spatially shore at the closest point. Based on Northern California offshore strata for explicit density estimates off the U.S. satellite tag data and historic sealing summer/fall (Barlow 2016). Density data West Coast for summer and fall based records (Olesiuk 2012; Kajimura 1984), are not available for the NWTT Offshore on survey data collected between 1991 the Navy assumed 25 percent of the area northwest of the SWFSC strata, so and 2014 (Becker et al., in prep). population present within the overall data from the SWFSC Oregon/ Density data are not available for the Offshore Study Area may be within the 130 km to 463 km stratum. Washington stratum were used as NWTT Offshore area northwest of the Thirty-one northern fur seal sightings representative estimates. These values SWFSC strata, so the habitat-based were used to represent density year- (63 animals) were made off Washington/ density values in the northernmost Oregon during the June–July 2012 L– round. pixels adjoining this region were ∼ DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey Eleven sightings of 536 individuals interpolated based on the nearest- were reported off Oregon/Washington north of the proposed survey area (RPS neighbor approach to provide 2012b). There were six sightings (6 during the 2008 SWFSC vessel survey representative density estimates for this (Barlow 2010). Killer whales were animals) made during the July 2012 L– area. DEO seismic surveys off southern sighted offshore Washington during Oleson et al. (2009) reported 44 surveys from August 2004 to September Washington, northeast of the proposed sightings of 206 individuals off survey area (RPS 2012a). This species 2008 (Oleson et al., 2009). Keating et al. Washington during surveys form August (2015) analyzed cetacean whistles from was not sighted during the July 2012 L– 2004 to September 2008. Dall’s porpoise DEO seismic survey off Oregon, recordings made during 2000–2012; were seen in the waters off Oregon several killer whale acoustic detections southeast of the proposed survey area during summer, fall, and winter surveys (RPS 2012c). were made offshore Washington. in 2011 and 2012 (Adams et al., 2014). Short-Finned Pilot Whale Nineteen Dall’s porpoise sightings (144 Guadalupe Fur Seal animals) were made off Washington/ As with northern fur seals, adult male Along the U.S. West Coast, short- Oregon during the June–July 2012 L– Guadalupe fur seals are expected to be finned pilot whales were once common DEO Juan de Fuca plate seismic survey; ashore at breeding areas over the south of Point Conception, California none were in near the proposed survey summer, and are not expected to be (Carretta et al., 2017b; Reilly & Shane area (RPS 2012b). There were 16 Dall’s present during the proposed 1986), but now sightings off the U.S. porpoise sightings (54 animals) made geophysical survey (Caretta et al., West Coast are infrequent and typically during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic 2017b; Norris 2017b). Additionally, occur during warm water years (Carretta surveys off southern Washington, breeding females are unlikely to be et al., 2017b). Stranding records for this northeast of the proposed survey area present within the Offshore Study Area species from Oregon and Washington (RPS 2012a). This species was not as they remain ashore to nurse their waters are considered to be beyond the sighted during the July 2012 L–DEO pups through the fall and winter, normal range of this species rather than seismic survey off Oregon, southeast of making only short foraging trips from an extension of its range (Norman et al., the proposed survey area (RPS 2012c). rookeries (Gallo-Reynoso et al., 2008; 2004). Density values for short-finned Dall’s porpoise was the most frequently Norris 2017b; Yochem et al., 1987). To pilot whales are available for the sighted marine mammal species (5 estimate the total abundance of SWFSC Oregon/Washington and sightings of 28 animals) during the 2009 Guadalupe fur seals, the Navy adjusted Northern California strata for summer/ ETOMO survey north of the proposed the population reported in the 2016 fall (Barlow 2016). Density data are not survey area (Holst 2017). SAR (Caretta et al., 2017b) of 20,000 available for the NWTT Offshore area seals by applying the average annual Northern Fur Seal northwest of the SWFSC strata, so data growth rate of 7.64 percent over the from the SWFSC Oregon/Washington The Navy estimated the abundance of seven years between 2010 and 2017. stratum were used as representative northern fur seals from the Eastern The resulting 2017 projected abundance estimates. These values were used to Pacific stock and the California breeding was 33,485 fur seals. Using the reported represent density year-round. stock that could occur in the NWTT composition of the breeding population Few sightings were made off Offshore Study Area by determining the of Guadalupe fur seals (Gallo-Reynoso California/Oregon/Washington in 1984– percentage of time tagged animals spent 1994) and satellite telemetry data 1992 (Green et al., 1992; Carretta and within the Study Area and applying that (Norris 2017b), the Navy established Forney 1993; Barlow 1997), and percentage to the population to seasonal and demographic abundances sightings remain rare (Barlow 1997; calculate an abundance for adult of fur seals expected to occur within the Buchanan et al., 2001; Barlow 2010). No females, juveniles, and pups Offshore Study Area. short-finned pilot whales were seen independently on a monthly basis. The distribution of Guadalupe fur during surveys off Oregon and Adult males are not expected to occur seals in the Offshore Study Area was Washington in 1989–1990, 1992, 1996, within the Offshore Study Area and the stratified by distance from shore (or and 2001 (Barlow 2003). A few sightings proposed survey area during the water depth) to reflect their preferred were made off California during surveys proposed geophysical survey as they pelagic habitat (Norris 2017a). Ten in 1991–2014 (Barlow 2010). Carretta et spend the summer ashore at breeding percent of fur seals in the Study Area al. (2017) reported one sighting off areas in the Bering Sea and San Miguel are expected to use waters over the Oregon during 1991–2008. Several Island (Caretta et al., 2017b). Using the continental shelf (approximated as stranding events in Oregon/southern monthly abundances of fur seals within waters with depths between 10 and 200 Washington have been recorded over the Offshore Study Area, the Navy m). A depth of 10 m is used as the the past few decades, including in created strata to estimate the density of shoreward extent of the shelf (rather March 1996, June 1998, and August fur seals within three strata: 22 km to 70 than extending to shore), because 2002 (Norman et al., 2004). km from shore, 70 km to 130 km from Guadalupe fur seals in the Offshore

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26968 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

Study Area are not expected to haul out maps produced by Robinson et al. TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY and would not be likely to come close (2012) showing the extent of foraging VALUES IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY to shore. All fur seals (i.e., 100 percent) areas used by satellite tagged female AREA—Continued would use waters off the shelf (beyond elephant seals were used to estimate the the 200 m isobath) out to 300 km from spatial areas to calculate densities. Reported shore, and 25 of percent of fur seals Although the distributions were based Species density would be expected to use waters on tagged female seals, Le Boeuf et al. (#/km2) a between 300 and 700 km from shore (2000) and Simmons et al. (2007) (including the proposed geophysical Bottlenose dolphin ...... 0.000003 reported similar tracks by males over Striped dolphin ...... 0.009329 survey area). The second stratum (200 m broad spatial scales. The spatial areas Short-beaked common dolphin 0.124891 to 300 km from shore) is the preferred representing each monthly distribution Pacific white-sided dolphin ..... 0.017426 habitat where Guadalupe fur seals are were calculating using GIS and then Northern right-whale dolphin ... 0.039962 most likely to occur most of the time. averaged to produce seasonally variable Risso’s dolphin ...... 0.007008 Individuals may spend a portion of their areas and resulting densities. False killer whale ...... N/A time over the continental shelf or farther Off Washington, most elephant seal Killer whale ...... b 0.00092 than 300 km from shore, necessitating a sightings at sea were made during June, Short-finned pilot whale ...... 0.00025 density estimate for those areas, but all July, and September; off Oregon, HF Cetaceans: Guadalupe fur seals would be expected sightings were recorded from November Kogia spp ...... 0.00163 to be in the central stratum most of the through May (Bonnell et al. 1992). Dall’s porpoise ...... 0.043951 time, which is the reason 100 percent is Otariids: Several seals were seen off Oregon Northern fur seal ...... b 0.0103 used in the density estimate for the during summer, fall, and winter surveys Guadalupe fur seal ...... 0.0029 central stratum (Norris 2017a). Spatial in 2011 and 2012 (Adams et al. 2014). Phocids: areas for the three strata were estimated Northern elephant seals were also taken Northern elephant seal ...... 0.0309 in a GIS and used to calculate the as bycatch off Oregon in the west coast densities. a Navy 2018. groundfish fishery during 2002–2009 b No stock-specific densities are available so Guadalupe fur seals have not (Jannot et al. 2011). Northern elephant densities are presumed equal for all stocks previously been observed in the seals were sighted five times (5 animals) present. proposed survey area, nor on previous during the July 2012 L–DEO seismic Take Calculation and Estimation L–DEO surveys off Washington and surveys off southern Washington, Oregon. northeast of the proposed survey area Here we describe how the information Northern Elephant Seal (RPS 2012a). This species was not provided above is brought together to sighted during the July 2012 L–DEO The most recent surveys supporting produce a quantitative take estimate. In seismic survey off Oregon, southeast of the abundance estimate for northern order to estimate the number of marine the proposed survey area (RPS 2012c), elephant seals were conducted in 2010 mammals predicted to be exposed to or off Washington/Oregon during the (Caretta et al., 2017b). By applying the sound levels that would result in Level June–July 2012 L–DEO Juan de Fuca average growth rate of 3.8 percent per A or Level B harassment, radial plate seismic survey that included the year for the California breeding stock distances from the airgun array to proposed survey area (RPS 2012b). One over the seven years from 2010 to 2017, predicted isopleths corresponding to the northern elephant seal was sighted the Navy calculated a projected 2017 Level A harassment and Level B abundance estimate of 232,399 elephant during the 2009 ETOMO survey north of harassment thresholds are calculated, as seals (Caretta et al., 2017b; Lowry et al., the proposed survey area (Holst 2017). described above. Those radial distances 2014). Male and female distributions at are then used to calculate the area(s) sea differ both seasonally and spatially. TABLE 7—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY around the airgun array predicted to be Pup counts reported by Lowry et al. VALUES IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY ensonified to sound levels that exceed (2014) and life tables compiled by AREA the Level A and Level B harassment Condit et al. (2014) were used to thresholds. The area estimated to be determine the proportion of males and Reported ensonified in a single day of the survey Species density females in the population, which was (#/km2) a is then calculated (Table 8), based on estimated to be 56 percent female and the areas predicted to be ensonified 44 percent male. Females are assumed LF Cetaceans: around the array and representative to be at sea 100 percent of the time Humpback whale ...... 0.001829 trackline distances traveled per day. within their seasonal distribution area Minke whale ...... 0.0013 This number is then multiplied by the in fall and summer (Robinson et al., Sei whale ...... 0.0004 number of survey days. The product is 2012). Males are at sea approximately 90 Fin whale ...... 0.004249 then multiplied by 1.25 to account for Blue whale ...... 0.001096 percent of the time in fall and spring, MF Cetaceans: the additional 25 percent contingency. remain ashore through the entire winter, Sperm whale ...... 0.002561 This results in an estimate of the total and spend one month ashore to molt in Cuvier’s and Mesoplodont areas (km2) expected to be ensonified to the summer (i.e., are at sea 66 percent beaked whales ...... 0.007304 the Level A and Level B harassment of the summer). Monthly distribution Baird’s beaked whale ...... 0.00082 thresholds.

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

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

2–D Survey ...... Level B Harassment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26969

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

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

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

Level A Harassment

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

3–D Survey Level B Harassment

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

Level A Harassment

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

The marine mammals predicted to species where take by Level A within the Level B harassment zone. occur within these respective areas, harassment has been requested, the Estimated exposures for the proposed based on estimated densities, are calculated Level A takes have been survey are shown in Table 9. assumed to be incidentally taken. For subtracted from the total exposures

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

Percent of Species Stock Level B Level A Total take stock

LF Cetaceans

Humpback whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 32 3 35 1.21 Minke whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 23 2 25 3.93 Sei whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 7 1 8 1.54 Fin whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 74 7 81 0.90 Blue whale ...... Eastern North Pacific ...... 19 2 21 1.28

MF Cetaceans

Sperm whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 48 0 48 2.40 Cuvier’s and Mesoplodont beaked California/Oregon/Washington ...... 138 0 138 a 2.18 whales. Baird’s beaked whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 15 0 15 0.56 Bottlenose dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... b 13 0 b 13 0.68 Striped dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 176 0 176 0.60 Short-beaked common dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 2,356 0 2,356 0.24 Pacific white-sided dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 329 0 329 1.23 Northern right-whale dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 754 0 749 2.82 Risso’s dolphin ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 132 0 132 2.08 False killer whale ...... Hawaii Pelagic ...... b 5 0 b 5 0.32 Killer whale ...... Offshore ...... 17 0 17 c 5.67 West Coast Transient ...... c 7.00 Short-finned pilot whale ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... b 18 0 b 18 2.15

HF Cetaceans

Kogia spp ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 31 2 29 0.71 Dall’s porpoise ...... California/Oregon/Washington ...... 829 43 786 3.05

Otariids

Northern fur seal ...... Eastern Pacific ...... 194 0 194 c 0.03 California ...... c 1.38

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26970 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

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

Percent of Species Stock Level B Level A Total take stock

Guadalupe fur seal ...... Mexico ...... 55 0 55 0.28

Phocids

Northern elephant seal ...... California Breeding ...... 583 0 583 0.33 a Combined stock abundances for Cuvier’s beaked whales and Mesoplodont guild. b Calculated take increased to mean group size (Barlow 2016). c Where multiple stocks are affected, for the purposes of calculating the percentage of stock affected, takes are analyzed as if all takes oc- curred within each stock.

It should be noted that the proposed impact upon the affected species or adopted during the proposed surveys take numbers shown in Table 9 are stocks and their habitat (50 CFR include (1) Vessel-based visual expected to be conservative for several 216.104(a)(11)). mitigation monitoring; (2) Vessel-based reasons. First, in the calculations of In evaluating how mitigation may or passive acoustic monitoring; (3) estimated take, 25 percent has been may not be appropriate to ensure the Establishment of an exclusion zone; (4) added in the form of operational survey least practicable adverse impact on Power down procedures; (5) Shutdown days to account for the possibility of species or stocks and their habitat, as procedures; (6) Ramp-up procedures; additional seismic operations associated well as subsistence uses where and (7) Vessel strike avoidance with airgun testing and repeat coverage applicable, we carefully consider two measures. of any areas where initial data quality is primary factors: sub-standard, and in recognition of the (1) The manner in which, and the Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation uncertainties in the density estimates degree to which, the successful Monitoring used to estimate take as described implementation of the measure(s) is Visual monitoring requires the use of above. Additionally, marine mammals expected to reduce impacts to marine trained observers (herein referred to as would be expected to move away from mammals, marine mammal species or visual PSOs) to scan the ocean surface a loud sound source that represents an stocks, and their habitat. This considers aversive stimulus, such as an airgun the nature of the potential adverse visually for the presence of marine array, potentially reducing the number impact being mitigated (likelihood, mammals. The area to be scanned of takes by Level A harassment. scope, range). It further considers the visually includes primarily the However, the extent to which marine likelihood that the measure will be exclusion zone, but also the buffer zone. mammals would move away from the effective if implemented (probability of The buffer zone means an area beyond sound source is difficult to quantify and accomplishing the mitigating result if the exclusion zone to be monitored for is, therefore, not accounted for in the implemented as planned), the the presence of marine mammals that take estimates. likelihood of effective implementation may enter the exclusion zone. During Note that due to the different density (probability implemented as planned); pre-clearance monitoring (i.e., before estimates used, and in consideration of and ramp-up begins), the buffer zone also the near-field soundscape of the airgun (2) the practicability of the measures acts as an extension of the exclusion array, we propose to authorize a for applicant implementation, which zone in that observations of marine different number of incidental takes may consider such things as cost, mammals within the buffer zone would than the number of incidental takes impact on operations, and, in the case also prevent airgun operations from requested by L–DEO (see Table 6 in the of a military readiness activity, beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The buffer IHA application). personnel safety, practicality of zone encompasses the area at and below implementation, and impact on the the sea surface from the edge of the 0– Proposed Mitigation effectiveness of the military readiness 500 meter exclusion zone, out to a In order to issue an IHA under activity. radius of 1,000 meters from the edges of Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, L–DEO has reviewed mitigation the airgun array (500–1,000 meters). NMFS must set forth the permissible measures employed during seismic Visual monitoring of the exclusion methods of taking pursuant to such research surveys authorized by NMFS zones and adjacent waters is intended to activity, and other means of effecting under previous incidental harassment establish and, when visual conditions the least practicable impact on such authorizations, as well as recommended allow, maintain zones around the sound species or stock and its habitat, paying best practices in Richardson et al. source that are clear of marine particular attention to rookeries, mating (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and mammals, thereby reducing or grounds, and areas of similar Dolman (2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), eliminating the potential for injury and significance, and on the availability of Wright (2014), and Wright and minimizing the potential for more such species or stock for taking for Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated severe behavioral reactions for animals certain subsistence uses (latter not a suite of proposed mitigation measures occurring close to the vessel. Visual applicable for this action). NMFS into their project description based on monitoring of the buffer zone is regulations require applicants for the above sources. intended to (1) provide additional incidental take authorizations to include To reduce the potential for protection to naı¨ve marine mammals information about the availability and disturbance from acoustic stimuli that may be in the area during pre- feasibility (economic and technological) associated with the activities, L–DEO clearance, and (2) during airgun use, aid of equipment, methods, and manner of has proposed to implement mitigation in establishing and maintaining the conducting such activity or other means measures for marine mammals. exclusion zone by alerting the visual of effecting the least practicable adverse Mitigation measures that would be observer and crew of marine mammals

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26971

that are outside of, but may approach communicated to the operator to visual range. Acoustical monitoring can and enter, the exclusion zone. prepare for the potential shutdown or be used in addition to visual L–DEO must use at least five powerdown of the acoustic source. observations to improve detection, dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime identification, and localization of Protected Species Observers (PSOs). The the acoustic source is active, including cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring PSOs must have no tasks other than to ramp-up), occurrences of marine would serve to alert visual PSOs (if on conduct observational effort, record mammals within the buffer zone (but duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are observational data, and communicate outside the exclusion zone) should be detected. It is only useful when marine with and instruct relevant vessel crew communicated to the operator to mammals call, but it can be effective with regard to the presence of marine prepare for the potential shutdown or either by day or by night, and does not mammals and mitigation requirements. powerdown of the acoustic source. depend on good visibility. It would be PSO resumes shall be provided to Visual PSOs will immediately monitored in real time so that the visual NMFS for approval. communicate all observations to the on observers can be advised when At least one of the visual and two of duty acoustic PSO(s), including any cetaceans are detected. the acoustic PSOs aboard the vessel determination by the PSO regarding The R/V Langseth will use a towed must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea species identification, distance, and PAM system, which must be monitored experience working in those roles, bearing and the degree of confidence in by at a minimum one on duty acoustic respectively, during a deep penetration the determination. Any observations of PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior (i.e., ‘‘high energy’’) seismic survey, marine mammals by crew members to ramp-up and at all times during use with no more than 18 months elapsed shall be relayed to the PSO team. During of the acoustic source. Acoustic PSOs since the conclusion of the at-sea good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; may be on watch for a maximum of four experience. One visual PSO with such Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), visual consecutive hours followed by a break experience shall be designated as the PSOs shall conduct observations when of at least one hour between watches lead for the entire protected species the acoustic source is not operating for and may conduct a maximum of 12 observation team. The lead PSO shall comparison of sighting rates and hours of observation per 24-hour period. serve as primary point of contact for the behavior with and without use of the Combined observational duties (acoustic vessel operator and ensure all PSO acoustic source and between acquisition and visual but not at same time) may requirements per the IHA are met. To periods, to the maximum extent not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period the maximum extent practicable, the practicable. Visual PSOs may be on for any individual PSO. experienced PSOs should be scheduled watch for a maximum of four Survey activity may continue for 30 to be on duty with those PSOs with consecutive hours followed by a break minutes when the PAM system appropriate training but who have not of at least one hour between watches malfunctions or is damaged, while the yet gained relevant experience. and may conduct a maximum of 12 PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the During survey operations (e.g., any hours of observation per 24-hour period. diagnosis indicates that the PAM system day on which use of the acoustic source Combined observational duties (visual must be repaired to solve the problem, is planned to occur, and whenever the and acoustic but not at same time) may operations may continue for an acoustic source is in the water, whether not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period additional two hours without acoustic activated or not), a minimum of two for any individual PSO. monitoring during daylight hours only visual PSOs must be on duty and Passive Acoustic Monitoring under the following conditions: conducting visual observations at all • Sea state is less than or equal to times during daylight hours (i.e., from Acoustic monitoring means the use of BSS 4; 30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 trained personnel (sometimes referred to • No marine mammals (excluding minutes following sunset) and 30 as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) delphinids) detected solely by PAM in minutes prior to and during nighttime operators, herein referred to as acoustic the applicable exclusion zone in the ramp-ups of the airgun array. Visual PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to previous two hours; monitoring of the exclusion and buffer acoustically detect the presence of • NMFS is notified via email as soon zones must begin no less than 30 marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring as practicable with the time and minutes prior to ramp-up and must involves acoustically detecting marine location in which operations began continue until one hour after use of the mammals regardless of distance from occurring without an active PAM acoustic source ceases or until 30 the source, as localization of animals system; and minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall may not always be possible. Acoustic • Operations with an active acoustic coordinate to ensure 360° visual monitoring is intended to further source, but without an operating PAM coverage around the vessel from the support visual monitoring (during system, do not exceed a cumulative total most appropriate observation posts, and daylight hours) in maintaining an of four hours in any 24-hour period. shall conduct visual observations using exclusion zone around the sound source binoculars and the naked eye while free that is clear of marine mammals. In Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer from distractions and in a consistent, cases where visual monitoring is not Zones systematic, and diligent manner. effective (e.g., due to weather, An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined PSOs shall establish and monitor the nighttime), acoustic monitoring may be area within which occurrence of a exclusion and buffer zones. These zones used to allow certain activities to occur, marine mammal triggers mitigation shall be based upon the radial distance as further detailed below. action intended to reduce the potential from the edges of the acoustic source Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory (rather than being based on the center of would take place in addition to the injury, disruption of critical behaviors. the array or around the vessel itself). visual monitoring program. Visual The PSOs would establish a minimum During use of the acoustic source (i.e., monitoring typically is not effective EZ with a 500 m radius for the 36 airgun anytime airguns are active, including during periods of poor visibility or at array. The 500 m EZ would be based on ramp-up), occurrences of marine night, and even with good visibility, is radial distance from any element of the mammals within the buffer zone (but unable to detect marine mammals when airgun array (rather than being based on outside the exclusion zone) shall be they are below the surface or beyond the center of the array or around the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26972 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

vessel itself). With certain exceptions buffer zones for 30 minutes prior to the shutdown at night or in periods of poor (described below), if a marine mammal initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance); visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp- appears within or enters this zone, the • Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as up is required, but if the shutdown acoustic source would be shut down. to minimize the time spent with the period was brief and constant The 500 m EZ is intended to be source activated prior to reaching the observation was maintained, pre- precautionary in the sense that it would designated run-in; clearance watch of 30 min is not • be expected to contain sound exceeding One of the PSOs conducting pre- required; and • the injury criteria for all cetacean clearance observations must be notified Testing of the acoustic source hearing groups, (based on the dual again immediately prior to initiating involving all elements requires ramp- ramp-up procedures and the operator criteria of SELcum and peak SPL), while up. Testing limited to individual source also providing a consistent, reasonably must receive confirmation from the PSO elements or strings does not require to proceed; ramp-up but does require pre-clearance observable zone within which PSOs • would typically be able to conduct Ramp-up may not be initiated if any of 30 min. effective observational effort. marine mammal is within the applicable exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine Shutdown and Powerdown Additionally, a 500 m EZ is expected to mammal is observed within the The shutdown of an airgun array minimize the likelihood that marine applicable exclusion zone or the buffer requires the immediate de-activation of mammals will be exposed to levels zone during the 30 minute pre-clearance all individual airgun elements of the likely to result in more severe period, ramp-up may not begin until the array while a powerdown requires behavioral responses. Although animal(s) has been observed exiting the immediate de-activation of all significantly greater distances may be zones or until an additional time period individual airgun elements of the array observed from an elevated platform has elapsed with no further sightings except the single 40-in 3 airgun. Any under good conditions, we believe that (15 minutes for small odontocetes and PSO on duty will have the authority to 500 m is likely regularly attainable for 30 minutes for all other species); delay the start of survey operations or to PSOs using the naked eye during typical • Ramp-up shall begin by activating a call for shutdown or powerdown of the conditions. single airgun of the smallest volume in acoustic source if a marine mammal is Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up the array and shall continue in stages by detected within the applicable doubling the number of active elements exclusion zone. The operator must also Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as at the commencement of each stage, establish and maintain clear lines of ‘‘soft start’’) means the gradual and with each stage of approximately the communication directly between PSOs systematic increase of emitted sound same duration. Duration shall not be on duty and crew controlling the levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up less than 20 minutes. The operator must acoustic source to ensure that shutdown begins by first activating a single airgun provide information to the PSO and powerdown commands are of the smallest volume, followed by documenting that appropriate conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs doubling the number of active elements procedures were followed; to maintain watch. When both visual in stages until the full complement of an • PSOs must monitor the exclusion and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all array’s airguns are active. Each stage and buffer zones during ramp-up, and detections will be immediately should be approximately the same ramp-up must cease and the source communicated to the remainder of the duration, and the total duration should must be shut down upon observation of on-duty PSO team for potential not be less than approximately 20 a marine mammal within the applicable verification of visual observations by the minutes. The intent of pre-clearance exclusion zone. Once ramp-up has acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no begun, observations of marine mammals by visual PSOs. When the airgun array protected species are observed within within the buffer zone do not require is active (i.e., anytime one or more the buffer zone prior to the beginning of shutdown or powerdown, but such airguns is active, including during ramp-up. During pre-clearance is the observation shall be communicated to ramp-up and powerdown) and (1) a only time observations of protected the operator to prepare for the potential marine mammal appears within or species in the buffer zone would shutdown or powerdown; enters the applicable exclusion zone prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of • Ramp-up may occur at times of and/or (2) a marine mammal (other than ramp-up). The intent of ramp-up is to poor visibility, including nighttime, if delphinids, see below) is detected warn protected species of pending appropriate acoustic monitoring has acoustically and localized within the seismic operations and to allow occurred with no detections in the 30 applicable exclusion zone, the acoustic sufficient time for those animals to leave minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. source will be shut down. When the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up Acoustic source activation may only shutdown is called for by a PSO, the procedure, involving a step-wise occur at times of poor visibility where acoustic source will be immediately increase in the number of airguns firing operational planning cannot reasonably deactivated and any dispute resolved and total array volume until all avoid such circumstances; only following deactivation. operational airguns are activated and • If the acoustic source is shut down Additionally, shutdown will occur the full volume is achieved, is required for brief periods (i.e., less than 30 whenever PAM alone (without visual at all times as part of the activation of minutes) for reasons other than that sighting), confirms presence of marine the acoustic source. All operators must described for shutdown and powerdown mammal(s) in the EZ. If the acoustic adhere to the following pre-clearance (e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be PSO cannot confirm presence within the and ramp-up requirements: activated again without ramp-up if PSOs EZ, visual PSOs will be notified but • The operator must notify a have maintained constant visual and/or shutdown is not required. designated PSO of the planned start of acoustic observation and no visual or Following a shutdown, airgun activity ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead acoustic detections of marine mammals would not resume until the marine PSO; the notification time should not be have occurred within the applicable mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. The less than 60 minutes prior to the exclusion zone. For any longer animal would be considered to have planned ramp-up in order to allow the shutdown, pre-clearance observation cleared the 500 m EZ if it is visually PSOs time to monitor the exclusion and and ramp-up are required. For any observed to have departed the 500 m

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26973

EZ, or it has not been seen within the production for purposes of bow riding, Vessel Strike Avoidance 500 m EZ for 15 min in the case of small with no apparent effect observed in odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in those delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., These measures apply to all vessels the case of mysticetes and large 2012). The potential for increased associated with the planned survey odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy shutdowns resulting from such a activity; however, we note that these sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked measure would require the Langseth to requirements do not apply in any case whales. revisit the missed track line to reacquire where compliance would create an The shutdown requirement can be data, resulting in an overall increase in imminent and serious threat to a person waived for small dolphins in which case the total sound energy input to the or vessel or to the extent that a vessel the acoustic source shall be powered marine environment and an increase in is restricted in its ability to maneuver down to the single 40-in 3 airgun if an the total duration over which the survey and, because of the restriction, cannot individual is visually detected within is active in a given area. Although other comply. These measures include the the exclusion zone. As defined here, the mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., following: small delphinoid group is intended to large delphinoids) are no more likely to 1. Vessel operators and crews must encompass those members of the Family incur auditory injury than are small maintain a vigilant watch for all marine Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily delphinoids, they are much less likely mammals and slow down, stop their approach the source vessel for purposes to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining vessel, or alter course, as appropriate of interacting with the vessel and/or a power-down/shutdown requirement and regardless of vessel size, to avoid airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This for large delphinoids would not have striking any marine mammal. A single exception to the shutdown requirement similar impacts in terms of either marine mammal at the surface may would apply solely to specific genera of practicability for the applicant or indicate the presence of submerged small dolphins—Tursiops, Delphinus, corollary increase in sound energy animals in the vicinity of the vessel; Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, output and time on the water. We do therefore, precautionary measures Lissodelphis, Stenella and Steno—The anticipate some benefit for a power- should be exercised when an animal is acoustic source shall be powered down down/shutdown requirement for large observed. A visual observer aboard the to 40-in 3 airgun if an individual delphinoids in that it simplifies vessel must monitor a vessel strike belonging to these genera is visually somewhat the total range of decision- avoidance zone around the vessel detected within the 500 m exclusion making for PSOs and may preclude any (specific distances detailed below), to zone. potential for physiological effects other ensure the potential for strike is Powerdown conditions shall be than to the auditory system as well as minimized. Visual observers monitoring maintained until delphinids for which some more severe behavioral reactions the vessel strike avoidance zone can be shutdown is waived are no longer for any such animals in close proximity either third-party observers or crew observed within the 500 m exclusion to the source vessel. members, but crew members zone, following which full-power Powerdown conditions shall be responsible for these duties must be operations may be resumed without maintained until the marine mammal(s) provided sufficient training to ramp-up. Visual PSOs may elect to of the above listed genera are no longer distinguish marine mammals from other waive the powerdown requirement if observed within the exclusion zone, phenomena and broadly to identify a delphinids for which shutdown is following which full-power operations marine mammal to broad taxonomic waived to be voluntarily approaching may be resumed without ramp-up. group (i.e., as a large whale or other the vessel for the purpose of interacting Additionally, visual PSOs may elect to marine mammal); with the vessel or towed gear, and may waive the powerdown requirement if 2. Vessel speeds must be reduced to use best professional judgment in the small dolphin(s) appear to be 10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs, making this decision. voluntarily approaching the vessel for pods, or large assemblages of any We include this small delphinoid the purpose of interacting with the marine mammal are observed near a exception because power-down/ vessel or towed gear, and may use best vessel; shutdown requirements for small professional judgment in making this 3. All vessels must maintain a delphinoids under all circumstances decision. Visual PSOs shall use best minimum separation distance of 100 m represent practicability concerns professional judgment in making the from large whales (i.e., sperm whales without likely commensurate benefits decision to call for a shutdown if there and all baleen whales); for the animals in question. Small is uncertainty regarding identification delphinoids are generally the most (i.e., whether the observed marine 4. All vessels must attempt to commonly observed marine mammals mammal(s) belongs to one of the maintain a minimum separation in the specific geographic region and delphinid genera for which shutdown is distance of 50 m from all other marine would typically be the only marine waived or one of the species with a mammals, with an exception made for mammals likely to intentionally larger exclusion zone). If PSOs observe those animals that approach the vessel; approach the vessel. As described any behaviors in a small delphinid for and above, auditory injury is extremely which shutdown is waived that indicate 5. When marine mammals are sighted unlikely to occur for mid-frequency an adverse reaction, then powerdown while a vessel is underway, the vessel cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), as this will be initiated immediately. should take action as necessary to avoid group is relatively insensitive to sound Upon implementation of shutdown, violating the relevant separation produced at the predominant the source may be reactivated after the distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel frequencies in an airgun pulse while marine mammal(s) has been observed to the animal’s course, avoid excessive also having a relatively high threshold exiting the applicable exclusion zone speed or abrupt changes in direction for the onset of auditory injury (i.e., (i.e., animal is not required to fully exit until the animal has left the area). If permanent threshold shift). the buffer zone where applicable) or marine mammals are sighted within the A large body of anecdotal evidence following 15 minutes for small relevant separation distance, the vessel indicates that small delphinoids odontocetes and 30 minutes for all other should reduce speed and shift the commonly approach vessels and/or species with no further observation of engine to neutral, not engaging the towed arrays during active sound the marine mammal(s). engines until animals are clear of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26974 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

area. This recommendation does not fitness and survival of individual training course information packet that apply to any vessel towing gear. marine mammals; or (2) populations, includes the name and qualifications We have carefully evaluated the suite species, or stocks; (i.e., experience, training completed, or of mitigation measures described here • Effects on marine mammal habitat educational background) of the and considered a range of other (e.g., marine mammal prey species, instructor(s), the course outline or measures in the context of ensuring that acoustic habitat, or other important syllabus, and course reference material we prescribe the means of effecting the physical components of marine as well as a document stating successful least practicable adverse impact on the mammal habitat); and completion of the course; affected marine mammal species and • Mitigation and monitoring • NMFS shall have one week to stocks and their habitat. Based on our effectiveness. approve PSOs from the time that the evaluation of the proposed measures, Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring necessary information is submitted, NMFS has preliminarily determined after which PSOs meeting the minimum that the mitigation measures provide the As described above, PSO observations requirements shall automatically be means effecting the least practicable would take place during daytime airgun considered approved; impact on the affected species or stocks operations and nighttime start ups (if • PSOs must successfully complete and their habitat, paying particular applicable) of the airguns. During relevant training, including completion attention to rookeries, mating grounds, seismic operations, at least five visual of all required coursework and passing and areas of similar significance. PSOs would be based aboard the (80 percent or greater) a written and/or Langseth. Monitoring shall be Proposed Monitoring and Reporting oral examination developed for the conducted in accordance with the training program; In order to issue an IHA for an following requirements: • PSOs must have successfully activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the • The operator shall provide PSOs attained a bachelor’s degree from an MMPA states that NMFS must set forth with bigeye binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150; accredited college or university with a requirements pertaining to the 2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus; major in one of the natural sciences, a monitoring and reporting of such taking. height control) of appropriate quality minimum of 30 semester hours or The MMPA implementing regulations at (i.e., Fujinon or equivalent) solely for equivalent in the biological sciences, 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that PSO use. These shall be pedestal- and at least one undergraduate course in requests for authorizations must include mounted on the deck at the most math or statistics; and the suggested means of accomplishing appropriate vantage point that provides • The educational requirements may the necessary monitoring and reporting for optimal sea surface observation, PSO be waived if the PSO has acquired the that will result in increased knowledge safety, and safe operation of the vessel; relevant skills through alternate of the species and of the level of taking • The operator will work with the experience. Requests for such a waiver or impacts on populations of marine selected third-party observer provider to shall be submitted to NMFS and must mammals that are expected to be ensure PSOs have all equipment include written justification. Requests present in the proposed action area. (including backup equipment) needed shall be granted or denied (with Effective reporting is critical both to to adequately perform necessary tasks, justification) by NMFS within one week compliance as well as ensuring that the including accurate determination of of receipt of submitted information. most value is obtained from the required distance and bearing to observed marine Alternate experience that may be monitoring. mammals. PSOs must have the Monitoring and reporting following requirements and considered includes, but is not limited requirements prescribed by NMFS qualifications: to (1) secondary education and/or should contribute to improved • PSOs shall be independent, experience comparable to PSO duties; understanding of one or more of the dedicated, trained visual and acoustic (2) previous work experience following: PSOs and must be employed by a third- conducting academic, commercial, or • Occurrence of marine mammal party observer provider; government-sponsored protected species or stocks in the area in which • PSOs shall have no tasks other than species surveys; or (3) previous work take is anticipated (e.g., presence, to conduct observational effort (visual or experience as a PSO; the PSO should abundance, distribution, density); acoustic), collect data, and demonstrate good standing and • Nature, scope, or context of likely communicate with and instruct relevant consistently good performance of PSO marine mammal exposure to potential vessel crew with regard to the presence duties. stressors/impacts (individual or of protected species and mitigation For data collection purposes, PSOs cumulative, acute or chronic), through requirements (including brief alerts shall use standardized data collection better understanding of: (1) Action or regarding maritime hazards); forms, whether hard copy or electronic. environment (e.g., source • PSOs shall have successfully PSOs shall record detailed information characterization, propagation, ambient completed an approved PSO training about any implementation of mitigation noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life course appropriate for their designated requirements, including the distance of history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs animals to the acoustic source and of marine mammal species with the are required to complete specialized description of specific actions that action; or (4) biological or behavioral training for operating PAM systems and ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or are encouraged to have familiarity with any observed changes in behavior before feeding areas); the vessel with which they will be and after implementation of mitigation, • Individual marine mammal working; and if shutdown was implemented, the responses (behavioral or physiological) • PSOs can act as acoustic or visual length of time before any subsequent to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or observers (but not at the same time) as ramp-up of the acoustic source. If cumulative), other stressors, or long as they demonstrate that their required mitigation was not cumulative impacts from multiple training and experience are sufficient to implemented, PSOs should record a stressors; perform the task at hand; description of the circumstances. At a • How anticipated responses to • NMFS must review and approve minimum, the following information stressors impact either: (1) Long-term PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant must be recorded:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26975

• Vessel names (source vessel and • Description (as many distinguishing L–DEO will be required to submit a other vessels associated with survey) features as possible of each individual draft comprehensive report to NMFS on and call signs; seen, including length, shape, color, all activities and monitoring results • PSO names and affiliations; pattern, scars or markings, shape and within 90 days of the completion of the • Dates of departures and returns to size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and survey or expiration of the IHA, port with port name; blow characteristics); whichever comes sooner. The report • Date and participants of PSO • Detailed behavior observations (e.g., must describe all activities conducted briefings; number of blows/breaths, number of and sightings of protected species near • Dates and times (Greenwich Mean surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, the activities, must provide full Time) of survey effort and times feeding, traveling; as explicit and documentation of methods, results, and corresponding with PSO effort; detailed as possible; note any observed interpretation pertaining to all • Vessel location (latitude/longitude) changes in behavior); monitoring, and must summarize the when survey effort began and ended and • Animal’s closest point of approach dates and locations of survey operations vessel location at beginning and end of (CPA) and/or closest distance from any and all protected species sightings visual PSO duty shifts; element of the acoustic source; (dates, times, locations, activities, • Vessel heading and speed at • Platform activity at time of sighting associated survey activities). The draft beginning and end of visual PSO duty (e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, report shall also include geo-referenced shifts and upon any line change; time-stamped vessel tracklines for all • shooting, data acquisition, other); and Environmental conditions while on • Description of any actions time periods during which airguns were visual survey (at beginning and end of implemented in response to the sighting operating. Tracklines should include PSO shift and whenever conditions (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and points recording any change in airgun changed significantly), including BSS time and location of the action. status (e.g., when the airguns began and any other relevant weather If a marine mammal is detected while operating, when they were turned off, or conditions including cloud cover, fog, using the PAM system, the following when they changed from full array to sun glare, and overall visibility to the information should be recorded: single gun or vice versa). GIS files shall horizon; • An acoustic encounter be provided in ESRI shapefile format • Factors that may have contributed identification number, and whether the and include the UTC date and time, to impaired observations during each latitude in decimal degrees, and detection was linked with a visual PSO shift change or as needed as longitude in decimal degrees. All sighting; environmental conditions changed (e.g., coordinates shall be referenced to the • Date and time when first and last vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); WGS84 geographic coordinate system. heard; and • In addition to the report, all raw • Survey activity information, such as Types and nature of sounds heard observational data shall be made acoustic source power output while in (e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst available to NMFS. The report must operation, number and volume of pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of summarize the information submitted in signal); and airguns operating in the array, tow • interim monthly reports as well as depth of the array, and any other notes Any additional information additional data collected as described of significance (i.e., pre-clearance, ramp- recorded such as water depth of the above and the IHA. The draft report up, shutdown, testing, shooting, ramp- hydrophone array, bearing of the animal must be accompanied by a certification up completion, end of operations, to the vessel (if determinable), species from the lead PSO as to the accuracy of streamers, etc.). or taxonomic group (if determinable), the report, and the lead PSO may submit The following information should be spectrogram screenshot, and any other directly NMFS a statement concerning recorded upon visual observation of any notable information. implementation and effectiveness of the protected species: Reporting required mitigation and monitoring. A • Watch status (sighting made by PSO final report must be submitted within 30 on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, A report would be submitted to NMFS days following resolution of any alternate vessel/platform); within 90 days after the end of the comments on the draft report. • PSO who sighted the animal; cruise. The report would describe the • Time of sighting; operations that were conducted and Reporting Injured or Dead Marine • Vessel location at time of sighting; sightings of marine mammals near the Mammals • Water depth; operations. The report would provide In the event that personnel involved • Direction of vessel’s travel (compass full documentation of methods, results, in survey activities covered by the direction); and interpretation pertaining to all authorization discover an injured or • Direction of animal’s travel relative monitoring. The 90-day report would dead marine mammal, the L–DEO shall to the vessel; summarize the dates and locations of report the incident to the Office of • Pace of the animal; seismic operations, and all marine Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and • Estimated distance to the animal mammal sightings (dates, times, to the NMFS West Coast Regional and its heading relative to vessel at locations, activities, associated seismic Stranding Coordinator as soon as initial sighting; survey activities). The report would also feasible. The report must include the • Identification of the animal (e.g., include estimates of the number and following information: genus/species, lowest possible nature of exposures that occurred above • Time, date, and location (latitude/ taxonomic level, or unidentified) and the harassment threshold based on PSO longitude) of the first discovery (and the composition of the group if there is observations and including an estimate updated location information if known a mix of species; of those that were not detected, in and applicable); • Estimated number of animals (high/ consideration of both the characteristics • Species identification (if known) or low/best); and behaviors of the species of marine description of the animal(s) involved; • Estimated number of animals by mammals that affect detectability, as • Condition of the animal(s) cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, well as the environmental factors that (including carcass condition if the calves, group composition, etc.); affect detectability. animal is dead);

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26976 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

• Observed behaviors of the • Vessel’s course/heading and what of the species, population size and animal(s), if alive; operations were being conducted (if growth rate where known, ongoing • If available, photographs or video applicable); sources of human-caused mortality, or footage of the animal(s); and • Status of all sound sources in use; ambient noise levels). • General circumstances under which • Description of avoidance measures/ To avoid repetition, our analysis the animal was discovered. requirements that were in place at the applies to all species listed in Tables 7 Additional Information Requests—If time of the strike and what additional and 9, given that NMFS expects the NMFS determines that the measures were taken, if any, to avoid anticipated effects of the proposed circumstances of any marine mammal strike; geophysical survey to be similar in • stranding found in the vicinity of the Environmental conditions (e.g., nature. Where there are meaningful activity suggest investigation of the wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea differences between species or stocks, or association with survey activities is state, cloud cover, visibility) groups of species, in anticipated warranted (example circumstances immediately preceding the strike; • individual responses to activities, noted below), and an investigation into Estimated size and length of animal impact of expected take on the the stranding is being pursued, NMFS that was struck; population due to differences in • Description of the behavior of the will submit a written request to the IHA- population status, or impacts on habitat, marine mammal immediately preceding holder indicating that the following NMFS has identified species-specific and following the strike; initial available information must be • factors to inform the analysis. provided as soon as possible, but no If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other NMFS does not anticipate that serious later than 7 business days after the injury or mortality would occur as a request for information. marine mammals immediately • preceding the strike; result of L–DEO’s proposed survey, even Status of all sound source use in the • in the absence of proposed mitigation. 48 hours preceding the estimated time Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., dead, injured but alive, injured and Thus the proposed authorization does of stranding and within 50 km of the not authorize any mortality. As discovery/notification of the stranding moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, status unknown, disappeared); discussed in the Potential Effects by NMFS; and section, non-auditory physical effects, • If available, description of the and • To the extent practicable, stranding, and vessel strike are not behavior of any marine mammal(s) expected to occur. observed preceding (i.e., within 48 photographs or video footage of the animal(s). We propose to authorize a limited hours and 50 km) and immediately after number of instances of Level A the discovery of the stranding. Negligible Impact Analysis and harassment of seven species and Level Examples of circumstances that could Determination B harassment of 26 marine mammal trigger the additional information NMFS has defined negligible impact species. However, we believe that any request include, but are not limited to, as an impact resulting from the PTS incurred in marine mammals as a the following: specified activity that cannot be result of the proposed activity would be • Atypical nearshore milling events reasonably expected to, and is not in the form of only a small degree of of live cetaceans; • Mass strandings of cetaceans (two reasonably likely to, adversely affect the PTS, not total deafness, and would be or more individuals, not including cow/ species or stock through effects on unlikely to affect the fitness of any calf pairs); annual rates of recruitment or survival individuals, because of the constant • Beaked whale strandings; (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact movement of both the Langseth and of • Necropsies with findings of finding is based on the lack of likely the marine mammals in the project pathologies that are unusual for the adverse effects on annual rates of areas, as well as the fact that the vessel species or area; or recruitment or survival (i.e., population- is not expected to remain in any one • Stranded animals with findings level effects). An estimate of the number area in which individual marine consistent with blast trauma. of takes alone is not enough information mammals would be expected to In the event that the investigation is on which to base an impact concentrate for an extended period of still inconclusive, the investigation of determination. In addition to time (i.e., since the duration of exposure the association of the survey activities is considering estimates of the number of to loud sounds will be relatively short). still warranted, and the investigation is marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ Also, as described above, we expect that still being pursued, NMFS may provide through harassment, NMFS considers marine mammals would be likely to additional information requests, in other factors, such as the likely nature move away from a sound source that writing, regarding the nature and of any responses (e.g., intensity, represents an aversive stimulus, location of survey operations prior to duration), the context of any responses especially at levels that would be the time period above. (e.g., critical reproductive time or expected to result in PTS, given Vessel Strike—In the event of a ship location, migration), as well as effects sufficient notice of the Langseth’s strike of a marine mammal by any vessel on habitat, and the likely effectiveness approach due to the vessel’s relatively involved in the activities covered by the of the mitigation. We also assess the low speed when conducting seismic authorization, L–DEO must shall report number, intensity, and context of surveys. We expect that the majority of the incident to OPR, NMFS and to estimated takes by evaluating this takes would be in the form of short-term regional stranding coordinators as soon information relative to population Level B behavioral harassment in the as feasible. The report must include the status. Consistent with the 1989 form of temporary avoidance of the area following information: preamble for NMFS’s implementing or decreased foraging (if such activity • Time, date, and location (latitude/ regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, were occurring), reactions that are longitude) of the incident; 1989), the impacts from other past and considered to be of low severity and • Species identification (if known) or ongoing anthropogenic activities are with no lasting biological consequences description of the animal(s) involved; incorporated into this analysis via their (e.g., Southall et al., 2007). The • Vessel’s speed during and leading impacts on the environmental baseline proposed geophysical survey occurs up to the incident; (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status outside of the U.S. EEZ and outside of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices 26977

any established Biologically Important probability of fitness impacts to any shutdowns, are expected to minimize Areas or critical habitat. individual, combined with the small potential impacts to marine mammals. Potential impacts to marine mammal portion of any of these stocks impacted, Based on the analysis contained habitat were discussed previously in we do not expect population-level herein of the likely effects of the this document (see Potential Effects of impacts to any of these species. The specified activity on marine mammals the Specified Activity on Marine other marine mammal species that may and their habitat, and taking into Mammals and their Habitat). Marine be taken by harassment during the consideration the implementation of the mammal habitat may be impacted by proposed survey are not listed as proposed monitoring and mitigation elevated sound levels, but these impacts threatened or endangered under the measures, NMFS preliminarily finds would be temporary. Prey species are ESA. With the exception of the northern mobile and are broadly distributed fur seal, none of the non-listed marine that the total marine mammal take from throughout the project areas; therefore, mammals for which we propose to the proposed activity will have a marine mammals that may be authorize take are considered negligible impact on all affected marine temporarily displaced during survey ‘‘depleted’’ or ‘‘strategic’’ by NMFS mammal species or stocks. activities are expected to be able to under the MMPA. Small Numbers resume foraging once they have moved NMFS concludes that exposures to away from areas with disturbing levels marine mammal species and stocks due As noted above, only small numbers of underwater noise. Because of the to L–DEO’s proposed survey would of incidental take may be authorized relatively short duration (∼19 days) and result in only short-term (temporary and under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of temporary nature of the disturbance, the short in duration) effects to individuals the MMPA for specified activities other availability of similar habitat and exposed. Animals may temporarily than military readiness activities. The resources in the surrounding area, the avoid the immediate area, but are not MMPA does not define small numbers impacts to marine mammals and the expected to permanently abandon the and so, in practice, where estimated food sources that they utilize are not area. Major shifts in habitat use, numbers are available, NMFS compares expected to cause significant or long- distribution, or foraging success are not the number of individuals taken to the term consequences for individual expected. NMFS does not anticipate the most appropriate estimation of marine mammals or their populations. proposed take estimates to impact abundance of the relevant species or The activity is expected to impact a annual rates of recruitment or survival. stock in our determination of whether small percentage of all marine mammal In summary and as described above, an authorization is limited to small stocks that would be affected by L– the following factors primarily support numbers of marine mammals. DEO’s proposed survey (less than seven our preliminary determination that the Additionally, other qualitative factors percent of all species). Additionally, the impacts resulting from this activity are may be considered in the analysis, such acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the proposed not expected to adversely affect the as the temporal or spatial scale of the survey would be small relative to the species or stock through effects on activities. ranges of the marine mammals that annual rates of recruitment or survival: would potentially be affected. Sound No mortality is anticipated or Table 9 provides the numbers of take levels would increase in the marine authorized; by Level A and Level B harassment environment in a relatively small area • The proposed activity is temporary proposed for authorization, which are surrounding the vessel compared to the and of relatively short duration (19 used herefor purposes of the small range of the marine mammals within the days); numbers analysis. The numbers of proposed survey area. • The anticipated impacts of the marine mammals that we propose for The proposed mitigation measures are proposed activity on marine mammals authorized take would be considered expected to reduce the number and/or would primarily be temporary small relative to the relevant severity of takes by allowing for behavioral changes due to avoidance of populations (less than seven percent for detection of marine mammals in the the area around the survey vessel; all species and stocks) for the species for vicinity of the vessel by visual and • The number of instances of PTS which abundance estimates are acoustic observers, and by minimizing that may occur are expected to be very available. the severity of any potential exposures small in number. Instances of PTS that Based on the analysis contained via power downs and/or shutdowns of are incurred in marine mammals would herein of the proposed activity the airgun array. Based on previous be of a low level, due to constant (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring reports for substantially movement of the vessel and of the monitoring measures) and the similar activities that have been marine mammals in the area, and the anticipated take of marine mammals, previously authorized by NMFS, we nature of the survey design (not NMFS preliminarily finds that small expect that the proposed mitigation will concentrated in areas of high marine numbers of marine mammals will be be effective in preventing at least some mammal concentration); taken relative to the population size of extent of potential PTS in marine • The availability of alternate areas of the affected species or stocks. mammals that may otherwise occur in similar habitat value for marine the absence of the proposed mitigation. mammals to temporarily vacate the Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis The ESA-listed marine mammal survey area during the proposed survey and Determination species under our jurisdiction that are to avoid exposure to sounds from the likely to be taken by the proposed activity; There are no relevant subsistence uses surveys include the endangered sei, fin, • The potential adverse effects on fish of the affected marine mammal stocks or blue, sperm, and Central America DPS or invertebrate species that serve as prey species implicated by this action. humpback whales, and the threatened species for marine mammals from the Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily Mexico DPS humpback whale and proposed survey would be temporary determined that the total taking of Guadalupe fur seal. We propose to and spatially limited; and affected species or stocks would not authorize very small numbers of takes • The proposed mitigation measures, have an unmitigable adverse impact on for these species relative to their including visual and acoustic the availability of such species or stocks population sizes. Given the low monitoring, power-downs, and for taking for subsistence purposes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2 26978 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2019 / Notices

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 2019, provided the previously (1) An explanation that the activities Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and to be conducted under the proposed Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. reporting requirements are incorporated. Renewal are identical to the activities 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal A draft of the proposed IHA can be analyzed under the initial IHA, are a agency insure that any action it found at https:// subset of the activities, or include authorizes, funds, or carries out is not www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ changes so minor (e.g., reduction in pile likely to jeopardize the continued incidental-take-authorizations-under- size) that the changes do not affect the marine-mammal-protection-act. existence of any endangered or previous analyses, mitigation and threatened species or result in the Request for Public Comments monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the exception of destruction or adverse modification of We request comment on our analyses, designated critical habitat. To ensure the proposed authorization, and any reducing the type or amount of take ESA compliance for the issuance of other aspect of this Notice of Proposed because only a subset of the initially IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this IHA for L–DEO’s proposed survey. We analyzed activities remain to be case with the ESA Interagency also request comment on the potential completed under the Renewal); and Cooperation Division whenever we for renewal of this proposed IHA as (2) A preliminary monitoring report propose to authorize take for described in the paragraph below. showing the results of the required endangered or threatened species. Please include with your comments any monitoring to date and an explanation NMFS is proposing to authorize take supporting data or literature citations to showing that the monitoring results do of sei whales, fin whales, blue whales, help inform our final decision on the not indicate impacts of a scale or nature sperm whales, Central America DPS request for MMPA authorization. not previously analyzed or authorized. humpback whales, Mexico DPS On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may • humpback whales and Guadalupe fur issue a one-year IHA renewal with an Upon review of the request for seals which are listed under the ESA. expedited public comment period (15 renewal, the status of the affected The Permit and Conservation Division days) when (1) another year of identical species or stocks, and any other has requested initiation of Section 7 or nearly identical activities as pertinent information, NMFS consultation with the Interagency described in the Specified Activities determines that there are no more than Cooperation Division for the issuance of section is planned or (2) the activities minor changes in the activities, the this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA would not be completed by the time the mitigation and monitoring measures consultation prior to reaching a IHA expires and a second IHA would will remain the same and appropriate, determination regarding the proposed allow for completion of the activities and the findings in the initial IHA issuance of the authorization. beyond that described in the Dates and remain valid. Proposed Authorization Duration section, provided all of the Dated: June 3, 2019. following conditions are met: As a result of these preliminary • A request for renewal is received no Donna S. Wieting, determinations, NMFS proposes to issue later than 60 days prior to expiration of Director, Office of Protected Resources, an IHA to L–DEO for conducting a the current IHA; National Marine Fisheries Service. marine geophysical survey in the • The request for renewal must [FR Doc. 2019–12010 Filed 6–7–19; 8:45 am] northeast Pacific Ocean in summer of include the following: BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jun 07, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10JNN2.SGM 10JNN2 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES2