81 FR 2174 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the South Atlantic Ocean, January to March 2016
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 10 (January 15, 2016)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 10 (January 15, 2016)
| Page Range | 2174-2189 | |
| FR Document | 2016-00660 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 2174-2189] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-00660] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE291 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the South Atlantic Ocean, January to March 2016 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) implementing regulations, we hereby give notice that we have issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (Authorization) to Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (Lamont-Doherty), a component of Columbia University, in collaboration with the National Science Foundation (NSF), to take marine mammals, by harassment, in the South Atlantic Ocean, January through March 2016. DATES: Effective January 4 through March 31, 2016. ADDRESSES: A copy of the final Authorization and application and other supporting documents are available by writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, by telephoning the contacts listed here, or by visiting the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. The NSF prepared a draft Environmental Analysis in accordance with Executive Order 12114, ``Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions'' for their proposed federal action. The environmental analysis titled ``Environmental Analysis of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the South Atlantic Ocean, Austral Summer 2016,'' prepared by LGL, Ltd. environmental research associates, on behalf of NSF and Lamont-Doherty is available at the same internet address. NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) titled, ``Proposed Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the South Atlantic Ocean, January-March 2016,'' in accordance with NEPA and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6. To obtain an electronic copy of these documents, write to the previously mentioned address, telephone the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or download the files at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. NMFS also issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to evaluate the effects of the survey and Authorization on marine species listed as threatened and endangered. The Biological Opinion is available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/consultations/opinions.htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after NMFS provides a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for review and comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) the taking is limited to harassment. An Authorization shall be granted for the incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). The Authorization must also set forth the permissible methods of taking; other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat (i.e., mitigation); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.'' Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA at 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(A) defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the [[Page 2175]] potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Summary of Request On July 29, 2015, NMFS received an application from Lamont-Doherty requesting that NMFS issue an Authorization for the take of marine mammals, incidental to Texas A&M University and the University of Texas conducting a seismic survey in the South Atlantic Ocean, January through March 2016. Following the initial application submission, Lamont-Doherty submitted a revised application with revised take estimates. NMFS considered the revised application adequate and complete on October 30, 2015. Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct a two-dimensional (2-D), seismic survey on the R/V Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth), a vessel owned by NSF and operated on its behalf by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty in international waters in the South Atlantic Ocean approximately 1,938 kilometers (km) (1,232 miles [mi]) southeast of the west coast of Brazil for approximately 22 days. The following specific aspect of the proposed activity has the potential to take marine mammals: Increased underwater sound generated during the operation of the seismic airgun array. We anticipate that take, by Level B harassment, of 38 species of marine mammals could result from the specified activity. Although unlikely, NMFS also anticipates that a small level of take by Level A harassment of 16 species of marine mammals could occur during the proposed survey. Description of the Specified Activity Overview Lamont-Doherty plans to use one source vessel, the Langseth, an array of 36 airguns as the energy source, a receiving system of seven ocean bottom seismometers (OBS), and a single 8-kilometer (km) hydrophone streamer. In addition to the operations of the airguns, Lamont-Doherty intends to operate a multibeam echosounder and a sub- bottom profiler continuously throughout the proposed survey. However, Lamont-Doherty will not operate the multibeam echosounder and sub- bottom profiler during transits to and from the survey area and in between transits to each of the five OBS tracklines (i.e., when the airguns are not operating). The purpose of the survey is to collect and analyze seismic refraction data from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge westward to the Rio Grande Rise to study the evolution of the South Atlantic Ocean crust on million-year timescales and the evolution and stability of low- spreading ridges over time. NMFS refers the public to Lamont-Doherty's application (see page 3) for more detailed information on the proposed research objectives. Dates and Duration Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct the seismic survey for approximately 42 days, which includes approximately 22 days of seismic surveying with 10 days of OBS deployment and retrieval. The proposed study (e.g., equipment testing, startup, line changes, repeat coverage of any areas, and equipment recovery) would include approximately 528 hours of airgun operations (i.e., 22 days over 24 hours). Some minor deviation from Lamont-Doherty's requested dates of January through March 2016 is possible, depending on logistics, weather conditions, and the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard. Thus, the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be effective from early January through March 31, 2016. Specified Geographic Region Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct the proposed seismic survey in the South Atlantic Ocean, located approximately between 10-35[deg] W, 27-33[deg] S (see Figure 1). Water depths in the survey area range from approximately 1,150 to 4,800 meters (m) (3,773 feet [ft] to 2.98 miles [mi]). Principal and Collaborating Investigators The proposed survey's principal investigators are Drs. R. Reece and R. Carlson (Texas A&M University) and Dr. G. Christeson (University of Texas at Austin). Detailed Description of the Specified Activities Transit Activities The Langseth would depart and return from Cape Verde and transit to the survey area. Some minor deviations with the transit schedule and port locations are possible depending on logistics and weather. Vessel Specifications NMFS outlined the vessel's specifications in the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015). NMFS does not repeat the information here as the vessel's specifications have not changed between the notice of proposed Authorization and this notice of an issued Authorization. Data Acquisition Activities NMFS outlined the details regarding Lamont-Doherty's data acquisition activities using the airguns, multibeam echosounder, and the sub-bottom profiler in the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015). NMFS does not repeat the information here as the data acquisition activities have not changed between the notice of proposed Authorization and this notice of an issued Authorization. For a more detailed description of the authorized action (i.e., vessel and acoustic source specifications, metrics, characteristics of airgun pulses, predicted sound levels of airguns, etc.,) please see the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015) and associated documents referenced above this section. Comments and Responses NMFS published a notice of receipt of Lamont-Doherty's application and proposed Authorization in the Federal Register on December 1, 2015 (80 FR 75355). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). NMFS has posted the comments online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. NMFS addresses any comments specific to Lamont-Doherty's application related to the statutory and regulatory requirements or findings that NMFS must make under the MMPA in order to issue an Authorization. The following is a summary of the public comments and NMFS' responses. Modeling Exclusion and Buffer Zones Comment 1: The Commission expressed concerns regarding Lamont- Doherty's method to estimate exclusion and buffer zones. It stated that the model is not the best available science because it assumes the following: Spherical spreading, constant sound speed, and no bottom interactions. In light of their concerns, the Commission recommended that NMFS require Lamont-Doherty to re-estimate the proposed exclusion and buffer zones incorporating site-specific environmental and operational parameters (e.g., sound speed profiles, refraction, bathymetry/water depth, sediment properties/bottom loss, or absorption coefficients) into their model. [[Page 2176]] Response: NMFS acknowledges the Commission's concerns about Lamont- Doherty's current modeling approach for estimating exclusion and buffer zones and also acknowledges that Lamont-Doherty did not incorporate site-specific sound speed profiles, bathymetry, and sediment characteristics of the research area in the current approach to estimate those zones for this proposed seismic survey. Lamont-Doherty's application (LGL, 2015) and the NSF's draft environmental analyses (NSF, 2015) describe the approach to establishing mitigation exclusion and buffer zones. In summary, Lamont- Doherty acquired field measurements for several array configurations at shallow- and deep-water depths during acoustic verification studies conducted in the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and in 2007 and 2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Based on the empirical data from those studies, Lamont-Doherty developed a sound propagation modeling approach that predicts received sound levels as a function of distance from a particular airgun array configuration in deep water. For this proposed survey, Lamont-Doherty developed the exclusion and buffer zones for the airgun array based on the empirically-derived measurements from the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey (Fig. 5a in Appendix H of the NSF's 2011 PEIS). Based upon the best available information (i.e., the three data points, two of which are peer- reviewed, discussed in this response), NMFS finds that the exclusion and buffer zone calculations are appropriate for use in this particular survey. In 2015, Lamont-Doherty explored solutions to this issue (i.e., the question of whether the Gulf of Mexico calibration data adequately informs the model to predict exclusion isopleths in other areas) by conducting a retrospective sound power analysis of one of the lines acquired during Lamont-Doherty's seismic survey offshore New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, 2015). NMFS presented a comparison of the predicted radii (i.e., modeled exclusion zones) with radii based on in situ measurements (i.e., the upper bound [95th percentile] of the cross-line prediction) in a previous notice of issued Authorization (see Table 1, 80 FR 27635, May 14, 2015) for Lamont-Doherty. Briefly, Crone's (2015) preliminary analysis, specific to the proposed survey site offshore New Jersey, confirmed that in-situ, site specific measurements and estimates of the 160- and 180-decibel (dB) isopleths collected by the Langseth's hydrophone streamer in shallow water were smaller than the modeled (i.e., predicted) exclusion and buffer zones proposed for use in two seismic surveys conducted offshore New Jersey in shallow water in 2014 and 2015. In that particular case, Crone's (2015) results show that Lamont-Doherty's modeled exclusion (180-dB) and buffer (160-dB) zones were approximately 28 and 33 percent smaller than the in situ, site-specific measurements confirming that Lamont-Doherty's model was conservative in that case, as emphasized by Lamont-Doherty in its application and in supporting environmental documentation. The following is a summary of two additional analyses of in-situ data that support Lamont-Doherty's use of the modeled exclusion and buffer zones in this particular case. In 2010, Lamont-Doherty assessed the accuracy of their modeling approach by comparing the sound levels of the field measurements acquired in the Gulf of Mexico study to their model predictions (Diebold et al., 2010). They reported that the observed sound levels from the field measurements fell almost entirely below the predicted mitigation radii curve for deep water (greater than 1,000 meters [m]; 3280.8 feet [ft]) (Diebold et al., 2010). In 2012, Lamont-Doherty used a similar process to model exclusion and buffer zones for a shallow-water seismic survey in the northeast Pacific Ocean offshore Washington in 2012. Lamont-Doherty conducted the shallow-water survey using the same airgun configuration proposed for this seismic survey (i.e., 6,600 cubic inches [in\3\]) and recorded the received sound levels on the shelf and slope off Washington State using the Langseth's 8-kilometer (km) hydrophone streamer. Crone et al. (2014) analyzed those received sound levels from the 2012 survey and confirmed that in-situ, site specific measurements and estimates of the 160- and 180-dB isopleths collected by the Langseth's hydrophone streamer in shallow water were two to three times smaller than what Lamont-Doherty's modeling approach predicted. While the results confirm bathymetry's role in sound propagation, Crone et al. (2014) were able to confirm that the empirical measurements from the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey (the same measurements used to inform Lamont- Doherty's modeling approach for this seismic survey in the South Atlantic Ocean) overestimated the size of the exclusion and buffer zones for the shallow-water 2012 survey off Washington and were thus precautionary, in that particular case. The model Lamont-Doherty currently uses does not allow for the consideration of environmental and site-specific parameters as requested by the Commission. NMFS continues to work with Lamont-Doherty and the NSF to address the issue of incorporating site-specific information to further inform the analysis and development of mitigation measures in oceanic and coastal areas for future seismic surveys with Lamont-Doherty. However, Lamont-Doherty's current modeling approach (supported by the three data points discussed previously) represents the best available information for NMFS to reach determinations for the Authorization. As described earlier, the comparisons of Lamont-Doherty's model results and the field data collected in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Washington, and offshore New Jersey illustrate a degree of conservativeness built into Lamont- Doherty's model for deep water, which NMFS expects to offset some of the limitations of the model to capture the variability resulting from site-specific factors. Lamont-Doherty has conveyed to NMFS that additional modeling efforts to refine the process and conduct comparative analysis may be possible with the availability of research funds and other resources. Obtaining research funds is typically through a competitive process, including those submitted to U.S. Federal agencies. The use of models for calculating buffer and exclusion zone radii and for developing take estimates is not a requirement of the MMPA incidental take authorization process. Furthermore, NMFS does not provide specific guidance on model parameters nor prescribe a specific model for applicants as part of the MMPA incidental take authorization process at this time. There is a level of variability not only with parameters in the models, but also the uncertainty associated with data used in models, and therefore, the quality of the model results submitted by applicants. NMFS considers this variability when evaluating applications and the take estimates and mitigation that the model informs. NMFS takes into consideration the model used and its results in determining the potential impacts to marine mammals; however, it is just one component of the analysis during the MMPA consultation process as NMFS also takes into consideration other factors associated with the proposed action, (e.g., geographic location, duration of activities, context, intensity, etc.). [[Page 2177]] Monitoring and Reporting Comment 2: The Commission has indicated that monitoring and reporting requirements should provide a reasonably accurate assessment of the types of taking and the numbers of animals taken by the proposed activity. They recommend that NMFS and Lamont-Doherty incorporate an accounting for animals at the surface but not detected [i.e., g(0) values] and for animals present but underwater and not available for sighting [i.e., f(0) values] into monitoring efforts. In light of the Commission's previous comments, they recommend that NMFS consult with the funding agency (i.e., the NSF) and individual applicants (e.g., Lamont-Doherty and other related entities) to develop, validate, and implement a monitoring program that provides a scientifically sound, reasonably accurate assessment of the types of marine mammal takes and the actual numbers of marine mammals taken, accounting for applicable g(0) and f(0) values. They also recommend that Lamont-Doherty and other relevant entities continue to collect appropriate sightings data in the field which NMFS can then pool to determine g(0) and f(0) values relevant to the various geophysical survey types. Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission's recommendation to improve the post-survey reporting requirements for NSF and Lamont- Doherty by accounting for takes using applicable g(0) and f(0) values. In December 2015, NMFS met with Commission representatives to discuss ways to develop and validate a monitoring program that provides a scientifically sound, reasonably accurate assessment of the types of marine mammal takes and the actual numbers of marine mammals taken, accounting for applicable g(0) and f(0) values. We will work with NSF to develop ways to improve their post-survey take estimates and have included a requirement in the South Atlantic Authorization for them to do so in collaboration with us and the Commission. Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity Table 1 in this notice provides the following: All marine mammal species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the proposed activity area; information on those species' regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); abundance; and occurrence and seasonality in the proposed activity area. Based on the best available information, NMFS expects that there may be a potential for certain cetacean and pinniped species to occur within the survey area (i.e., potentially be taken) and have included additional information for these species in Table 1 of this notice. NMFS will carry forward analyses on the species listed in Table 1 later in this document. Table 1--General Information on Marine Mammals That Could Potentially Occur in the Proposed Survey Areas Within the South Atlantic Ocean [January through March 2016] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regulatory status Species abundance Local occurrence Species 1 2 \3\ and range \4\ Season \5\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Antarctic minke whale MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \6\ 515,000........ Uncommon shelf, Winter. (Balaenoptera bonaerensis). pelagic. Blue whale (B. musculus)........ MMPA--D............ \7\ 2,300.......... Rare coastal, Winter. ESA--EN............ slope, pelagic. Bryde's whale (B. edeni)........ MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \8\ 43,633......... Rare coastal, Winter. pelagic. Common (dwarf) minke whale (B. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \6\ 515,000........ Uncommon shelf, Winter. acutorostrata). pelagic. Fin whale (B. physalus)......... MMPA--D, ESA--EN... \9\ 22,000......... Uncommon Coastal, Fall. pelagic. Humpback whale (Megaptera MMPA--D, ESA--EN... \10\ 42,000........ Uncommon Coastal, Winter. novaeangliae). shelf, pelagic. Sei whale (B. borealis)......... MMPA--D, ESA--EN... \11\ 10,000........ Uncommon Shelf Winter. edges, pelagic. Southern right whale (Eubalaena MMPA--D, ESA--EN... \12\ 12,000........ Uncommon Coastal, Winter. australis). shelf. Sperm whale (Physeter MMPA--D, ESA--EN... \13\ 355,000....... Uncommon Slope, Winter. macrocephalus). pelagic. Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima).. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 3,785.............. Rare Shelf, slope, Winter. pelagic. Pygmy sperm whale (K. breviceps) MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 3,785.............. Rare Shelf, slope, Winter. pelagic. Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Uncommon Slope.... Winter. cavirostris). Andrew's beaked whale MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare Pelagic...... Winter. (Mesoplodon bowdoini). Arnoux's beaked whale (Berardius MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare Pelagic...... Winter. arnuxii). Blainville's beaked whale MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare Slope, Winter. (M.densirostris). pelagic. Gervais' beaked whale (M. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare pelagic...... Winter. europaeus). Gray's beaked whale (M. grayi).. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare Pelagic...... Winter. Hector's beaked whale (M. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare pelagic...... Winter. hectori). Shepherd's beaked whale MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare pelagic...... Winter. (Tasmacetus shepherdi). Strap-toothed beaked whale (M. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare pelagic...... Winter. layardii). True's beaked whale (M. mirus).. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 7,092.............. Rare pelagic...... Winter. Southern bottlenose whale MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 599,300....... Rare Coastal, Winter. (Hyperoodon planifrons). shelf, pelagic. Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \15\ 600,000....... Uncommon Coastal, Winter. truncatus). pelagic. [[Page 2178]] Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 271................ Uncommon shelf, Winter. bredanensis). pelagic. Pantropical spotted dolphin MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 3,333.............. Uncommon Coastal, Winter. (Stenella attennuata). slope, pelagic. Striped dolphin (S. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 54,807............. Rare Pelagic...... Winter. coeruleoalba). Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \16\ 289,000....... Uncommon Pelagic.. Winter. hosei). Spinner dolphin (Stenella MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \16\ 1,200,000..... Rare Pelagic...... Winter. longirostris). Atlantic spotted dolphin (S. MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 44,715............. Uncommon Pelagic.. Winter. frontalis). Clymene dolphin (S. clymene).... MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 6,215.............. Rare Pelagic...... Winter. Risso's dolphin (Grampus MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 20,692............. Uncommon Pelagic.. Winter. griseus). Long-beaked common dolphin MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \17\ 20,000........ Rare Coastal...... Winter. (Delphinus capensis). Short-beaked common dolphin MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 173,486............ Uncommon Coastal, Winter. (Delphinus delphis). shelf. Southern right whale dolphin MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. Unknown............ Uncommon Coastal, Winter. (Lissodelphis peronii). shelf. Melon-headed whale MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \18\ 50,000........ Uncommon Coastal, Winter. (Peponocephala electra). shelf, pelagic. Pygmy killer whale (Feresa MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 3,585.............. Uncommon Coastal, Winter. attenuate). shelf, pelagic. False killer whale (Pseudorca MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. 442................ Rare Pelagic...... Winter. crassidens). Killer whale (Orcinus orca)..... MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \19\ 50,000........ Uncommon Coastal, Winter. pelagic. Long-finned pilot whale MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 200,000....... Uncommon Pelagic.. Winter. (Globicephala melas). Short-finned pilot whale MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \14\ 200,000....... Uncommon Pelagic.. Winter. (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Southern Elephant Seal (Mirounga MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \20\ 650,000....... Rare Coastal...... Winter. leonina). Subantarctic fur seal MMPA--NC, ESA--NL.. \21\ 310,000....... Uncommon Pelagic.. Winter. (Arctocephalus tropicalis). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ MMPA: NC= Not classified; D= Depleted; ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed. \3\ Except where noted abundance information obtained from NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-231, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments-2014 (Waring et al., 2015) and the Draft 2015 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (in review, 2015). NA = Not available. \4\ Occurrence and range information available from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). \5\ NA= Not available due to limited information on that species' seasonal occurrence in the proposed area. \6\ Best estimate from the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) estimate for the minke whale population (Southern Hemisphere, 2004). \7\ Best estimate from the IWC's estimate for the blue whale population (Southern Hemisphere, 1998). \8\ Estimate from IUCN Web page for Bryde's whales. Southern Hemisphere: Southern Indian Ocean (13,854); western South Pacific (16,585); and eastern South Pacific (13,194) (IWC, 1981). \9\ Best estimate from the IWC's estimate for the fin whale population (East Greenland to Faroes, 2007). \10\ Best estimate from the IWC's estimate for the humpback whale population (Southern Hemisphere, partial coverage of Antarctic feeding grounds, 2007). \11\ Estimate from the IUCN Web page for sei whales (IWC, 1996). \12\ Best estimate from the IWC's estimate for the southern right whale population (Southern Hemisphere, 2009). \13\ Whitehead, (2002). \14\ Abundance estimates for beaked, southern bottlenose, and pilot whales south of the Antarctic Convergence in January (Kasamatsu and Joyce, 1995). \15\ Wells and Scott, (2009). \16\ Jefferson et al., (2008). \17\ Cockcroft and Peddemors, (1990). \18\ Estimate from the IUCN Web page for melon-headed whales (IUCN, 2015). \19\ Estimate from the IUCN Web page for killer whales (IUCN, 2015). \20\ Estimate from the IUCN Web page for southern elephant seals (IUCN, 2015). \21\ Arnoud, (2009). NMFS refers the public to Lamont-Doherty's application, NSF's draft environmental analysis (see ADDRESSES), NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- NE-231, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments-2014 (Waring et al., 2015); and the Draft 2015 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (in review, 2015) available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.htm for further information on the biology and local distribution of these species. Potential Effects of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals NMFS provided a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., seismic airgun operations, vessel movement, and entanglement) impact marine mammals (via observations or scientific studies) in the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015). The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this document will include a quantitative discussion of the number of marine [[Page 2179]] mammals anticipated to be taken by this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how this specific proposed activity would impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section, the ``Mitigation'' section, and the ``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. NMFS provided a background of potential effects of Lamont-Doherty's activities in the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015). Operating active acoustic sources, such as airgun arrays, has the potential for adverse effects on marine mammals. The majority of anticipated impacts would be from the use of acoustic sources. The effects of sounds from airgun pulses might include one or more of the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, and temporary or permanent hearing impairment or non- auditory effects (Richardson et al., 1995). However, for reasons discussed in the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015), it is unlikely that there would be any cases of temporary or permanent hearing impairment resulting from Lamont- Doherty's activities. NMFS' predicted estimates for Level A harassment take for some species are likely overestimates of the injury that will occur. NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required visual and acoustic mitigation measures would avoid Level A take in some instances. As outlined in previous NMFS documents, the effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, often depending on species and contextual factors (based on Richardson et al., 1995). In the Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals section (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015); NMFS included a qualitative discussion of the different ways that Lamont-Doherty's seismic survey may potentially affect marine mammals. Behavior: Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to anthropogenic noise. These behavioral reactions are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into water from haulouts or rookeries). Masking: Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, which differ among species, but include communication between individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, avoiding predators, and learning about their environment (Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). Introduced underwater sound may through masking reduce the effective communication distance of a marine mammal species if the frequency of the source is close to that of a signal that needs to be detected by the marine mammal, and if the anthropogenic sound is present for a significant fraction of the time (Richardson et al., 1995). For the airgun sound generated from Lamont-Doherty's seismic survey, sound will consist of low frequency (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely short durations (less than one second). Masking from airguns is more likely in low-frequency marine mammals like mysticetes. There is little concern that masking would occur near the sound source due to the brief duration of these pulses and relative silence between air gun shots (approximately 22 to 170 seconds). The sounds important to small odontocete communication are predominantly at much higher frequencies than the dominant components of airgun sounds, thus limiting the potential for masking in those species. Hearing Impairment: Hearing impairment (either temporary or permanent) is also unlikely. Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause permanent threshold shift as compared with temporary threshold shift, it is considerably less likely that permanent threshold shift would occur during the seismic survey. Cetaceans generally avoid the immediate area around operating seismic vessels, as do some other marine mammals. Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but their avoidance reactions are generally not as strong or consistent compared to cetacean reactions. Also, NMFS expects that some individuals would avoid the source at levels expected to result in injury. Nonetheless, although NMFS expects that Level A harassment is unlikely to occur, we have conservatively authorized and analyzed a low level of permanent threshold shift occurrences for certain species. We acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of animals that might incur permanent threshold shift; however, we are proposing to authorize the modeled number of Level A takes, which does not take the mitigation or avoidance into consideration. Vessel Movement and Entanglement: The Langseth will operate at a relatively slow speed (typically 4.6 knots [8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph]) when conducting the survey. Protected species observers would monitor for marine mammals, which would trigger mitigation measures, including vessel avoidance where safe. Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate nor do we authorize takes of marine mammals from vessel strike or entanglement. NMFS refers the reader to Lamont-Doherty's application and the NSF's environmental analysis for additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels. NMFS has reviewed these data and based our decision on the relevant information. Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat NMFS included a detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and behavioral effects on marine mammal prey items (e.g., fish and invertebrates) in the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015). While NMFS anticipates that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary ensonification, the impact to habitat is temporary and reversible. Further, NMFS also considered these impacts to marine mammals in detail in the notice of proposed Authorization as behavioral modification. The main impact associated with the activity would be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals. Mitigation In order to issue an Incidental Harassment Authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant). Lamont-Doherty has reviewed the following source documents and has [[Page 2180]] incorporated a suite of proposed mitigation measures into their project description. (1) Protocols used during previous Lamont-Doherty and NSF-funded seismic research cruises as approved by us and detailed in the NSF's 2011 PEIS and 2015 draft environmental analysis; (2) Previous incidental harassment authorizations applications and authorizations that NMFS has approved and authorized; and (3) Recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007). To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, Lamont-Doherty, and/or its designees have proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals: (1) Vessel-based visual mitigation monitoring; (2) Proposed exclusion zones; (3) Power down procedures; (4) Shutdown procedures; (5) Ramp-up procedures; and (6) Speed and course alterations. NMFS reviewed Lamont-Doherty's proposed mitigation measures and has proposed an additional measure to effect the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals. They are: (1) Expanded power down procedures for concentrations of six or more whales that do not appear to be traveling (e.g., feeding, socializing, etc.). Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation Monitoring Lamont-Doherty would position observers aboard the seismic source vessel to watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during any start-ups at night. Observers would also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations after an extended shutdown (i.e., greater than approximately eight minutes for this proposed cruise). When feasible, the observers would conduct observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without airgun operations and between acquisition periods. Based on the observations, the Langseth would power down or shutdown the airguns when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter a designated exclusion zone for cetaceans or pinnipeds. During seismic operations, at least four protected species observers would be aboard the Langseth. Lamont-Doherty would appoint the observers with NMFS concurrence, and they would conduct observations during ongoing daytime operations and nighttime ramp-ups of the airgun array. During the majority of seismic operations, two observers would be on duty from the observation tower to monitor marine mammals near the seismic vessel. Using two observers would increase the effectiveness of detecting animals near the source vessel. However, during mealtimes and bathroom breaks, it is sometimes difficult to have two observers on effort, but at least one observer would be on watch during bathroom breaks and mealtimes. Observers would be on duty in shifts of no longer than four hours in duration. Two observers on the Langseth would also be on visual watch during all nighttime ramp-ups of the seismic airguns. A third observer would monitor the passive acoustic monitoring equipment 24 hours a day to detect vocalizing marine mammals present in the action area. In summary, a typical daytime cruise would have scheduled two observers (visual) on duty from the observation tower, and an observer (acoustic) on the passive acoustic monitoring system. Before the start of the seismic survey, Lamont-Doherty would instruct the vessel's crew to assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements. The Langseth is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. When stationed on the observation platform, the eye level would be approximately 21.5 m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the observer would have a good view around the entire vessel. During daytime, the observers would scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 x 150), and with the naked eye. During darkness, night vision devices would be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent), when required. Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) would be available to assist with distance estimation. They are useful in training observers to estimate distances visually, but are generally not useful in measuring distances to animals directly. The user measures distances to animals with the reticles in the binoculars. Lamont-Doherty would immediately power down or shutdown the airguns when observers see marine mammals within or about to enter the designated exclusion zone. The observer(s) would continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the exclusion zone by visual confirmation. Airgun operations would not resume until the observer has confirmed that the animal has left the zone, or if not observed after 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes for species with longer dive durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked whales). Lamont-Doherty would use safety radii to designate exclusion zones and to estimate take for marine mammals. Table 2 shows the distances at which one would expect to receive sound levels (160-, 180-, and 190- dB,) from the airgun array and a single airgun. If the protected species visual observer detects marine mammal(s) within or about to enter the appropriate exclusion zone, the Langseth crew would immediately power down the airgun array, or perform a shutdown if necessary (see Shut-down Procedures). Table 2--Predicted Distances to Which Sound Levels Greater Than or Equal to 160 Re: 1 [micro]Pa Could Be Received During the Proposed Survey Areas Within the South Atlantic Ocean [January through March, 2016] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Predicted RMS distances \1\ (m) Source and volume (in\3\) Tow depth (m) Water depth ----------------------------------------------- (m) 190 dB 180 dB 160 dB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bolt airgun (40 in\3\)... 9 >1,000 100 100 388 36-Airgun Array (6,600 in\3\)... 9 >1,000 286 927 5,780 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Predicted distances based on information presented in Lamont-Doherty's application. [[Page 2181]] The 180- or 190-dB level shutdown criteria are applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds respectively as specified by NMFS (2000). Lamont-Doherty used these levels to establish the exclusion zones as presented in their application. Power Down Procedures A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radius of the 180-dB or 190-dB exclusion zone is smaller to the extent that marine mammals are no longer within or about to enter the exclusion zone. A power down of the airgun array can also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. During a power down for mitigation, the Langseth would operate one airgun (40 in\3\). The continued operation of one airgun would alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area. A shutdown occurs when the Langseth suspends all airgun activity. If the observer detects a marine mammal outside the exclusion zone and the animal is likely to enter the zone, the crew would power down the airguns to reduce the size of the 180-dB or 190-dB exclusion zone before the animal enters that zone. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the zone after detection, the crew would power-down the airguns immediately. During a power down of the airgun array, the crew would operate a single 40-in\3\ airgun which has a smaller exclusion zone. If the observer detects a marine mammal within or near the smaller exclusion zone around the airgun (Table 3), the crew would shut down the single airgun (see next section). Resuming Airgun Operations After a Power Down Following a power-down, the Langseth crew would not resume full airgun activity until the marine mammal has cleared the 180-dB or 190- dB exclusion zone. The observers would consider the animal to have cleared the exclusion zone if:The observer has visually observed the animal leave the exclusion zone; or An observer has not sighted the animal within the exclusion zone for 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations (i.e., small odontocetes or pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species with longer dive durations (i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales); or The Langseth crew would resume operating the airguns at full power after 15 minutes of sighting any species with short dive durations (i.e., small odontocetes or pinnipeds). Likewise, the crew would resume airgun operations at full power after 30 minutes of sighting any species with longer dive durations (i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales). NMFS estimates that the Langseth would transit outside the original 180-dB or 190-dB exclusion zone after an 8-minute wait period. This period is based on the average speed of the Langseth while operating the airguns (8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph). Because the vessel has transited away from the vicinity of the original sighting during the 8-minute period, implementing ramp-up procedures for the full array after an extended power down (i.e., transiting for an additional 35 minutes from the location of initial sighting) would not meaningfully increase the effectiveness of observing marine mammals approaching or entering the exclusion zone for the full source level and would not further minimize the potential for take. The Langseth's observers are continually monitoring the exclusion zone for the full source level while the mitigation airgun is firing. On average, observers can observe to the horizon (10 km; 6.2 mi) from the height of the Langseth's observation deck and should be able to say with a reasonable degree of confidence whether a marine mammal would be encountered within this distance before resuming airgun operations at full power. Shutdown Procedures The Langseth crew would shut down the operating airgun(s) if they see a marine mammal within or approaching the exclusion zone for the single airgun. The crew would implement a shutdown: (1) If an animal enters the exclusion zone of the single airgun after the crew has initiated a power down; or (2) If an observer sees the animal is initially within the exclusion zone of the single airgun when more than one airgun (typically the full airgun array) is operating. Resuming Airgun Operations After a Shutdown: Following a shutdown in excess of eight minutes, the Langseth crew would initiate a ramp-up with the smallest airgun in the array (40-in\3\). The crew would turn on additional airguns in a sequence such that the source level of the array would increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per five-minute period over a total duration of approximately 30 minutes. During ramp-up, the observers would monitor the exclusion zone, and if he/she sees a marine mammal, the Langseth crew would implement a power down or shutdown as though the full airgun array were operational. During periods of active seismic operations, there are occasions when the Langseth crew would need to temporarily shut down the airguns due to equipment failure or for maintenance. In this case, if the airguns are inactive longer than eight minutes, the crew would follow ramp-up procedures for a shutdown described earlier and the observers would monitor the full exclusion zone and would implement a power down or shutdown if necessary. If the full exclusion zone is not visible to the observer for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, the Langseth crew would not commence ramp-up unless at least one airgun (40-in\3\ or similar) has been operating during the interruption of seismic survey operations. Given these provisions, it is likely that the vessel's crew would not ramp up the airgun array from a complete shutdown at night or in thick fog, because the outer part of the zone for that array would not be visible during those conditions. If one airgun has operated during a power down period, ramp-up to full power would be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals would be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away. The vessel's crew would not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if an observer sees the marine mammal within or near the applicable exclusion zones during the day or close to the vessel at night. Ramp-Up Procedures Ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual increase in sound levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the number and total volume of airguns firing until the full volume of the airgun array is achieved. The purpose of a ramp-up is to ``warn'' marine mammals in the vicinity of the airguns, and to provide the time for them to leave the area and thus avoid any potential injury or impairment of their hearing abilities. Lamont-Doherty would follow a ramp-up procedure when the airgun array begins operating after an 8 minute period without airgun operations or when shut down has exceeded that period. Lamont-Doherty has used similar waiting periods (approximately eight to 10 minutes) during previous seismic surveys. Ramp-up would begin with the smallest airgun in the array (40 in\3\). The crew would add airguns in a sequence such that the source level of the array would increase in steps not exceeding [[Page 2182]] six dB per five minute period over a total duration of approximately 30 to 35 minutes. During ramp-up, the observers would monitor the exclusion zone, and if marine mammals are sighted, Lamont-Doherty would implement a power-down or shut-down as though the full airgun array were operational. If the complete exclusion zone has not been visible for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, Lamont-Doherty would not commence the ramp-up unless at least one airgun (40 in\3\ or similar) has been operating during the interruption of seismic survey operations. Given these provisions, it is likely that the crew would not ramp up the airgun array from a complete shut-down at night or in thick fog, because the outer part of the exclusion zone for that array would not be visible during those conditions. If one airgun has operated during a power-down period, ramp-up to full power would be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals would be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away. Lamont-Doherty would not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if an observer sights a marine mammal within or near the applicable exclusion zones. Special Procedures for Concentrations of Large Whales The Langseth would avoid exposing concentrations of large whales to sounds greater than 160 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa within the 160-dB zone and would power down the array, if necessary. For purposes of this proposed survey, a concentration or group of whales would consist of six or more individuals visually sighted that do not appear to be traveling (e.g., feeding, socializing, etc.). Speed and Course Alterations If during seismic data collection, Lamont-Doherty detects marine mammals outside the exclusion zone and, based on the animal's position and direction of travel, is likely to enter the exclusion zone, the Langseth would change speed and/or direction if this does not compromise operational safety. Due to the limited maneuverability of the primary survey vessel, altering speed, and/or course can result in an extended period of time to realign the Langseth to the transect line. However, if the animal(s) appear likely to enter the exclusion zone, the Langseth would undertake further mitigation actions, including a power down or shut down of the airguns. Mitigation Conclusions NMFS has carefully evaluated Lamont-Doherty's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation. Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed here: 1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal). 2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to airgun operations that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only). 3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to airgun operations that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only). 4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to airgun operations that we expect to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only). 5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time. 6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation. Based on the evaluation of Lamont-Doherty's proposed measures, as well as other measures proposed by NMFS (i.e., special procedures for concentrations of large whales), NMFS has determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Monitoring In order to issue an Incidental Harassment Authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for Authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that we expect to be present in the proposed action area. Lamont-Doherty submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section XIII of the Authorization application. NMFS, NSF, or Lamont-Doherty may modify or supplement the plan based on comments or new information received from the public during the public comment period. Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals: 1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and during other times and locations, in order to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned later; 2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals would be affected by seismic airguns and other active acoustic sources and the likelihood of associating those exposures with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, temporary or permanent threshold shift; 3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli that we expect to result in take and how those anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual [[Page 2183]] rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods: a. Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information); b. Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information); c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli; 4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and 5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures. Monitoring Measures Lamont-Doherty proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the present project to supplement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the Authorization. Lamont-Doherty understands that NMFS would review the monitoring plan and may require refinements to the plan. Lamont-Doherty planned the monitoring work as a self-contained project independent of any other related monitoring projects that may occur in the same regions at the same time. Further, Lamont-Doherty is prepared to discuss coordination of its monitoring program with any other related work that might be conducted by other groups working insofar as it is practical for Lamont-Doherty. Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic Monitoring Passive acoustic monitoring would complement the visual mitigation monitoring program, when practicable. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor visibility or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range. Passive acoustic monitoring can improve detection, identification, and localization of cetaceans when used in conjunction with visual observations. The passive acoustic monitoring would serve to alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It is only useful when marine mammals call, but it can be effective either by day or by night, and does not depend on good visibility. The acoustic observer would monitor the system in real time so that he/she can advise the visual observers if they acoustically detect cetaceans. The passive acoustic monitoring system consists of hardware (i.e., hydrophones) and software. The ``wet end'' of the system consists of a towed hydrophone array connected to the vessel by a tow cable. The tow cable is 250 m (820.2 ft) long and the hydrophones are fitted in the last 10 m (32.8 ft) of cable. A depth gauge, attached to the free end of the cable, typically is towed at depths less than 20 m (65.6 ft). The Langseth crew would deploy the array from a winch located on the back deck. A deck cable would connect the tow cable to the electronics unit in the main computer lab where the acoustic station, signal conditioning, and processing system would be located. The Pamguard software amplifies, digitizes, and then processes the acoustic signals received by the hydrophones. The system can detect marine mammal vocalizations at frequencies up to 250 kHz. One acoustic observer, an expert bioacoustician with primary responsibility for the passive acoustic monitoring system would be aboard the Langseth in addition to the other visual observers who would rotate monitoring duties. The acoustic observer would monitor the towed hydrophones 24 hours per day during airgun operations and during most periods when the Langseth is underway while the airguns are not operating. However, passive acoustic monitoring may not be possible if damage occurs to both the primary and back-up hydrophone arrays during operations. The primary passive acoustic monitoring streamer on the Langseth is a digital hydrophone streamer. Should the digital streamer fail, back-up systems should include an analog spare streamer and a hull-mounted hydrophone. One acoustic observer would monitor the acoustic detection system by listening to the signals from two channels via headphones and/or speakers and watching the real-time spectrographic display for frequency ranges produced by cetaceans. The observer monitoring the acoustical data would be on shift for one to six hours at a time. The other observers would rotate as an acoustic observer, although the expert acoustician would be on passive acoustic monitoring duty more frequently. When the acoustic observer detects a vocalization while visual observations are in progress, the acoustic observer on duty would contact the visual observer immediately, to alert him/her to the presence of cetaceans (if they have not already been seen), so that the vessel's crew can initiate a power down or shutdown, if required. The observer would enter the information regarding the call into a database. Data entry would include an acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information. Acousticians record the acoustic detection for further analysis. Observer Data and Documentation Observers would record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. They would use the data to help better understand the impacts of the activity on marine mammals and to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a power down or shut down of the airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the exclusion zone. When an observer makes a sighting, they will record the following information: 1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace. 2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare. The observer will record the data listed under (2) at the start and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables. Observers will record all observations and power downs or shutdowns in a standardized format and will enter data into an electronic database. The observers will verify the accuracy of the data entry by computerized data validity checks during data entry and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow the preparation of initial summaries of data during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of [[Page 2184]] the data to statistical, graphical, and other programs for further processing and archiving. Results from the vessel-based observations will provide: 1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power down or shutdown). 2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which Lamont-Doherty must report to the Office of Protected Resources. 3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals and turtles in the area where Lamont-Doherty would conduct the seismic study. 4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals and turtles relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity. 5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals detected during non-active and active seismic operations. Reporting Lamont-Doherty would submit a report to us and to NSF within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report would describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report would provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report would summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report would also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that occurred above the harassment threshold based on the observations. The report would consider both published literature and previous monitoring results that could inform the detectability of different species and how that information affects post survey exposure estimates. In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), Lamont-Doherty shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the take to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. The report must include the following information: Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident; Name and type of vessel involved; Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident; Description of the incident; Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident; Water depth; Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility); Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident; Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved; Fate of the animal(s); and Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available). Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its activities until we are able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We shall work with Lamont-Doherty to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Lamont-Doherty may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone. In the event that Lamont-Doherty discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next paragraph), Lamont-Doherty will immediately report the incident to the Division Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS. The report must include the same information identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with Lamont-Doherty to determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate. In the event that Lamont-Doherty discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced decomposition, or scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty would report the incident to the Chief Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, within 24 hours of the discovery. Lamont- Doherty would provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to NMFS. Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment]. Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated during the operation of the airgun array may have the potential to result in the behavioral disturbance of some marine mammals and may have an even smaller potential to result in permanent threshold shift (non-lethal injury) of some marine mammals. NMFS expects that the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize the possibility of injurious or lethal takes. However, NMFS cannot discount the possibility (albeit small) that exposure to energy from the proposed survey could result in non-lethal injury (Level A harassment). Thus, NMFS proposes to authorize take by Level B harassment and Level A harassment resulting from the operation of the sound sources for the proposed seismic survey based upon the current acoustic exposure criteria shown in Table 3 subject to the limitations in take described in Table 5 later in this notice. Table 3--NMFS' Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Criterion Criterion definition Threshold ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Level A Harassment (Injury). Permanent Threshold 180 dB re 1 microPa- Shift (PTS). m (cetaceans)/190 (Any level above dB re 1 microPa-m that which is known (pinnipeds) root to cause TTS). mean square (rms). Level B Harassment.......... Behavioral 160 dB re 1 microPa- Disruption (for m (rms). impulse noises). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [[Page 2185]] NMFS' practice is to apply the 160 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa received level threshold for underwater impulse sound levels to predict whether behavioral disturbance that rises to the level of Level B harassment is likely to occur. NMFS' practice is to apply the 180 dB or 190 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa received level threshold for underwater impulse sound levels to predict whether permanent threshold shift (auditory injury), which we consider as Level A harassment is likely to occur. Acknowledging Uncertainties in Estimating Take Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound, and use that information to predict how many animals are taken. In practice, depending on the amount of information available to characterize daily and seasonal movement and distribution of affected marine mammals, distinguishing between the numbers of individuals harassed and the instances of harassment can be difficult to parse. Moreover, when one considers the duration of the activity, in the absence of information to predict the degree to which individual animals are likely exposed repeatedly on subsequent days, the simple assumption is that entirely new animals are exposed every day, which results in a take estimate that in some circumstances overestimates the number of individuals harassed. The following sections describe NMFS' methods to estimate take by incidental harassment. We base these estimates on the number of marine mammals that could be potentially harassed by seismic operations with the airgun array during approximately 3,236 km (2,028 mi) of transect lines in the South Atlantic Ocean. Modeled Number of Instances of Exposures: Lamont-Doherty would conduct the proposed seismic survey within the high seas in the South Atlantic Ocean. NMFS presents estimates of the anticipated numbers of instances that marine mammals could be exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to 160, 180, and 190 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa during the proposed seismic survey. Table 5 represents the numbers of instances of take that NMFS proposes to authorize for this survey within the South Atlantic Ocean. NMFS' Take Estimate Method for Species with Density Information: In order to estimate the potential number of instances that marine mammals could be exposed to airgun sounds above the 160-dB Level B harassment threshold and the 180-dB Level A harassment thresholds, NMFS used the following approach for species with density estimates derived from the Navy's Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Navy Marine Species Density Database (NMSDD) maps for the survey area in the Southern Atlantic Ocean. NMFS used the highest density range for each species within the survey area. (1) Calculate the total area that the Langseth would ensonify above the 160-dB Level B harassment threshold and above the 180-dB Level A harassment threshold for cetaceans within a 24-hour period. This calculation includes a daily ensonified area of approximately 1,377 square kilometers (km\2\) (532 square miles [mi\2\]) for the five OBS tracklines and 1,839 km\2\ (710 mi\2\) for the MCS trackline based on the Langseth traveling approximately 150 km [93 mi] in one day). Generally, the Langseth travels approximately 137 km (85 mi) in one day while conducting a seismic survey; thus, NMFS' estimate of a daily ensonified area based on 150 km is an estimation of the theoretical maximum that the Langseth could travel within 24 hours. (2) Multiply each daily ensonified area above the 160-dB Level B harassment threshold by the species' density (animals/km\2\) to derive the predicted number of instances of exposures to received levels greater than or equal to 160-dB re: 1 [mu]Pa on a given day; (3) Multiply each product (i.e., the expected number of instances of exposures within a day) by the number of survey days that includes a 25 percent contingency (i.e., a total of six days for the five OBS tracklines and a total of 22 days for the MCS trackline) to derive the predicted number of instances of exposures above 160 dB over the duration of the survey; (4) Multiply the daily ensonified area by each species-specific density to derive the predicted number of instances of exposures to received levels greater than or equal to 180-dB re: 1 [mu]Pa for cetaceans on a given day (i.e., Level A takes). This calculation includes a daily ensonified area of approximately 207 km\2\ (80 mi\2\) for the five OBS tracklines and 281 km\2\ (108 mi\2\) for the MCS trackline. (5) Multiply each product by the number of survey days that includes a 25 percent contingency (i.e., a total of six days for the five OBS tracklines and a total of 22 days for the MCS trackline). Subtract that product from the predicted number of instances of exposures to received levels greater than or equal to 160-dB re: 1 [mu]Pa on a given day to derive the number of instances of exposures estimated to occur between 160 and 180-dB threshold (i.e., Level B takes). In many cases, this estimate of instances of exposures is likely an overestimate of the number of individuals that are taken, because it assumes 100 percent turnover in the area every day, (i.e., that each new day results in takes of entirely new individuals with no repeat takes of the same individuals over the 22-day period (28 days with contingency). It is difficult to quantify to what degree this method overestimates the number of individuals potentially taken. Except as described later for a few specific species, NMFS uses this number of instances as the estimate of individuals (and authorized take) even though NMFS is aware that the number may be somewhat high due to the use of the maximum density estimate from the NMSDD. Take Estimates for Species with Less than One Instance of Exposure: Using the approach described earlier, the model generated instances of take for some species that were less than one over the 28-day duration. Those species include the humpback, blue, Bryde's, pygmy sperm, and dwarf sperm whale. NMFS used data based on dedicated survey sighting information from the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys in 2010, 2011, and 2013 (AMAPPS, 2010, 2011, 2013) to estimate take and assumed that Lamont-Doherty could potentially encounter one group of each species during the proposed seismic survey. NMFS believes it is reasonable to use the average (mean) group size (weighted by effort and rounded up) from the AMMAPS surveys for humpback whale (3), blue whale (2), Bryde's whale (2), pygmy sperm whale (2), and dwarf sperm whale (2) to derive a reasonable estimate of take for eruptive occurrences. Take Estimates for Species with No Density Information: Density information for the Southern right whale, southern elephant seal, and Subantarctic fur seal in the South Atlantic Ocean is data poor or non- existent. When density estimates were not available, NMFS used data based on dedicated survey sighting information from the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys in 2010, 2011, and 2013 (AMAPPS, 2010, 2011, 2013) to estimate take for the three species. NMFS assumed that Lamont-Doherty could potentially encounter one group [[Page 2186]] of each species during the seismic survey. NMFS believes it is reasonable to use the average (mean) group size (weighted by effort and rounded up) for North Atlantic right whales (3) from the AMMAPS surveys for the Southern right whale and the mean group size for unidentified seals (2) from the AMMAPS surveys for southern elephant and Subantarctic fur seals multiplied by 28 days to derive an estimate of take from a potential encounter. NMFS used sighting information from a survey off Namibia, Africa (Rose and Payne, 1991) to estimate a mean group size for southern right whale dolphins (58) and also multiplied that estimate by 28 days to derive an estimate of take from a potential encounter with that species. Table 4--Densities and/or Mean Group Size, and Estimates of the Possible Numbers of Marine Mammals and Population Percentages Exposed to Sound Levels Greater Than or Equal to 160, 180, and 190 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa Over 28 Days During the Proposed Seismic Survey in the South Atlantic Ocean [January through March, 2016] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Modeled number of instances of Density exposures to Proposed Proposed Percent of Species estimate sound levels Level A Level B population \4\ Population trend \5\ \1\ >=160, 180, and take \3\ take \3\ 190 dB \2\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Antarctic minke whale....................... 0.054983 2,276, 396, - 396 2,276 0.519 Unknown. Blue whale.................................. 0.000032 2, 0, - 0 2 0.074 Unknown. Bryde's whale............................... 0.000262 2, 0, - 0 2 0.005 Unknown. Common minke whale.......................... 0.054983 2,276, 396, - 396 2,276 0.519 Unknown. Fin whale................................... 0.002888 106, 28, - 28 106 0.609 Unknown. Humpback whale.............................. 0.000078 3, 0, - 0 3 0.200 [uarr]. Sei whale................................... 0.002688 106, 28, - 28 106 1.340 Unknown. Southern right whale........................ NA 18, 0, - 0 18 0.150 Unknown. Sperm whale................................. 0.001214 50, 0, - 0 50 0.014 Unknown. Dwarf sperm whale........................... 0.000041 2, 0, - 0 2 0.053 Unknown. Pygmy sperm whale........................... 0.000021 2, 0, - 0 2 0.053 Unknown. Cuvier's beaked whale....................... 0.003831 156, 28, - 28 156 0.031 Unknown. Andrew's beaked whale....................... 0.000511 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown. Arnoux's beaked whale....................... 0.000956 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown. Blainville's beaked whale................... 0.000663 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown. Gervais' beaked whale....................... 0.001334 56, 0, - 0 56 0.009 Unknown. Gray's beaked whale......................... 0.000944 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown. Hector's beaked whale....................... 0.000246 0, 0, - 0 0 0.000 Unknown. Shepherd's beaked whale..................... 0.000816 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown. Strap-toothed beaked whale.................. 0.000638 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown. True's beaked whale......................... 0.000876 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown. Southern bottlenose whale................... 0.000917 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown. Bottlenose dolphin.......................... 0.020744 848, 156, - 156 848 0.167 Unknown. Rough-toothed dolphin....................... 0.000418 22, 0, - 0 22 8.118 Unknown. Pantropical spotted dolphin................. 0.003674 156, 28, - 28 156 5.521 Unknown. Striped dolphin............................. 0.174771 7,208, 1,294, - 1,294 7,208 15.513 Unknown. Fraser's dolphin............................ 0.001568 56, 0, - 0 56 0.019 Unknown. Spinner dolphin............................. 0.006255 262, 50, - 50 262 0.026 Unknown. Atlantic spotted dolphin.................... 0.077173 3,180, 580, - 580 3,180 8.409 Unknown. Clymene dolphin............................. 0.000258 0, 0, - 0 0 0.000 Unknown. Risso's dolphin............................. 0.037399 1,540, 290, - 290 1,540 8.844 Unknown. Long-beaked common dolphin.................. 0.000105 0, 0, - 0 0 0.000 Unknown. Short-beaked common dolphin................. 0.129873 5,356, 954, - 954 5,356 3.637 Unknown. Southern right whale dolphin................ NA 1,624, 0, - 0 1,624 Unknown Unknown. Melon-headed whale.......................... 0.006285 262, 50, - 50 262 0.624 Unknown. Pygmy killer whale.......................... 0.001039 50, 0, - 0 50 1.395 Unknown. False killer whale.......................... 0.000158 0, 0, - 0 0 0.000 Unknown. Killer whale................................ 0.003312 134, 28, - 28 134 0.324 Unknown. Long-finned pilot whale..................... 0.007614 318, 56, - 56 318 0.187 Unknown. Short-finned pilot whale.................... 0.015616 636, 106, - 106 636 0.371 Unknown. Southern Elephant Seal...................... NA 56, 0, 0 0 56 0.009 Unknown. Subantarctic fur seal....................... NA 56, 0, 0 0 56 0.018 Unknown. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Densities (where available) are expressed as number of individuals per km\2\. Densities estimated from the Navy's Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Navy Marine Species Density Database maps for the survey area in the Southern Atlantic Ocean. NA = Not available. \2\ See preceding text for information on NMFS' take estimate calculations. NA = Not applicable. \3\ Modeled instances of exposures include adjustments for species with no density information. The Level A estimates are overestimates of predicted impacts to marine mammals as the estimates do not take into consideration the required mitigation measures for shutdowns or power downs if a marine mammal is likely to enter the 180 dB exclusion zone while the airguns are active. \4\ Table 2 in this notice lists the stock species abundance estimates used in calculating the percentage of the population. \5\ Population trend information from Waring et al., 2015. [uarr]= Increasing. [darr] = Decreasing. Unknown = Insufficient data. Lamont-Doherty did not estimate any additional take from sound sources other than airguns. NMFS does not expect the sound levels produced by the echosounder and sub-bottom profiler to exceed the sound levels produced by [[Page 2187]] the airguns. Lamont-Doherty will not operate the multibeam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler during transits to and from the survey area, (i.e., when the airguns are not operating) and in between transits to each of the five OBS tracklines, and, therefore, NMFS does not anticipate additional takes from these sources in this particular case. NMFS considers the probability for entanglement of marine mammals as low because of the vessel speed and the monitoring efforts onboard the survey vessel. Therefore, NMFS does not believe it is necessary to authorize additional takes for entanglement at this time. The Langseth will operate at a relatively slow speed (typically 4.6 knots [8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph]) when conducting the survey. Protected species observers would monitor for marine mammals, which would trigger mitigation measures, including vessel avoidance where safe. Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate nor do we authorize takes of marine mammals from vessel strike. There is no evidence that the planned survey activities could result in serious injury or mortality within the specified geographic area for the requested proposed Authorization. The required mitigation and monitoring measures would minimize any potential risk for serious injury or mortality. Analysis and Determinations Negligible Impact Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact finding. Thus, an estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status of the species. In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS considers: The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities; The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of harassment; and The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data); The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size of the population); Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/ survival; and The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental takes. To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table 5, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the seismic airguns to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to inform the analysis. Given the required mitigation and related monitoring, NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result of Lamont-Doherty's proposed seismic survey in the South Atlantic Ocean. Thus the proposed authorization does not authorize any mortality. NMFS' predicted estimates for Level A harassment take for some species are likely overestimates of the injury that will occur. NMFS expects that successful implementation of the required visual and acoustic mitigation measures would avoid Level A take in some instances. Also, NMFS expects that some individuals would avoid the source at levels expected to result in injury. Nonetheless, although NMFS expects that Level A harassment is unlikely to occur at the numbers proposed to be authorized, because it is difficult to quantify the degree to which the mitigation and avoidance will reduce the number of animals that might incur PTS, we are proposing to authorize, and have included in our analyses, the modeled number of Level A takes, which does not take the mitigation or avoidance into consideration. However, because of the constant movement of the Langseth and the animals, as well as the fact that the boat is not staying in any one area in which individuals would be expected to concentrate for any long amount of time (i.e., since the duration of exposure to loud sounds will be relatively short), we anticipate that any PTS incurred would be in the form of only a small degree of permanent threshold shift and not total deafness. Of the marine mammal species under our jurisdiction that are known to occur or likely to occur in the study area, the following species are listed as endangered under the ESA: Blue, fin, humpback, sei, Southern right whale, and sperm whales. The western north Atlantic population of humpback whales is known to be increasing. The other marine mammal species that may be taken by harassment during Lamont- Doherty's seismic survey program are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Cetaceans. Odontocete reactions to seismic energy pulses are usually thought to be limited to shorter distances from the airgun(s) than are those of mysticetes, in part because odontocete low-frequency hearing is assumed to be less sensitive than that of mysticetes. Given sufficient notice through relatively slow ship speed, NMFS generally expects marine mammals to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to becoming potentially injurious, although Level A takes for a small group of species are proposed for authorization here. Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed previously in this document (see the ``Anticipated Effects on Habitat'' section). Although some disturbance is possible to food sources of marine mammals, the impacts are anticipated to be minor enough as to not affect annual rates of recruitment or survival of marine mammals in the area. Based on the size of the South Atlantic Ocean where feeding by marine mammals occurs versus the localized area of the marine survey activities, any missed feeding opportunities in the direct project area will be minor based on the fact that other feeding areas exist elsewhere. Taking into account the planned mitigation measures, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be restricted to avoidance of a limited area around the survey operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of ``Level B harassment.'' Animals are not expected to permanently abandon any area that is surveyed, and any behaviors that are interrupted during the activity are expected to resume once the activity ceases. Only a small portion of marine mammal habitat will be affected at any time, and other areas within the South [[Page 2188]] Atlantic Ocean would be available for necessary biological functions. Pinnipeds. During foraging trips, extralimital pinnipeds may not react at all to the sound from the proposed survey, ignore the stimulus, change their behavior, or avoid the immediate area by swimming away or diving. Behavioral responses can range from a mild orienting response, or a shifting of attention, to flight and panic. Research and observations show that pinnipeds in the water are tolerant of anthropogenic noise and activity. They may react in a number of ways depending on their experience with the sound source and what activity they are engaged in at the time of the exposure. Significant behavioral effects are more likely at higher received levels within a few kilometers of the source and activities involving sound from the proposed survey would not occur near any haulout areas where resting behaviors occur. Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hour cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). While NMFS anticipates that the seismic operations would occur on consecutive days and the duration of the survey would last no more than 28 days, the seismic operations would increase sound levels in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the vessel (compared to the range of most of the marine mammals within the proposed survey area), which is constantly travelling over distances, and some animals may only be exposed to and harassed by sound for less than a day. For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, Lamont-Doherty's specified activities are not likely to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, serious injury, or death, or other effects that would be expected to adversely affect reproduction or survival of any individuals. They include: The anticipated impacts of Lamont-Doherty's survey activities on marine mammals are temporary behavioral changes due, primarily, to avoidance of the area; The likelihood that, given the constant movement of boat and animals and the nature of the survey design (not concentrated in areas of high marine mammal concentration), PTS incurred would be of a low level; The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the operation of the airgun(s) to avoid acoustic harassment; The expectation that the seismic survey would have no more than a temporary and minimal adverse effect on any fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals, and therefore consider the potential impacts to marine mammal habitat minimal; and The knowledge that the survey is taking place in the open ocean and not located within an area of biological importance for breeding, calving, or foraging for marine mammals. Table 4 in this document outlines the number of requested Level A and Level B harassment takes that we anticipate as a result of these activities. Required mitigation measures, such as special shutdowns for large whales, vessel speed, course alteration, and visual monitoring would be implemented to help reduce impacts to marine mammals. Based on the analysis herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that Lamont-Doherty's proposed seismic survey would have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks. Small Numbers As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that Lamont-Doherty's activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment, 38 species of marine mammals under our jurisdiction. NMFS estimates that Lamont- Doherty's activities could potentially affect, by Level A harassment, up to 16 species of marine mammals under our jurisdiction. For each species, the numbers of take being proposed for authorization are small numbers relative to the population sizes: Less than 16 percent for striped dolphins, less than 8 percent of Risso's dolphins, less than 6 percent for pantropical spotted dolphins, and less than 4 percent for all other species. NMFS has provided the regional population and take estimates for the marine mammal species that may be taken by Level A and Level B harassment in Table 4 in this notice. NMFS finds that the proposed incidental take described in Table 4 for the proposed activity would be limited to small numbers relative to the affected species or stocks. Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Endangered Species Act (ESA) There are six marine mammal species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act that may occur in the proposed survey area. Under section 7 of the ESA, NSF initiated formal consultation with NMFS on the proposed seismic survey. NMFS (i.e., National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation Division) also consulted internally with NMFS on the proposed issuance of an Authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. In January, 2016, the Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division issued a Biological Opinion with an Incidental Take Statement to us and to the NSF, which concluded that the issuance of the Authorization and the conduct of the seismic survey were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of blue, fin, humpback, sei, South Atlantic right and sperm whales. The Biological Opinion also concluded that the issuance of the Authorization and the conduct of the seismic survey would not affect designated critical habitat for these species. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NSF has prepared an environmental analysis titled ``Environmental Analysis of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in South Atlantic Ocean, Austral Summer 2016.'' NMFS has also prepared an environmental assessment (EA) titled, ``Proposed Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the South Atlantic Ocean, January-March 2016,'' which tiers off of NSF's environmental analysis. NMFS and NSF provided relevant environmental information to the public through the notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015) and considered public comments received prior to finalizing our EA and deciding whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). NMFS concluded that issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Lamont- Doherty would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and prepared and [[Page 2189]] issued a FONSI in accordance with NEPA and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6. NMFS' EA and FONSI for this activity are available upon request (see ADDRESSES). Authorization NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization to Lamont- Doherty for the take of marine mammals, incidental to conducting a marine seismic survey in the South Atlantic Ocean January through March 2016. Dated: January 11, 2016. Perry F. Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2016-00660 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
![2174 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
• Products that have been cold-rolled DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE in accordance with NEPA and NOAA
(cold-reduced) after hot-rolling; 9 Administrative Order 216–6. To obtain
• Ball bearing steels; 10 National Oceanic and Atmospheric an electronic copy of these documents,
• Tool steels; 11 and Administration
• Silico-manganese steels; 12
write to the previously mentioned
The products subject to this investigation address, telephone the contact listed
RIN 0648–XE291
are currently classified in the Harmonized here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Tariff Schedule of the United States Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to CONTACT), or download the files at:
(‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers: Specified Activities; Taking Marine http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
7208.10.1500, 7208.10.3000, 7208.10.6000, incidental/research.htm.
7208.25.3000, 7208.25.6000, 7208.26.0030,
Mammals Incidental to a Marine
Geophysical Survey in the South NMFS also issued a Biological
7208.26.0060, 7208.27.0030, 7208.27.0060, Opinion under section 7 of the
7208.36.0030, 7208.36.0060, 7208.37.0030, Atlantic Ocean, January to March 2016
7208.37.0060, 7208.38.0015, 7208.38.0030, Endangered Species Act (ESA) to
7208.38.0090, 7208.39.0015, 7208.39.0030, AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries evaluate the effects of the survey and
7208.39.0090, 7208.40.6030, 7208.40.6060, Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Authorization on marine species listed
7208.53.0000, 7208.54.0000, 7208.90.0000, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as threatened and endangered. The
7210.70.3000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0090, Commerce. Biological Opinion is available online
7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.3000, ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7530, consultations/opinions.htm.
7211.19.7560, 7211.19.7590, 7225.11.0000,
harassment authorization.
7225.19.0000, 7225.30.3050, 7225.30.7000, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of
7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000,
7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, Marine Mammal Protection Act Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427–
7226.19.9000, 7226.91.5000, 7226.91.7000, (MMPA) implementing regulations, we 8401.
and 7226.91.8000. The products subject to hereby give notice that we have issued
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
the investigation may also enter under the an Incidental Harassment Authorization
following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, (Authorization) to Lamont-Doherty Background
7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, Earth Observatory (Lamont-Doherty), a
7212.50.0000, 7214.91.0015, 7214.91.0060, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine
component of Columbia University, in Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as
7214.91.0090, 7214.99.0060, 7214.99.0075,
7214.99.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7226.99.0180, collaboration with the National Science amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et
and 7228.60.6000. Foundation (NSF), to take marine seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce
The HTSUS subheadings above are mammals, by harassment, in the South to allow, upon request, the incidental,
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Atlantic Ocean, January through March but not intentional, taking of small
purposes only. The written description of the 2016.
scope of the investigation is dispositive. numbers of marine mammals of a
DATES: Effective January 4 through species or population stock, by U.S.
[FR Doc. 2016–00750 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] March 31, 2016. citizens who engage in a specified
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
ADDRESSES: A copy of the final activity (other than commercial fishing)
9 For purposes of this scope exclusion, rolling
Authorization and application and other within a specified geographical region
operations such as a skin pass, levelling, temper
supporting documents are available by if, after NMFS provides a notice of a
rolling or other minor rolling operations after the writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits proposed authorization to the public for
hot-rolling process for purposes of surface finish, and Conservation Division, Office of review and comment: (1) NMFS makes
flatness, shape control, or gauge control do not Protected Resources, National Marine certain findings; and (2) the taking is
constitute cold-rolling sufficient to meet this
exclusion. Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West limited to harassment.
10 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, by An Authorization shall be granted for
contain, in addition to iron, each of the following telephoning the contacts listed here, or the incidental taking of small numbers
elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not by visiting the internet at: http://www. of marine mammals if NMFS finds that
less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon;
(ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent
nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/ the taking will have a negligible impact
of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 research.htm. on the species or stock(s), and will not
percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 The NSF prepared a draft have an unmitigable adverse impact on
percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor Environmental Analysis in accordance the availability of the species or stock(s)
more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than
1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii)
with Executive Order 12114, for subsistence uses (where relevant).
none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) ‘‘Environmental Effects Abroad of Major The Authorization must also set forth
none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and Federal Actions’’ for their proposed the permissible methods of taking; other
(ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of federal action. The environmental means of effecting the least practicable
molybdenum.
11 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain
analysis titled ‘‘Environmental Analysis adverse impact on the species or stock
the following combinations of elements in the of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the and its habitat (i.e., mitigation); and
quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the South requirements pertaining to the
than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent Atlantic Ocean, Austral Summer 2016,’’ monitoring and reporting of such taking.
chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon prepared by LGL, Ltd. environmental NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’
and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent
chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon research associates, on behalf of NSF in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an impact
and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; and Lamont-Doherty is available at the resulting from the specified activity that
or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, same internet address. cannot be reasonably expected to, and is
chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NMFS prepared an Environmental not reasonably likely to, adversely affect
molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon
and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) Assessment (EA) titled, ‘‘Proposed the species or stock through effects on
not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than Issuance of an Incidental Harassment annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’
5.5 percent tungsten. Authorization to Lamont-Doherty Earth Except with respect to certain
12 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels
Observatory to Take Marine Mammals activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent
of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than
by Harassment Incidental to a Marine at 16 U.S.C. 1362(18)(A) defines
1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or Geophysical Survey in the South ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of pursuit,
more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon. Atlantic Ocean, January–March 2016,’’ torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices 2175
potential to injure a marine mammal or between transits to each of the five OBS information here as the vessel’s
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level tracklines (i.e., when the airguns are not specifications have not changed
A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential operating). between the notice of proposed
to disturb a marine mammal or marine The purpose of the survey is to collect Authorization and this notice of an
mammal stock in the wild by causing and analyze seismic refraction data from issued Authorization.
disruption of behavioral patterns, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge westward to the
Rio Grande Rise to study the evolution Data Acquisition Activities
including, but not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or of the South Atlantic Ocean crust on NMFS outlined the details regarding
sheltering [Level B harassment]. million-year timescales and the Lamont-Doherty’s data acquisition
evolution and stability of low-spreading activities using the airguns, multibeam
Summary of Request ridges over time. NMFS refers the public echosounder, and the sub-bottom
On July 29, 2015, NMFS received an to Lamont-Doherty’s application (see profiler in the notice of proposed
application from Lamont-Doherty page 3) for more detailed information on Authorization (80 FR 75355, December
requesting that NMFS issue an the proposed research objectives. 1, 2015). NMFS does not repeat the
Authorization for the take of marine information here as the data acquisition
Dates and Duration
mammals, incidental to Texas A&M activities have not changed between the
University and the University of Texas Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct notice of proposed Authorization and
conducting a seismic survey in the the seismic survey for approximately 42 this notice of an issued Authorization.
South Atlantic Ocean, January through days, which includes approximately 22 For a more detailed description of the
March 2016. Following the initial days of seismic surveying with 10 days authorized action (i.e., vessel and
application submission, Lamont- of OBS deployment and retrieval. The acoustic source specifications, metrics,
Doherty submitted a revised application proposed study (e.g., equipment testing, characteristics of airgun pulses,
with revised take estimates. NMFS startup, line changes, repeat coverage of predicted sound levels of airguns, etc.,)
considered the revised application any areas, and equipment recovery) please see the notice of proposed
adequate and complete on October 30, would include approximately 528 hours Authorization (80 FR 75355, December
2015. of airgun operations (i.e., 22 days over 1, 2015) and associated documents
Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct 24 hours). Some minor deviation from referenced above this section.
a two-dimensional (2–D), seismic survey Lamont-Doherty’s requested dates of
January through March 2016 is possible, Comments and Responses
on the R/V Marcus G. Langseth
(Langseth), a vessel owned by NSF and depending on logistics, weather NMFS published a notice of receipt of
operated on its behalf by Columbia conditions, and the need to repeat some Lamont-Doherty’s application and
University’s Lamont-Doherty in lines if data quality is substandard. proposed Authorization in the Federal
international waters in the South Thus, the proposed Authorization, if Register on December 1, 2015 (80 FR
Atlantic Ocean approximately 1,938 issued, would be effective from early 75355). During the 30-day public
kilometers (km) (1,232 miles [mi]) January through March 31, 2016. comment period, NMFS received
southeast of the west coast of Brazil for comments from the Marine Mammal
Specified Geographic Region
approximately 22 days. The following Commission (Commission). NMFS has
Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct posted the comments online at: http://
specific aspect of the proposed activity
the proposed seismic survey in the www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
has the potential to take marine
South Atlantic Ocean, located incidental/research.htm.
mammals: Increased underwater sound
approximately between 10–35° W, 27– NMFS addresses any comments
generated during the operation of the
33° S (see Figure 1). Water depths in the specific to Lamont-Doherty’s
seismic airgun array. We anticipate that
survey area range from approximately application related to the statutory and
take, by Level B harassment, of 38
1,150 to 4,800 meters (m) (3,773 feet [ft] regulatory requirements or findings that
species of marine mammals could result
to 2.98 miles [mi]). NMFS must make under the MMPA in
from the specified activity. Although
unlikely, NMFS also anticipates that a Principal and Collaborating order to issue an Authorization. The
small level of take by Level A Investigators following is a summary of the public
harassment of 16 species of marine comments and NMFS’ responses.
The proposed survey’s principal
mammals could occur during the investigators are Drs. R. Reece and R. Modeling Exclusion and Buffer Zones
proposed survey. Carlson (Texas A&M University) and Dr. Comment 1: The Commission
Description of the Specified Activity G. Christeson (University of Texas at expressed concerns regarding Lamont-
Austin). Doherty’s method to estimate exclusion
Overview and buffer zones. It stated that the
Detailed Description of the Specified
Lamont-Doherty plans to use one Activities model is not the best available science
source vessel, the Langseth, an array of because it assumes the following:
36 airguns as the energy source, a Transit Activities Spherical spreading, constant sound
receiving system of seven ocean bottom The Langseth would depart and speed, and no bottom interactions. In
seismometers (OBS), and a single 8- return from Cape Verde and transit to light of their concerns, the Commission
kilometer (km) hydrophone streamer. In the survey area. Some minor deviations recommended that NMFS require
addition to the operations of the with the transit schedule and port Lamont-Doherty to re-estimate the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
airguns, Lamont-Doherty intends to locations are possible depending on proposed exclusion and buffer zones
operate a multibeam echosounder and a logistics and weather. incorporating site-specific
sub-bottom profiler continuously environmental and operational
throughout the proposed survey. Vessel Specifications parameters (e.g., sound speed profiles,
However, Lamont-Doherty will not NMFS outlined the vessel’s refraction, bathymetry/water depth,
operate the multibeam echosounder and specifications in the notice of proposed sediment properties/bottom loss, or
sub-bottom profiler during transits to Authorization (80 FR 75355, December absorption coefficients) into their
and from the survey area and in 1, 2015). NMFS does not repeat the model.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/2.svg)
![2176 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
Response: NMFS acknowledges the Langseth’s hydrophone streamer in The model Lamont-Doherty currently
Commission’s concerns about Lamont- shallow water were smaller than the uses does not allow for the
Doherty’s current modeling approach modeled (i.e., predicted) exclusion and consideration of environmental and site-
for estimating exclusion and buffer buffer zones proposed for use in two specific parameters as requested by the
zones and also acknowledges that seismic surveys conducted offshore Commission. NMFS continues to work
Lamont-Doherty did not incorporate New Jersey in shallow water in 2014 with Lamont-Doherty and the NSF to
site-specific sound speed profiles, and 2015. In that particular case, address the issue of incorporating site-
bathymetry, and sediment Crone’s (2015) results show that specific information to further inform
characteristics of the research area in Lamont-Doherty’s modeled exclusion the analysis and development of
the current approach to estimate those (180-dB) and buffer (160-dB) zones were mitigation measures in oceanic and
zones for this proposed seismic survey. approximately 28 and 33 percent coastal areas for future seismic surveys
Lamont-Doherty’s application (LGL, smaller than the in situ, site-specific with Lamont-Doherty. However,
2015) and the NSF’s draft measurements confirming that Lamont-
environmental analyses (NSF, 2015) Lamont-Doherty’s current modeling
Doherty’s model was conservative in
describe the approach to establishing approach (supported by the three data
that case, as emphasized by Lamont-
mitigation exclusion and buffer zones. Doherty in its application and in points discussed previously) represents
In summary, Lamont-Doherty acquired supporting environmental the best available information for NMFS
field measurements for several array documentation. The following is a to reach determinations for the
configurations at shallow- and deep- summary of two additional analyses of Authorization. As described earlier, the
water depths during acoustic in-situ data that support Lamont- comparisons of Lamont-Doherty’s model
verification studies conducted in the Doherty’s use of the modeled exclusion results and the field data collected in
northern Gulf of Mexico in 2003 and buffer zones in this particular case. the Gulf of Mexico, offshore
(Tolstoy et al., 2004) and in 2007 and In 2010, Lamont-Doherty assessed the Washington, and offshore New Jersey
2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Based on the accuracy of their modeling approach by illustrate a degree of conservativeness
empirical data from those studies, comparing the sound levels of the field built into Lamont-Doherty’s model for
Lamont-Doherty developed a sound measurements acquired in the Gulf of deep water, which NMFS expects to
propagation modeling approach that Mexico study to their model predictions offset some of the limitations of the
predicts received sound levels as a (Diebold et al., 2010). They reported model to capture the variability
function of distance from a particular that the observed sound levels from the resulting from site-specific factors.
airgun array configuration in deep field measurements fell almost entirely
Lamont-Doherty has conveyed to
water. For this proposed survey, below the predicted mitigation radii
NMFS that additional modeling efforts
Lamont-Doherty developed the curve for deep water (greater than 1,000
exclusion and buffer zones for the meters [m]; 3280.8 feet [ft]) (Diebold et to refine the process and conduct
airgun array based on the empirically- al., 2010). comparative analysis may be possible
derived measurements from the Gulf of In 2012, Lamont-Doherty used a with the availability of research funds
Mexico calibration survey (Fig. 5a in similar process to model exclusion and and other resources. Obtaining research
Appendix H of the NSF’s 2011 PEIS). buffer zones for a shallow-water seismic funds is typically through a competitive
Based upon the best available survey in the northeast Pacific Ocean process, including those submitted to
information (i.e., the three data points, offshore Washington in 2012. Lamont- U.S. Federal agencies. The use of
two of which are peer-reviewed, Doherty conducted the shallow-water models for calculating buffer and
discussed in this response), NMFS finds survey using the same airgun exclusion zone radii and for developing
that the exclusion and buffer zone configuration proposed for this seismic take estimates is not a requirement of
calculations are appropriate for use in survey (i.e., 6,600 cubic inches [in3]) the MMPA incidental take authorization
this particular survey. and recorded the received sound levels process. Furthermore, NMFS does not
In 2015, Lamont-Doherty explored on the shelf and slope off Washington provide specific guidance on model
solutions to this issue (i.e., the question State using the Langseth’s 8-kilometer parameters nor prescribe a specific
of whether the Gulf of Mexico (km) hydrophone streamer. Crone et al. model for applicants as part of the
calibration data adequately informs the (2014) analyzed those received sound MMPA incidental take authorization
model to predict exclusion isopleths in levels from the 2012 survey and process at this time. There is a level of
other areas) by conducting a confirmed that in-situ, site specific variability not only with parameters in
retrospective sound power analysis of measurements and estimates of the 160- the models, but also the uncertainty
one of the lines acquired during and 180-dB isopleths collected by the associated with data used in models,
Lamont-Doherty’s seismic survey Langseth’s hydrophone streamer in and therefore, the quality of the model
offshore New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, shallow water were two to three times
results submitted by applicants. NMFS
2015). NMFS presented a comparison of smaller than what Lamont-Doherty’s
considers this variability when
the predicted radii (i.e., modeled modeling approach predicted. While the
exclusion zones) with radii based on in results confirm bathymetry’s role in evaluating applications and the take
situ measurements (i.e., the upper sound propagation, Crone et al. (2014) estimates and mitigation that the model
bound [95th percentile] of the cross-line were able to confirm that the empirical informs. NMFS takes into consideration
prediction) in a previous notice of measurements from the Gulf of Mexico the model used and its results in
issued Authorization (see Table 1, 80 FR calibration survey (the same determining the potential impacts to
marine mammals; however, it is just one
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
27635, May 14, 2015) for Lamont- measurements used to inform Lamont-
Doherty. Doherty’s modeling approach for this component of the analysis during the
Briefly, Crone’s (2015) preliminary seismic survey in the South Atlantic MMPA consultation process as NMFS
analysis, specific to the proposed survey Ocean) overestimated the size of the also takes into consideration other
site offshore New Jersey, confirmed that exclusion and buffer zones for the factors associated with the proposed
in-situ, site specific measurements and shallow-water 2012 survey off action, (e.g., geographic location,
estimates of the 160- and 180-decibel Washington and were thus duration of activities, context, intensity,
(dB) isopleths collected by the precautionary, in that particular case. etc.).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices 2177
Monitoring and Reporting for applicable g(0) and f(0) values. They South Atlantic Authorization for them
Comment 2: The Commission has also recommend that Lamont-Doherty to do so in collaboration with us and the
indicated that monitoring and reporting and other relevant entities continue to Commission.
requirements should provide a collect appropriate sightings data in the
Description of Marine Mammals in the
reasonably accurate assessment of the field which NMFS can then pool to
Area of the Specified Activity
types of taking and the numbers of determine g(0) and f(0) values relevant
animals taken by the proposed activity. to the various geophysical survey types. Table 1 in this notice provides the
They recommend that NMFS and Response: NMFS agrees with the following: All marine mammal species
Lamont-Doherty incorporate an Commission’s recommendation to with possible or confirmed occurrence
accounting for animals at the surface but improve the post-survey reporting in the proposed activity area;
not detected [i.e., g(0) values] and for requirements for NSF and Lamont- information on those species’ regulatory
animals present but underwater and not Doherty by accounting for takes using status under the MMPA and the
available for sighting [i.e., f(0) values] applicable g(0) and f(0) values. In Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
into monitoring efforts. In light of the December 2015, NMFS met with U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); abundance; and
Commission’s previous comments, they Commission representatives to discuss occurrence and seasonality in the
recommend that NMFS consult with the ways to develop and validate a proposed activity area. Based on the
funding agency (i.e., the NSF) and monitoring program that provides a best available information, NMFS
individual applicants (e.g., Lamont- scientifically sound, reasonably accurate expects that there may be a potential for
Doherty and other related entities) to assessment of the types of marine certain cetacean and pinniped species to
develop, validate, and implement a mammal takes and the actual numbers occur within the survey area (i.e.,
monitoring program that provides a of marine mammals taken, accounting potentially be taken) and have included
scientifically sound, reasonably accurate for applicable g(0) and f(0) values. We additional information for these species
assessment of the types of marine will work with NSF to develop ways to in Table 1 of this notice. NMFS will
mammal takes and the actual numbers improve their post-survey take estimates carry forward analyses on the species
of marine mammals taken, accounting and have included a requirement in the listed in Table 1 later in this document.
TABLE 1—GENERAL INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY
AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
[January through March 2016]
Regulatory Species Local occurrence
Species Season 5
status 1 2 abundance 3 and range 4
Antarctic minke whale (Balaenoptera MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 6 515,000 ............. Uncommon shelf, pelagic .................. Winter.
bonaerensis).
Blue whale (B. musculus) .................. MMPA—D ............................... 7 2,300 ................. Rare coastal, slope, pelagic .............. Winter.
ESA—EN .................................
Bryde’s whale (B. edeni) .................... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 8 43,633 ............... Rare coastal, pelagic ........................ Winter.
Common (dwarf) minke whale (B. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 6 515,000 ............. Uncommon shelf, pelagic .................. Winter.
acutorostrata).
Fin whale (B. physalus) ..................... MMPA—D, ESA—EN ............. 9 22,000 ............... Uncommon Coastal, pelagic ............. Fall.
Humpback whale (Megaptera MMPA—D, ESA—EN ............. 10 42,000 .............. Uncommon Coastal, shelf, pelagic ... Winter.
novaeangliae).
Sei whale (B. borealis) ....................... MMPA—D, ESA—EN ............. 11 10,000 .............. Uncommon Shelf edges, pelagic ...... Winter.
Southern right whale (Eubalaena MMPA—D, ESA—EN ............. 12 12,000 .............. Uncommon Coastal, shelf ................. Winter.
australis).
Sperm whale (Physeter MMPA—D, ESA—EN ............. 13 355,000 ............ Uncommon Slope, pelagic ................ Winter.
macrocephalus).
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) ....... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 3,785 ................... Rare Shelf, slope, pelagic ................. Winter.
Pygmy sperm whale (K. breviceps) ... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 3,785 ................... Rare Shelf, slope, pelagic ................. Winter.
Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Uncommon Slope .............................. Winter.
cavirostris).
Andrew’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare Pelagic ...................................... Winter.
bowdoini).
Arnoux’s beaked whale (Berardius MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare Pelagic ...................................... Winter.
arnuxii).
Blainville’s beaked whale MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare Slope, pelagic ........................... Winter.
(M.densirostris).
Gervais’ beaked whale (M. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare pelagic ...................................... Winter.
europaeus).
Gray’s beaked whale (M. grayi) ......... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare Pelagic ...................................... Winter.
Hector’s beaked whale (M. hectori) ... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare pelagic ...................................... Winter.
Shepherd’s beaked whale MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare pelagic ...................................... Winter.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(Tasmacetus shepherdi).
Strap-toothed beaked whale (M. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare pelagic ...................................... Winter.
layardii).
True’s beaked whale (M. mirus) ........ MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 7,092 ................... Rare pelagic ...................................... Winter.
Southern bottlenose whale MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 599,300 ............ Rare Coastal, shelf, pelagic .............. Winter.
(Hyperoodon planifrons).
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 15 600,000 ............ Uncommon Coastal, pelagic ............. Winter.
truncatus).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/4.svg)
![2178 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
TABLE 1—GENERAL INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY
AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN—Continued
[January through March 2016]
Regulatory Species Local occurrence Season 5
Species abundance 3 and range 4
status 1 2
Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 271 ...................... Uncommon shelf, pelagic .................. Winter.
bredanensis).
Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 3,333 ................... Uncommon Coastal, slope, pelagic .. Winter.
attennuata).
Striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba) ...... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 54,807 ................. Rare Pelagic ...................................... Winter.
Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 16 289,000 ............ Uncommon Pelagic ........................... Winter.
hosei).
Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 16 1,200,000 ......... Rare Pelagic ...................................... Winter.
Atlantic spotted dolphin (S. frontalis) MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 44,715 ................. Uncommon Pelagic ........................... Winter.
Clymene dolphin (S. clymene) ........... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 6,215 ................... Rare Pelagic ...................................... Winter.
Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) .... MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 20,692 ................. Uncommon Pelagic ........................... Winter.
Long-beaked common dolphin MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 17 20,000 .............. Rare Coastal ..................................... Winter.
(Delphinus capensis).
Short-beaked common dolphin MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 173,486 ............... Uncommon Coastal, shelf ................. Winter.
(Delphinus delphis).
Southern right whale dolphin MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... Unknown ............. Uncommon Coastal, shelf ................. Winter.
(Lissodelphis peronii).
Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 18 50,000 .............. Uncommon Coastal, shelf, pelagic ... Winter.
electra).
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenu- MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 3,585 ................... Uncommon Coastal, shelf, pelagic ... Winter.
ate).
False killer whale (Pseudorca MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 442 ...................... Rare Pelagic ...................................... Winter.
crassidens).
Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ................. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 19 50,000 .............. Uncommon Coastal, pelagic ............. Winter.
Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 200,000 ............ Uncommon Pelagic ........................... Winter.
melas).
Short-finned pilot whale MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 14 200,000 ............ Uncommon Pelagic ........................... Winter.
(Globicephala macrorhynchus).
Southern Elephant Seal (Mirounga MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 20 650,000 ............ Rare Coastal ..................................... Winter.
leonina).
Subantarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus MMPA—NC, ESA—NL ........... 21 310,000 ............ Uncommon Pelagic ........................... Winter.
tropicalis).
2 MMPA: NC= Not classified; D= Depleted; ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed.
3 Except where noted abundance information obtained from NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–NE–231, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Marine Mammal Stock Assessments–2014 (Waring et al., 2015) and the Draft 2015 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock As-
sessments (in review, 2015). NA = Not available.
4 Occurrence and range information available from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
5 NA= Not available due to limited information on that species’ seasonal occurrence in the proposed area.
6 Best estimate from the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) estimate for the minke whale population (Southern Hemisphere, 2004).
7 Best estimate from the IWC’s estimate for the blue whale population (Southern Hemisphere, 1998).
8 Estimate from IUCN Web page for Bryde’s whales. Southern Hemisphere: Southern Indian Ocean (13,854); western South Pacific (16,585);
and eastern South Pacific (13,194) (IWC, 1981).
9 Best estimate from the IWC’s estimate for the fin whale population (East Greenland to Faroes, 2007).
10 Best estimate from the IWC’s estimate for the humpback whale population (Southern Hemisphere, partial coverage of Antarctic feeding
grounds, 2007).
11 Estimate from the IUCN Web page for sei whales (IWC, 1996).
12 Best estimate from the IWC’s estimate for the southern right whale population (Southern Hemisphere, 2009).
13 Whitehead, (2002).
14 Abundance estimates for beaked, southern bottlenose, and pilot whales south of the Antarctic Convergence in January (Kasamatsu and
Joyce, 1995).
15 Wells and Scott, (2009).
16 Jefferson et al., (2008).
17 Cockcroft and Peddemors, (1990).
18 Estimate from the IUCN Web page for melon-headed whales (IUCN, 2015).
19 Estimate from the IUCN Web page for killer whales (IUCN, 2015).
20 Estimate from the IUCN Web page for southern elephant seals (IUCN, 2015).
21 Arnoud, (2009).
NMFS refers the public to Lamont- online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ activity (e.g., seismic airgun operations,
Doherty’s application, NSF’s draft sars/species.htm for further information vessel movement, and entanglement)
on the biology and local distribution of impact marine mammals (via
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
environmental analysis (see ADDRESSES),
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS– these species. observations or scientific studies) in the
NE–231, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of notice of proposed Authorization (80 FR
Potential Effects of the Specified
Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 75355, December 1, 2015).
Activities on Marine Mammals
Assessments–2014 (Waring et al., 2015); The ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental
and the Draft 2015 U.S. Atlantic and NMFS provided a summary and Harassment’’ section later in this
Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock discussion of the ways that the types of document will include a quantitative
Assessments (in review, 2015) available stressors associated with the specified discussion of the number of marine
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices 2179
mammals anticipated to be taken by this feeding); visible startle response or to which the mitigation and avoidance
activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke will reduce the number of animals that
Analysis’’ section will include the slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of might incur permanent threshold shift;
analysis of how this specific proposed areas where noise sources are located; however, we are proposing to authorize
activity would impact marine mammals and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds the modeled number of Level A takes,
and will consider the content of this flushing into water from haulouts or which does not take the mitigation or
section, the ‘‘Estimated Take by rookeries). avoidance into consideration.
Incidental Harassment’’ section, the Masking: Marine mammals use Vessel Movement and Entanglement:
‘‘Mitigation’’ section, and the acoustic signals for a variety of The Langseth will operate at a relatively
‘‘Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal purposes, which differ among species, slow speed (typically 4.6 knots [8.5 km/
Habitat’’ section to draw conclusions but include communication between h; 5.3 mph]) when conducting the
regarding the likely impacts of this individuals, navigation, foraging, survey. Protected species observers
activity on the reproductive success or reproduction, avoiding predators, and would monitor for marine mammals,
survivorship of individuals and from learning about their environment (Erbe which would trigger mitigation
that on the affected marine mammal and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000). measures, including vessel avoidance
populations or stocks. Introduced underwater sound may where safe. Therefore, NMFS does not
NMFS provided a background of through masking reduce the effective anticipate nor do we authorize takes of
potential effects of Lamont-Doherty’s communication distance of a marine marine mammals from vessel strike or
activities in the notice of proposed mammal species if the frequency of the entanglement.
Authorization (80 FR 75355, December source is close to that of a signal that NMFS refers the reader to Lamont-
1, 2015). Operating active acoustic needs to be detected by the marine Doherty’s application and the NSF’s
sources, such as airgun arrays, has the mammal, and if the anthropogenic environmental analysis for additional
potential for adverse effects on marine sound is present for a significant information on the behavioral reactions
mammals. The majority of anticipated fraction of the time (Richardson et al., (or lack thereof) by all types of marine
impacts would be from the use of 1995). For the airgun sound generated mammals to seismic vessels. NMFS has
acoustic sources. The effects of sounds from Lamont-Doherty’s seismic survey, reviewed these data and based our
from airgun pulses might include one or sound will consist of low frequency decision on the relevant information.
more of the following: Tolerance, (under 500 Hz) pulses with extremely
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal
masking of natural sounds, behavioral short durations (less than one second).
Habitat
disturbance, and temporary or Masking from airguns is more likely in
permanent hearing impairment or non- low-frequency marine mammals like NMFS included a detailed discussion
auditory effects (Richardson et al., mysticetes. There is little concern that of the potential effects of this action on
1995). However, for reasons discussed masking would occur near the sound marine mammal habitat, including
in the notice of proposed Authorization source due to the brief duration of these physiological and behavioral effects on
(80 FR 75355, December 1, 2015), it is pulses and relative silence between air marine mammal prey items (e.g., fish
unlikely that there would be any cases gun shots (approximately 22 to 170 and invertebrates) in the notice of
of temporary or permanent hearing seconds). The sounds important to small proposed Authorization (80 FR 75355,
impairment resulting from Lamont- odontocete communication are December 1, 2015). While NMFS
Doherty’s activities. NMFS’ predicted predominantly at much higher anticipates that the specified activity
estimates for Level A harassment take frequencies than the dominant may result in marine mammals avoiding
for some species are likely overestimates components of airgun sounds, thus certain areas due to temporary
of the injury that will occur. NMFS limiting the potential for masking in ensonification, the impact to habitat is
expects that successful implementation those species. temporary and reversible. Further,
of the required visual and acoustic Hearing Impairment: Hearing NMFS also considered these impacts to
mitigation measures would avoid Level impairment (either temporary or marine mammals in detail in the notice
A take in some instances. permanent) is also unlikely. Given the of proposed Authorization as behavioral
As outlined in previous NMFS higher level of sound necessary to cause modification. The main impact
documents, the effects of noise on permanent threshold shift as compared associated with the activity would be
marine mammals are highly variable, with temporary threshold shift, it is temporarily elevated noise levels and
often depending on species and considerably less likely that permanent the associated direct effects on marine
contextual factors (based on Richardson threshold shift would occur during the mammals.
et al., 1995). seismic survey. Cetaceans generally
In the Potential Effects of the avoid the immediate area around Mitigation
Specified Activity on Marine Mammals operating seismic vessels, as do some In order to issue an Incidental
section (80 FR 75355, December 1, other marine mammals. Some pinnipeds Harassment Authorization under section
2015); NMFS included a qualitative show avoidance reactions to airguns, 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
discussion of the different ways that but their avoidance reactions are set forth the permissible methods of
Lamont-Doherty’s seismic survey may generally not as strong or consistent taking pursuant to such activity, and
potentially affect marine mammals. compared to cetacean reactions. Also, other means of effecting the least
Behavior: Marine mammals may NMFS expects that some individuals practicable adverse impact on such
behaviorally react to sound when would avoid the source at levels species or stock and its habitat, paying
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
exposed to anthropogenic noise. These expected to result in injury. particular attention to rookeries, mating
behavioral reactions are often shown as: Nonetheless, although NMFS expects grounds, and areas of similar
Changing durations of surfacing and that Level A harassment is unlikely to significance, and on the availability of
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or occur, we have conservatively such species or stock for taking for
moving direction and/or speed; authorized and analyzed a low level of certain subsistence uses (where
reduced/increased vocal activities; permanent threshold shift occurrences relevant).
changing/cessation of certain behavioral for certain species. We acknowledge Lamont-Doherty has reviewed the
activities (such as socializing or that it is difficult to quantify the degree following source documents and has
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/6.svg)
![2180 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
incorporated a suite of proposed seismic system is not operating for observer would have a good view
mitigation measures into their project comparison of sighting rates and around the entire vessel. During
description. behavior with and without airgun daytime, the observers would scan the
(1) Protocols used during previous operations and between acquisition area around the vessel systematically
Lamont-Doherty and NSF-funded periods. Based on the observations, the with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50
seismic research cruises as approved by Langseth would power down or Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 x 150),
us and detailed in the NSF’s 2011 PEIS shutdown the airguns when marine and with the naked eye. During
and 2015 draft environmental analysis; mammals are observed within or about darkness, night vision devices would be
(2) Previous incidental harassment to enter a designated exclusion zone for available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3
authorizations applications and cetaceans or pinnipeds. binocular-image intensifier or
authorizations that NMFS has approved During seismic operations, at least equivalent), when required. Laser range-
and authorized; and four protected species observers would finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser
(3) Recommended best practices in be aboard the Langseth. Lamont-Doherty rangefinder or equivalent) would be
Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. would appoint the observers with available to assist with distance
(1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007). NMFS concurrence, and they would estimation. They are useful in training
To reduce the potential for conduct observations during ongoing observers to estimate distances visually,
disturbance from acoustic stimuli daytime operations and nighttime ramp- but are generally not useful in
associated with the activities, Lamont- ups of the airgun array. During the measuring distances to animals directly.
Doherty, and/or its designees have majority of seismic operations, two The user measures distances to animals
proposed to implement the following observers would be on duty from the with the reticles in the binoculars.
mitigation measures for marine observation tower to monitor marine
mammals: Lamont-Doherty would immediately
mammals near the seismic vessel. Using
(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation power down or shutdown the airguns
two observers would increase the
monitoring; when observers see marine mammals
effectiveness of detecting animals near
(2) Proposed exclusion zones; the source vessel. However, during within or about to enter the designated
(3) Power down procedures; exclusion zone. The observer(s) would
(4) Shutdown procedures; mealtimes and bathroom breaks, it is
sometimes difficult to have two continue to maintain watch to
(5) Ramp-up procedures; and determine when the animal(s) are
(6) Speed and course alterations. observers on effort, but at least one
observer would be on watch during outside the exclusion zone by visual
NMFS reviewed Lamont-Doherty’s confirmation. Airgun operations would
proposed mitigation measures and has bathroom breaks and mealtimes.
Observers would be on duty in shifts of not resume until the observer has
proposed an additional measure to confirmed that the animal has left the
effect the least practicable adverse no longer than four hours in duration.
Two observers on the Langseth would zone, or if not observed after 15 minutes
impact on marine mammals. They are: for species with shorter dive durations
(1) Expanded power down procedures also be on visual watch during all
nighttime ramp-ups of the seismic (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30
for concentrations of six or more whales
airguns. A third observer would monitor minutes for species with longer dive
that do not appear to be traveling (e.g.,
the passive acoustic monitoring durations (mysticetes and large
feeding, socializing, etc.).
equipment 24 hours a day to detect odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy
Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation vocalizing marine mammals present in sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked
Monitoring the action area. In summary, a typical whales).
Lamont-Doherty would position daytime cruise would have scheduled Lamont-Doherty would use safety
observers aboard the seismic source two observers (visual) on duty from the radii to designate exclusion zones and
vessel to watch for marine mammals observation tower, and an observer to estimate take for marine mammals.
near the vessel during daytime airgun (acoustic) on the passive acoustic Table 2 shows the distances at which
operations and during any start-ups at monitoring system. Before the start of one would expect to receive sound
night. Observers would also watch for the seismic survey, Lamont-Doherty levels (160-, 180-, and 190-dB,) from the
marine mammals near the seismic would instruct the vessel’s crew to airgun array and a single airgun. If the
vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the assist in detecting marine mammals and protected species visual observer detects
start of airgun operations after an implementing mitigation requirements. marine mammal(s) within or about to
extended shutdown (i.e., greater than The Langseth is a suitable platform for enter the appropriate exclusion zone,
approximately eight minutes for this marine mammal observations. When the Langseth crew would immediately
proposed cruise). When feasible, the stationed on the observation platform, power down the airgun array, or
observers would conduct observations the eye level would be approximately perform a shutdown if necessary (see
during daytime periods when the 21.5 m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the Shut-down Procedures).
TABLE 2—PREDICTED DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 RE: 1 μPA COULD BE
RECEIVED DURING THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS WITHIN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
[January through March, 2016]
Predicted RMS distances 1
Source and volume Tow depth Water depth (m)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(in3) (m) (m)
190 dB 180 dB 160 dB
Single Bolt airgun (40 in3) ................................................... 9 >1,000 100 100 388
36-Airgun Array (6,600 in3) .................................................. 9 >1,000 286 927 5,780
1 Predicted distances based on information presented in Lamont-Doherty’s application.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/7.svg)
![2184 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
the data to statistical, graphical, and Lamont-Doherty shall immediately mammal, and the lead visual observer
other programs for further processing cease the specified activities and determines that the injury or death is
and archiving. immediately report the take to the not associated with or related to the
Results from the vessel-based Division Chief, Permits and authorized activities (e.g., previously
observations will provide: Conservation Division, Office of wounded animal, carcass with moderate
1. The basis for real-time mitigation Protected Resources, NMFS. The report to advanced decomposition, or
(airgun power down or shutdown). must include the following information: scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty
2. Information needed to estimate the • Time, date, and location (latitude/ would report the incident to the Chief
number of marine mammals potentially longitude) of the incident; Permits and Conservation Division,
taken by harassment, which Lamont- • Name and type of vessel involved; Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
Doherty must report to the Office of • Vessel’s speed during and leading within 24 hours of the discovery.
Protected Resources. up to the incident; Lamont-Doherty would provide
3. Data on the occurrence, • Description of the incident;
photographs or video footage (if
distribution, and activities of marine • Status of all sound source use in the
mammals and turtles in the area where available) or other documentation of the
24 hours preceding the incident;
Lamont-Doherty would conduct the • Water depth; stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
seismic study. • Environmental conditions (e.g., Estimated Take by Incidental
4. Information to compare the wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea Harassment
distance and distribution of marine state, cloud cover, and visibility);
mammals and turtles relative to the • Description of all marine mammal Except with respect to certain
source vessel at times with and without observations in the 24 hours preceding activities not pertinent here, section
seismic activity. the incident; 3(18) of the MMPA defines
5. Data on the behavior and • Species identification or ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of pursuit,
movement patterns of marine mammals description of the animal(s) involved; torment, or annoyance which (i) has the
detected during non-active and active • Fate of the animal(s); and potential to injure a marine mammal or
seismic operations. • Photographs or video footage of the marine mammal stock in the wild [Level
animal(s) (if equipment is available). A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential
Reporting Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its to disturb a marine mammal or marine
Lamont-Doherty would submit a activities until we are able to review the mammal stock in the wild by causing
report to us and to NSF within 90 days circumstances of the prohibited take. disruption of behavioral patterns,
after the end of the cruise. The report We shall work with Lamont-Doherty to including, but not limited to, migration,
would describe the operations determine what is necessary to breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
conducted and sightings of marine minimize the likelihood of further sheltering [Level B harassment].
mammals near the operations. The prohibited take and ensure MMPA
report would provide full compliance. Lamont-Doherty may not Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased
documentation of methods, results, and resume their activities until notified by underwater sound) generated during the
interpretation pertaining to all us via letter, email, or telephone. operation of the airgun array may have
monitoring. The 90-day report would In the event that Lamont-Doherty the potential to result in the behavioral
summarize the dates and locations of discovers an injured or dead marine disturbance of some marine mammals
seismic operations, and all marine mammal, and the lead visual observer and may have an even smaller potential
mammal sightings (dates, times, determines that the cause of the injury to result in permanent threshold shift
locations, activities, associated seismic or death is unknown and the death is (non-lethal injury) of some marine
survey activities). The report would also relatively recent (i.e., in less than a mammals. NMFS expects that the
include estimates of the number and moderate state of decomposition as we proposed mitigation and monitoring
nature of exposures that occurred above describe in the next paragraph), Lamont- measures would minimize the
the harassment threshold based on the Doherty will immediately report the possibility of injurious or lethal takes.
observations. The report would consider incident to the Division Chief, Permits However, NMFS cannot discount the
both published literature and previous and Conservation Division, Office of possibility (albeit small) that exposure
monitoring results that could inform the Protected Resources, NMFS. The report to energy from the proposed survey
detectability of different species and must include the same information could result in non-lethal injury (Level
how that information affects post survey identified in the paragraph above this A harassment). Thus, NMFS proposes to
exposure estimates. section. Activities may continue while authorize take by Level B harassment
In the unanticipated event that the NMFS reviews the circumstances of the and Level A harassment resulting from
specified activity clearly causes the take incident. NMFS would work with the operation of the sound sources for
of a marine mammal in a manner not Lamont-Doherty to determine whether the proposed seismic survey based upon
permitted by the authorization (if modifications in the activities are the current acoustic exposure criteria
issued), such as an injury, serious appropriate. shown in Table 3 subject to the
injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, In the event that Lamont-Doherty limitations in take described in Table 5
gear interaction, and/or entanglement), discovers an injured or dead marine later in this notice.
TABLE 3—NMFS’ CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Criterion Criterion definition Threshold
Level A Harassment (Injury) ............................... Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) ................... 180 dB re 1 microPa-m (cetaceans)/190 dB re
(Any level above that which is known to 1 microPa-m (pinnipeds) root mean square
cause TTS). (rms).
Level B Harassment ........................................... Behavioral Disruption (for impulse noises) ...... 160 dB re 1 microPa-m (rms).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/11.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices 2185
NMFS’ practice is to apply the 160 dB of instances that marine mammals could received levels greater than or equal to
re: 1 mPa received level threshold for be exposed to airgun sounds above the 160-dB re: 1 mPa on a given day to
underwater impulse sound levels to 160-dB Level B harassment threshold derive the number of instances of
predict whether behavioral disturbance and the 180-dB Level A harassment exposures estimated to occur between
that rises to the level of Level B thresholds, NMFS used the following 160 and 180-dB threshold (i.e., Level B
harassment is likely to occur. NMFS’ approach for species with density takes).
practice is to apply the 180 dB or 190 estimates derived from the Navy’s In many cases, this estimate of
dB re: 1 mPa received level threshold for Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing instances of exposures is likely an
underwater impulse sound levels to Navy Marine Species Density Database overestimate of the number of
predict whether permanent threshold (NMSDD) maps for the survey area in individuals that are taken, because it
shift (auditory injury), which we the Southern Atlantic Ocean. NMFS assumes 100 percent turnover in the
consider as Level A harassment is likely used the highest density range for each area every day, (i.e., that each new day
to occur. species within the survey area. results in takes of entirely new
(1) Calculate the total area that the individuals with no repeat takes of the
Acknowledging Uncertainties in Langseth would ensonify above the 160- same individuals over the 22-day period
Estimating Take dB Level B harassment threshold and (28 days with contingency). It is
Given the many uncertainties in above the 180-dB Level A harassment difficult to quantify to what degree this
predicting the quantity and types of threshold for cetaceans within a 24-hour method overestimates the number of
impacts of sound on marine mammals, period. This calculation includes a daily individuals potentially taken. Except as
it is common practice to estimate how ensonified area of approximately 1,377 described later for a few specific
many animals are likely to be present square kilometers (km2) (532 square species, NMFS uses this number of
within a particular distance of a given miles [mi2]) for the five OBS tracklines instances as the estimate of individuals
activity, or exposed to a particular level and 1,839 km2 (710 mi2) for the MCS (and authorized take) even though
of sound, and use that information to trackline based on the Langseth NMFS is aware that the number may be
predict how many animals are taken. In traveling approximately 150 km [93 mi] somewhat high due to the use of the
practice, depending on the amount of in one day). Generally, the Langseth maximum density estimate from the
information available to characterize travels approximately 137 km (85 mi) in NMSDD.
daily and seasonal movement and one day while conducting a seismic Take Estimates for Species with Less
distribution of affected marine survey; thus, NMFS’ estimate of a daily than One Instance of Exposure: Using
mammals, distinguishing between the ensonified area based on 150 km is an the approach described earlier, the
numbers of individuals harassed and estimation of the theoretical maximum model generated instances of take for
the instances of harassment can be that the Langseth could travel within 24 some species that were less than one
difficult to parse. Moreover, when one hours. over the 28-day duration. Those species
considers the duration of the activity, in (2) Multiply each daily ensonified include the humpback, blue, Bryde’s,
the absence of information to predict the area above the 160-dB Level B pygmy sperm, and dwarf sperm whale.
degree to which individual animals are harassment threshold by the species’ NMFS used data based on dedicated
likely exposed repeatedly on subsequent density (animals/km2) to derive the survey sighting information from the
days, the simple assumption is that predicted number of instances of Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for
entirely new animals are exposed every exposures to received levels greater than Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys in
day, which results in a take estimate or equal to 160-dB re: 1 mPa on a given 2010, 2011, and 2013 (AMAPPS, 2010,
that in some circumstances day; 2011, 2013) to estimate take and
overestimates the number of individuals (3) Multiply each product (i.e., the assumed that Lamont-Doherty could
harassed. expected number of instances of potentially encounter one group of each
The following sections describe exposures within a day) by the number species during the proposed seismic
NMFS’ methods to estimate take by of survey days that includes a 25 survey. NMFS believes it is reasonable
incidental harassment. We base these percent contingency (i.e., a total of six to use the average (mean) group size
estimates on the number of marine days for the five OBS tracklines and a (weighted by effort and rounded up)
mammals that could be potentially total of 22 days for the MCS trackline) from the AMMAPS surveys for
harassed by seismic operations with the to derive the predicted number of humpback whale (3), blue whale (2),
airgun array during approximately 3,236 instances of exposures above 160 dB Bryde’s whale (2), pygmy sperm whale
km (2,028 mi) of transect lines in the over the duration of the survey; (2), and dwarf sperm whale (2) to derive
South Atlantic Ocean. (4) Multiply the daily ensonified area a reasonable estimate of take for
Modeled Number of Instances of by each species-specific density to eruptive occurrences.
Exposures: Lamont-Doherty would derive the predicted number of Take Estimates for Species with No
conduct the proposed seismic survey instances of exposures to received levels Density Information: Density
within the high seas in the South greater than or equal to 180-dB re: 1 mPa information for the Southern right
Atlantic Ocean. NMFS presents for cetaceans on a given day (i.e., Level whale, southern elephant seal, and
estimates of the anticipated numbers of A takes). This calculation includes a Subantarctic fur seal in the South
instances that marine mammals could daily ensonified area of approximately Atlantic Ocean is data poor or non-
be exposed to sound levels greater than 207 km2 (80 mi2) for the five OBS existent. When density estimates were
or equal to 160, 180, and 190 dB re: 1 tracklines and 281 km2 (108 mi2) for the not available, NMFS used data based on
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
mPa during the proposed seismic survey. MCS trackline. dedicated survey sighting information
Table 5 represents the numbers of (5) Multiply each product by the from the Atlantic Marine Assessment
instances of take that NMFS proposes to number of survey days that includes a Program for Protected Species
authorize for this survey within the 25 percent contingency (i.e., a total of (AMAPPS) surveys in 2010, 2011, and
South Atlantic Ocean. six days for the five OBS tracklines and 2013 (AMAPPS, 2010, 2011, 2013) to
NMFS’ Take Estimate Method for a total of 22 days for the MCS trackline). estimate take for the three species.
Species with Density Information: In Subtract that product from the predicted NMFS assumed that Lamont-Doherty
order to estimate the potential number number of instances of exposures to could potentially encounter one group
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/12.svg)
![2186 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices
of each species during the seismic unidentified seals (2) from the Payne, 1991) to estimate a mean group
survey. NMFS believes it is reasonable AMMAPS surveys for southern elephant size for southern right whale dolphins
to use the average (mean) group size and Subantarctic fur seals multiplied by (58) and also multiplied that estimate by
(weighted by effort and rounded up) for 28 days to derive an estimate of take 28 days to derive an estimate of take
North Atlantic right whales (3) from the from a potential encounter. from a potential encounter with that
AMMAPS surveys for the Southern right NMFS used sighting information from species.
whale and the mean group size for a survey off Namibia, Africa (Rose and
TABLE 4—DENSITIES AND/OR MEAN GROUP SIZE, AND ESTIMATES OF THE POSSIBLE NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS AND
POPULATION PERCENTAGES EXPOSED TO SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160, 180, AND 190 dB re: 1
μPa OVER 28 DAYS DURING THE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN
[January through March, 2016]
Modeled number
of instances of Proposed Proposed
Density exposures to Percent of Population
Species Level A Level B
estimate 1 sound levels take 3 take 3
population 4 trend 5
≥160, 180, and
190 dB 2
Antarctic minke whale ...................................... 0.054983 2,276, 396, - 396 2,276 0.519 Unknown.
Blue whale ........................................................ 0.000032 2, 0, - 0 2 0.074 Unknown.
Bryde’s whale ................................................... 0.000262 2, 0, - 0 2 0.005 Unknown.
Common minke whale ...................................... 0.054983 2,276, 396, - 396 2,276 0.519 Unknown.
Fin whale .......................................................... 0.002888 106, 28, - 28 106 0.609 Unknown.
Humpback whale .............................................. 0.000078 3, 0, - 0 3 0.200 ↑.
Sei whale .......................................................... 0.002688 106, 28, - 28 106 1.340 Unknown.
Southern right whale ........................................ NA 18, 0, - 0 18 0.150 Unknown.
Sperm whale .................................................... 0.001214 50, 0, - 0 50 0.014 Unknown.
Dwarf sperm whale .......................................... 0.000041 2, 0, - 0 2 0.053 Unknown.
Pygmy sperm whale ......................................... 0.000021 2, 0, - 0 2 0.053 Unknown.
Cuvier’s beaked whale ..................................... 0.003831 156, 28, - 28 156 0.031 Unknown.
Andrew’s beaked whale ................................... 0.000511 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown.
Arnoux’s beaked whale .................................... 0.000956 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown.
Blainville’s beaked whale ................................. 0.000663 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown.
Gervais’ beaked whale ..................................... 0.001334 56, 0, - 0 56 0.009 Unknown.
Gray’s beaked whale ........................................ 0.000944 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown.
Hector’s beaked whale ..................................... 0.000246 0, 0, - 0 0 0.000 Unknown.
Shepherd’s beaked whale ................................ 0.000816 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown.
Strap-toothed beaked whale ............................ 0.000638 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown.
True’s beaked whale ........................................ 0.000876 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown.
Southern bottlenose whale ............................... 0.000917 28, 0, - 0 28 0.005 Unknown.
Bottlenose dolphin ............................................ 0.020744 848, 156, - 156 848 0.167 Unknown.
Rough-toothed dolphin ..................................... 0.000418 22, 0, - 0 22 8.118 Unknown.
Pantropical spotted dolphin .............................. 0.003674 156, 28, - 28 156 5.521 Unknown.
Striped dolphin ................................................. 0.174771 7,208, 1,294, - 1,294 7,208 15.513 Unknown.
Fraser’s dolphin ................................................ 0.001568 56, 0, - 0 56 0.019 Unknown.
Spinner dolphin ................................................ 0.006255 262, 50, - 50 262 0.026 Unknown.
Atlantic spotted dolphin .................................... 0.077173 3,180, 580, - 580 3,180 8.409 Unknown.
Clymene dolphin ............................................... 0.000258 0, 0, - 0 0 0.000 Unknown.
Risso’s dolphin ................................................. 0.037399 1,540, 290, - 290 1,540 8.844 Unknown.
Long-beaked common dolphin ......................... 0.000105 0, 0, - 0 0 0.000 Unknown.
Short-beaked common dolphin ........................ 0.129873 5,356, 954, - 954 5,356 3.637 Unknown.
Southern right whale dolphin ........................... NA 1,624, 0, - 0 1,624 Unknown Unknown.
Melon-headed whale ........................................ 0.006285 262, 50, - 50 262 0.624 Unknown.
Pygmy killer whale ........................................... 0.001039 50, 0, - 0 50 1.395 Unknown.
False killer whale .............................................. 0.000158 0, 0, - 0 0 0.000 Unknown.
Killer whale ....................................................... 0.003312 134, 28, - 28 134 0.324 Unknown.
Long-finned pilot whale .................................... 0.007614 318, 56, - 56 318 0.187 Unknown.
Short-finned pilot whale .................................... 0.015616 636, 106, - 106 636 0.371 Unknown.
Southern Elephant Seal ................................... NA 56, 0, 0 0 56 0.009 Unknown.
Subantarctic fur seal ........................................ NA 56, 0, 0 0 56 0.018 Unknown.
1 Densities (where available) are expressed as number of individuals per km2. Densities estimated from the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Training and
Testing Navy Marine Species Density Database maps for the survey area in the Southern Atlantic Ocean. NA = Not available.
2 See preceding text for information on NMFS’ take estimate calculations. NA = Not applicable.
3 Modeled instances of exposures include adjustments for species with no density information. The Level A estimates are overestimates of pre-
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
dicted impacts to marine mammals as the estimates do not take into consideration the required mitigation measures for shutdowns or power
downs if a marine mammal is likely to enter the 180 dB exclusion zone while the airguns are active.
4 Table 2 in this notice lists the stock species abundance estimates used in calculating the percentage of the population.
5 Population trend information from Waring et al., 2015. ↑= Increasing. ↓ = Decreasing. Unknown = Insufficient data.
Lamont-Doherty did not estimate any other than airguns. NMFS does not echosounder and sub-bottom profiler to
additional take from sound sources expect the sound levels produced by the exceed the sound levels produced by
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/13.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices 2187
the airguns. Lamont-Doherty will not • The number of anticipated injuries, concentrate for any long amount of time
operate the multibeam echosounder and serious injuries, or mortalities; (i.e., since the duration of exposure to
sub-bottom profiler during transits to • The number, nature, and intensity, loud sounds will be relatively short), we
and from the survey area, (i.e., when the and duration of harassment; and anticipate that any PTS incurred would
airguns are not operating) and in • The context in which the takes be in the form of only a small degree of
between transits to each of the five OBS occur (e.g., impacts to areas of permanent threshold shift and not total
tracklines, and, therefore, NMFS does significance, impacts to local deafness.
not anticipate additional takes from populations, and cumulative impacts Of the marine mammal species under
these sources in this particular case. when taking into account successive/ our jurisdiction that are known to occur
NMFS considers the probability for contemporaneous actions when added or likely to occur in the study area, the
entanglement of marine mammals as to baseline data); following species are listed as
low because of the vessel speed and the • The status of stock or species of endangered under the ESA: Blue, fin,
monitoring efforts onboard the survey marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not humpback, sei, Southern right whale,
vessel. Therefore, NMFS does not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, and sperm whales. The western north
believe it is necessary to authorize impact relative to the size of the Atlantic population of humpback
additional takes for entanglement at this population); whales is known to be increasing. The
time. • Impacts on habitat affecting rates of other marine mammal species that may
The Langseth will operate at a recruitment/survival; and be taken by harassment during Lamont-
• The effectiveness of monitoring and Doherty’s seismic survey program are
relatively slow speed (typically 4.6
mitigation measures to reduce the not listed as threatened or endangered
knots [8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph]) when
number or severity of incidental takes. under the ESA.
conducting the survey. Protected To avoid repetition, our analysis
species observers would monitor for Cetaceans. Odontocete reactions to
applies to all the species listed in Table seismic energy pulses are usually
marine mammals, which would trigger 5, given that NMFS expects the
mitigation measures, including vessel thought to be limited to shorter
anticipated effects of the seismic airguns distances from the airgun(s) than are
avoidance where safe. Therefore, NMFS to be similar in nature. Where there are
does not anticipate nor do we authorize those of mysticetes, in part because
meaningful differences between species odontocete low-frequency hearing is
takes of marine mammals from vessel or stocks, or groups of species, in
strike. assumed to be less sensitive than that of
anticipated individual responses to mysticetes. Given sufficient notice
There is no evidence that the planned
activities, impact of expected take on through relatively slow ship speed,
survey activities could result in serious
the population due to differences in NMFS generally expects marine
injury or mortality within the specified
population status, or impacts on habitat, mammals to move away from a noise
geographic area for the requested
NMFS has identified species-specific source that is annoying prior to
proposed Authorization. The required
factors to inform the analysis. becoming potentially injurious,
mitigation and monitoring measures Given the required mitigation and
would minimize any potential risk for although Level A takes for a small group
related monitoring, NMFS does not of species are proposed for
serious injury or mortality. anticipate that serious injury or authorization here.
Analysis and Determinations mortality would occur as a result of Potential impacts to marine mammal
Lamont-Doherty’s proposed seismic habitat were discussed previously in
Negligible Impact survey in the South Atlantic Ocean. this document (see the ‘‘Anticipated
Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact Thus the proposed authorization does Effects on Habitat’’ section). Although
resulting from the specified activity that not authorize any mortality. some disturbance is possible to food
cannot be reasonably expected to, and is NMFS’ predicted estimates for Level sources of marine mammals, the
not reasonably likely to, adversely affect A harassment take for some species are impacts are anticipated to be minor
the species or stock through effects on likely overestimates of the injury that enough as to not affect annual rates of
annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ will occur. NMFS expects that recruitment or survival of marine
(50 CFR 216.103). The lack of likely successful implementation of the mammals in the area. Based on the size
adverse effects on annual rates of required visual and acoustic mitigation of the South Atlantic Ocean where
recruitment or survival (i.e., population measures would avoid Level A take in feeding by marine mammals occurs
level effects) forms the basis of a some instances. Also, NMFS expects versus the localized area of the marine
negligible impact finding. Thus, an that some individuals would avoid the survey activities, any missed feeding
estimate of the number of takes, alone, source at levels expected to result in opportunities in the direct project area
is not enough information on which to injury. Nonetheless, although NMFS will be minor based on the fact that
base an impact determination. In expects that Level A harassment is other feeding areas exist elsewhere.
addition to considering estimates of the unlikely to occur at the numbers Taking into account the planned
number of marine mammals that might proposed to be authorized, because it is mitigation measures, effects on
be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral difficult to quantify the degree to which cetaceans are generally expected to be
harassment, NMFS must consider other the mitigation and avoidance will restricted to avoidance of a limited area
factors, such as the likely nature of any reduce the number of animals that around the survey operation and short-
responses (their intensity, duration, might incur PTS, we are proposing to term changes in behavior, falling within
etc.), the context of any responses authorize, and have included in our the MMPA definition of ‘‘Level B
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(critical reproductive time or location, analyses, the modeled number of Level harassment.’’ Animals are not expected
migration, etc.), as well as the number A takes, which does not take the to permanently abandon any area that is
and nature of estimated Level A mitigation or avoidance into surveyed, and any behaviors that are
harassment takes, the number of consideration. However, because of the interrupted during the activity are
estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, constant movement of the Langseth and expected to resume once the activity
and the status of the species. the animals, as well as the fact that the ceases. Only a small portion of marine
In making a negligible impact boat is not staying in any one area in mammal habitat will be affected at any
determination, NMFS considers: which individuals would be expected to time, and other areas within the South
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/14.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Notices 2189
issued a FONSI in accordance with USFWS, Anadromous Fish Restoration Coast (SONCC); endangered Central
NEPA and NOAA Administrative Order Program (AFRP); Permit 17867 to the California Coast (CCC).
216–6. NMFS’ EA and FONSI for this Humboldt Redwood Company (HRC); Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened
activity are available upon request (see Permit 17877 to the Bureau of Northern California (NC); threatened
ADDRESSES). Reclamation (BOR); Permit 17916 to the CCC; threatened California Central
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Valley (CCV); threatened South-Central
Authorization
Arcata Field Office; Permit 18012 to the California Coast (S–CCC); endangered
NMFS has issued an Incidental CDFW, Bay Delta Region; Permit 18712 Southern California (SC).
Harassment Authorization to Lamont- to H.T. Harvey & Associates; Permit North American green sturgeon
Doherty for the take of marine 18937 to the Scripps Institution of (Acipenser medisrostris): Threatened
mammals, incidental to conducting a Oceanography, University of California, southern distinct population segment
marine seismic survey in the South San Diego, California Sea Grant College (sDPS).
Atlantic Ocean January through March Program (CSGCP); Permit 19121 to the Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus):
2016. United States Geological Survey threatened sDPS.
Dated: January 11, 2016. (USGS), California Water Survey; and Permits Issued
Perry F. Gayaldo, Permit 19400 to ICF consulting.
Deputy Director, Office of Protected ADDRESSES: The approved application Permit 1440–2R
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. for each permit is available on the A notice of receipt of an application
[FR Doc. 2016–00660 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] Applications and Permits for Protected for scientific research permit renewal
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Species (APPS), https:// (1440–2R) was published in the Federal
apps.nmfs.noaa.gov Web site by Register on July 29, 2015 (80 FR 45197).
searching the permit number within the Permit 1440–2R was issued to IEP on
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Search Database page. The applications, December 23, 2015 and expires on
issued permits and supporting December 31, 2020.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric documents are also available upon Permit 1440–2R authorizes IEP to take
Administration written request or by appointment: CVSR Chinook salmon, SRWR Chinook
RIN 0648–XE396 Protected Resources Division, NMFS, salmon, CCV steelhead, CCC steelhead
777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa and sDPS green sturgeon while
Endangered and Threatened Species; Rosa, CA 95404 ph: (707) 575–6080, fax: conducting 11 surveys in the San
Take of Anadromous Fish (707) 578–3435). Francisco Bay-Delta region. The studies
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff examine the abundance, and temporal
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Abrams, Santa Rosa, CA (ph.: 707–575– and spatial distribution of various life
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 6080), Fax: 707–578–3435, email: stages of pelagic fishes of management
Commerce. Jeff.Abrams@noaa.gov). concern, including listed species, and
ACTION: Issuance seven new scientific SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The their food (e.g., zooplankton) resources,
research permits, and fourteen renewal issuance of permits and permit along with environmental conditions.
scientific research permits. modifications, as required by the These IEP studies are intended to
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 monitor/inform the effectiveness of
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that U.S.C. 1531–1543) (ESA), is based on a water operations, aquatic habitat
NMFS has issued Permit 1440–2R to the finding that such permits/modifications: restoration, and fish management
Interagency Ecological Program (IEP); (1) Are applied for in good faith; (2) practices, thereby providing a benefit to
Permit 13675–2R to the Fishery would not operate to the disadvantage listed fish. The 11 studies included are:
Foundation of California (FFC); Permit of the listed species which are the (1) Adult Striped Bass, a striped bass
13791–2R to the United States Fish and subject of the permits; and (3) are population study; (2) Fall Midwater
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Stockton consistent with the purposes and Trawl, which monitors the relative
Fish and Wildlife Office (SFWO); Permit policies set forth in section 2 of the abundance of native and introduced fish
14516–2R to Dr. Jerry Smith, Associate ESA. Authority to take listed species is species; (3) Sturgeon Tagging, a white
Professor in the Department of subject to conditions set forth in the sturgeon tagging program; (4) Summer
Biological Sciences at San Jose State permits. Permits and modifications are Townet, which targets delta smelt and
University; Permit 15215 to the issued in accordance with and are young-of-the-year striped bass; (5)
California Department of Fish and subject to the ESA and NMFS Estuarine and Marine Fish, a San
Wildlife (CDFW), Fisheries Branch, Fish regulations (50 CFR parts 222–226) Francisco Bay trawl study; (6) 20mm
Health Laboratory; Permit 16274 to the governing listed fish and wildlife Survey, a study to monitor juvenile
Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC); permits. delta smelt distribution and relative
Permit 17063 to the United States Forest abundance; (7) Yolo Bypass, a research
Service (USFS), Redwood Sciences Species Covered in This Notice effort to understand fish and
Laboratory; Permit 17077–2R to Dr. The following listed species are invertebrate use of the Yolo Bypass
Peter Moyle, with the University of covered in this notice: seasonal floodplain; (8) Upper Estuary
California at Davis, Department of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus Zooplankton, which targets multiple
Wildlife, Fish and Conservation tshawytscha): Threatened Snake River zooplankters; (9) Spring Kodiak Trawl,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Biology; Permit 17219 and Permit 19320 spring/summer-run (SR spr/sum); which determines the relative
to the NMFS Southwest Fisheries threatened Lower Columbia River abundance and distribution of spawning
Science Center (SWFSC), Fisheries (LCR);threatened California Coastal delta smelt; (10) Suisun Marsh Survey,
Ecology Division; Permit 17272 to the (CC); threatened Central Valley spring- monitoring to determine the effects of
USFWS, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office run (CVSR); endangered Sacramento the Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Gates
Fisheries Program (AFWO); Permit River winter-run (SRWR). operation on fish, including listed
17351 to the Green Diamond Resource Coho salmon (O. kisutch): Threatened salmonids; and (11) Smelt Larva Survey,
Company (GDRC); Permit 17396 to the Southern Oregon/Northern California which provides distribution data for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM 15JAN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_2184/page/16.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-02 12:32:05
Document Modified: 2018-02-02 12:32:05
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. | |
| Dates | Effective January 4 through March 31, 2016. | |
| Contact | Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 2174 | |
| RIN Number | 0648-XE29 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR