37286 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

more than three to five minutes each. 

Requests must be submitted by email to 

cheryl.gendron@nist.gov and must be 

received by August 20, 2021 to be 

considered. The exact time for public 

comments will be included in the final 

agenda that will be posted on the MEP 

Advisory Board website at http://

www.nist.gov/mep/about/advisoryboard.cfm. Questions from the public 

will not be considered during this 

period. Speakers who wish to expand 

upon their oral statements, those who 

wished to speak but could not be 

accommodated on the agenda or those 

who are/were unable to attend the 

meeting are invited to submit written 

statements electronically by email to 

cheryl.gendron@nist.gov. 

Admittance Instructions: Anyone 

wishing to attend the MEP Advisory 

Board meeting must submit their name, 

email address and phone number to 

Cheryl Gendron (Cheryl.Gendron@

nist.gov or 301–975–2785) no later than 

Wednesday, August 25, 2021, 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time. 

Alicia Chambers, 

NIST Executive Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15081 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB232] 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Take of Anadromous Fish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Final Environmental Assessment 

(EA), Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI), and Section (10)(a)(1)(A) 

enhancement permit have been issued 

for the Russian River Coho Salmon 

Captive Broodstock Program Hatchery 

Genetic Management Plan (HGMP). The 

program propagates endangered coho 

salmon of the Central California Coast 

(CCC) Evolutionary Significant Unit 

(ESU). This notice is being provided for 

information purposes only, and as such, 

there is no public comment period 

associated with this notice. 

ADDRESSES: The Final EA, FONSI, 

Section (10)(a)(1)(A) enhancement 

permit and supporting documents are 

available by visiting the NMFS website 

(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/ 

laws-and-policies/west-coast-regionnational-environmental-policy-actdocuments). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

Coey at: 707–575–6090 or via email: 

Bob.Coey@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Endangered Species Act—Listed 

Species Covered in This Notice 

• Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch): Endangered Central California 

Coast (CCC) ESU. 

• Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): 

Threatened CCC Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS). 

• Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha): Threatened California 

Coastal (CC) ESU. 

Background 

On September 30, 2019, the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW) and the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) submitted an 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 

10(a)(1)(A) permit application (Permit 

Application 21501) along with a 

proposed HGMP for the artificial 

propagation of individuals in the CCC 

coho salmon ESU at the Don Clausen 

Fish Hatchery (DCFH). Since 2017, 

NMFS’ West Coast Region’s California 

Coastal Office has provided technical 

assistance to the Corps and CDFW on 

the development of the HGMP. The 

Proposed Action, as described in the 

HGMP, involves the operation of a 

hatchery program at DCFH, which 

produces CCC coho salmon. 

The Russian River Coho Salmon 

Captive Broodstock Program (RRCSCBP) 

is a conservation program intended to 

prevent extirpation and establish selfsustaining populations of CCC coho 

salmon in Sonoma, Marin, and 

Mendocino counties, where populations 

are currently at a high-risk of extinction. 

The RRCSCBP will continue to collect 

CCC coho for broodstock, conduct 

routine hatchery activities including 

broodstock collection, egg incubation, 

rearing, tissue sampling, marking, and 

release of 500,000 juveniles and 700 

adult coho salmon into rivers and 

streams in Sonoma, Marin, and 

Mendocino counties associated with the 

northern portion of the CCC ESU. 

Measures will be applied in the 

hatchery program to reduce the risk of 

incidental adverse genetic, ecological, 

and demographic effects on naturalorigin CCC steelhead, CC Chinook 

salmon, and CCC coho salmon 

populations. 

From November 26, 2018 to December 

26, 2018, the HGMP and draft EA were 

available for public review and 

comment (83 FR 60405; November 26, 

2018). During the public comment 

period, NMFS received no comments. 

NMFS has determined that there are no 

significant impacts associated with the 

project and issued a FONSI for the 

program on December 21, 2020. The 

ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued 

January 13, 2021, will allow the Corps 

to perform broodstock collection, 

propagation, rearing, release, and 

monitoring activities throughout 

Sonoma, Marin, and Mendocino 

counties, in accordance with the HGMP 

for 10 years (expiring December 31, 

2028). 

Authority 

Enhancement permits are issued in 

accordance with Section 10(a)(1)(A) of 

the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and 

regulations governing listed fish and 

wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222–227). 

NMFS issues permits based on findings 

that such permits: (1) Are applied for in 

good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, 

would not operate to the disadvantage 

of the listed species that are the subject 

of the permit; (3) are consistent with the 

purposes and policies of Section 2 of the 

ESA. The authority to take listed species 

is subject to conditions set forth in the 

permit. 

Dated: July 12, 2021. 

Margaret Miller, 

Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15075 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB223] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical 

Survey of the Queen Charlotte Fault 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of 

Columbia University (L–DEO) to 

incidentally harass marine mammals 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37287 

during a marine geophysical survey of 

the Queen Charlotte Fault in the 

Northeast Pacific Ocean. 

DATES: The authorization is effective for 

a period of one year, from July 9, 2021, 

through July 8, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability 

Electronic copies of the application 

and supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-lamontdoherty-earth-observatory-geophysicalsurvey-queen. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed above. 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 

(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce 

(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted 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 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable MMPA 

statutory terms cited above are included 

in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On December 3, 2019, NMFS received 

a request from L–DEO for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to a 

geophysical survey of the Queen 

Charlotte Fault (QCF) off of Alaska and 

British Columbia, Canada. L–DEO 

submitted a revised version of the 

application on April 2, 2020. On April 

10, 2020, L–DEO informed NMFS that 

the planned survey would be deferred to 

2021 as a result of issues related to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. L–DEO 

subsequently submitted revised versions 

of the application on October 22 and 

December 16, 2020, the latter of which 

was deemed adequate and complete. A 

final, revised version was submitted on 

January 11, 2021. L–DEO’s request is for 

take of 21 species of marine mammals 

by Level B harassment. In addition, 

NMFS proposes to authorize take by 

Level A harassment for seven of these 

species. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Researchers from L–DEO, the 

University of New Mexico, and Western 

Washington University, with funding 

from NSF, plan to conduct a highenergy seismic survey from the Research 

Vessel (R/V) Marcus G. Langseth 

(Langseth) at the QCF in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean during late summer 2021. 

Other research collaborators include 

Dalhousie University, the Geological 

Survey of Canada, and the U.S. 

Geological Survey. The twodimensional (2–D) seismic survey will 

occur within the Exclusive Economic 

Zones (EEZ) of the United States and 

Canada, including in Canadian 

territorial waters. The survey will use a 

36-airgun towed array with a total 

discharge volume of ∼6,600 cubic inches 

(in3) as an acoustic source, acquiring 

return signals using both a towed 

streamer as well as ocean bottom 

seismometers (OBSs). 

The study will use 2–D seismic 

surveying to characterize crustal and 

uppermost mantle velocity structure, 

fault zone architecture and rheology, 

and seismicity of the QCF. The QCF 

system is an approximately 1,200 

kilometer (km)-long onshore-offshore 

transform system connecting the 

Cascadia and Alaska-Aleutian 

subduction zones; the QCF is the 

approximately 900 km-long offshore 

component of the transform system. The 

purpose of the study is to characterize 

an approximately 450-km segment of 

the fault that encompasses systematic 

variations in key parameters in space 

and time: (1) changes in fault obliquity 

relative to Pacific-North American plate 

motion leading to increased 

convergence from north to south; (2) 

Pacific plate age and theoretical 

mechanical thickness decrease from 

north to south; and (3) a shift in Pacific 

plate motion at approximately 12–6 

million years ago that may have 

increased convergence along the entire 

length of the fault, possibly initiating 

underthrusting in the southern portion 

of the study area. Current understanding 

of how these variations are expressed 

through seismicity, crustal-scale 

deformation, and lithospheric structure 

and dynamics is limited due to lack of 

instrumentation and modern seismic 

imaging. 

Dates and Duration 

The survey is expected to last for 

approximately 36 days, including 

approximately 27 days of seismic 

operations, 3 days of equipment 

deployment/retrieval, 2 days of transits, 

and 4 contingency days (accounting for 

potential delays due to, e.g., weather). 

R/V Langseth will likely leave out of 

and return to port in Ketchikan, Alaska, 

during July-August 2021. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The survey will occur within the area 

of approximately 52–57° N and 

approximately 131–137° W. 

Representative survey tracklines are 

shown in Figure 1. Some deviation in 

actual track lines, including the order of 

survey operations, could be necessary 

for reasons such as science drivers, poor 

data quality, inclement weather, or 

mechanical issues with the research 

vessel and/or equipment. The survey 

will occur within the EEZs of the United 

States and Canada, including Alaskan 

state waters and Canadian territorial 

waters, ranging in depth from 50–2,800 

meters (m). Approximately 4,250 km of 

transect lines will be surveyed, with 13 

percent of the transect lines in Canadian 

territorial waters. Most of the survey (69 

percent) will occur in deep water (≤ 

1,000 m), 30 percent will occur in 

intermediate water (100–1,000 m deep), 

and approximately 1 percent will take 

place in shallow water <100 m deep. 

Note that the MMPA does not apply 

in Canadian territorial waters. L–DEO is 

subject only to Canadian law in 

conducting that portion of the survey. 

However, NMFS has calculated the 

expected level of incidental take in the 

entire activity area (including Canadian 

territorial waters) as part of the analysis 

supporting our determination under the 

MMPA that the activity will have a 

negligible impact on the affected species 

(see Estimated Take and Negligible 

Impact Analysis and Determination). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37288 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN15JY21.104</GPH>

z 

ig 

z 

ra 

13 'W 

Pacific 

Ocean 

Legend 

Ocean Bottom Seismometer Type: 

• Short-period 

+ Broadband 

Q 

• Both (Short-period & Broadband) 

- Survey Transects 

- - 200 Nautical Miles 

- - - 12 Nautical Miles 

- 3 Nautical Miles 

- lsobath (m) 

- Critical Habitat• Steller Sea Lion 

13 ·w 13 ·w 13 W 13 ·w 1 ·w 

Figure 1. Location of the Seismic Survey in the Northeast Pacific Ocean 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37289 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The procedures to be used for the 

survey will be similar to those used 

during previous seismic surveys by L– 

DEO and will use conventional seismic 

methodology. The survey will involve 

one source vessel, the R/V Langseth. R/ 

V Langseth will deploy an array of 36 

airguns as an energy source with a total 

volume of 6,600 cubic inches (in3). The 

array consists of 36 elements, including 

20 Bolt 1500LL airguns with volumes of 

180 to 360 in3 and 16 Bolt 1900LLX 

airguns with volumes of 40 to 120 in3. 

The airgun array configuration is 

illustrated in Figure 2–11 of NSF and 

USGS’s Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS; NSF–USGS, 

2011). (The PEIS is available online at: 

www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/usgsnsf-marine-seismic-research/nsf-usgsfinal-eis-oeis-with-appendices.pdf). The 

vessel speed during seismic operations 

will be approximately 4.2 knots (kn) 

(∼7.8 km/hour) during the survey and 

the airgun array will be towed at a depth 

of 12 m. The receiving system will 

consist of OBSs and a towed 

hydrophone streamer with a nominal 

length of 15 km (OBS and multi-channel 

seismic (MCS) shooting). As the airguns 

are towed along the survey lines, the 

hydrophone streamer will transfer the 

data to the on-board processing system, 

and the OBSs will receive and store the 

returning acoustic signals internally for 

later analysis. 

Approximately 60 short-period OBSs 

will be deployed and subsequently 

retrieved at a total of 123 sites in 

multiple phases from a second vessel, 

the Canadian Coast Guard ship John P. 

Tully (CCGS Tully). Along OBS 

refraction lines, OBSs will be deployed 

by CCGS Tully at 10 km intervals, with 

a spacing of 5 km over the central 40 km 

of the fault zone for fault-normal 

crossings. Twenty-eight broadband OBS 

instruments will also collect data during 

the survey and will be deployed prior to 

the active-source seismic survey, 

depending on logistical constraints. 

When an OBS is ready to be retrieved, 

an acoustic release transponder (pinger) 

interrogates the instrument at a 

frequency of 8–11 kilohertz (kHz); a 

response is received at 11.5–13 kHz. 

The burn-wire release assembly is then 

activated, and the instrument is released 

from its 80-kg anchor to float to the 

surface. Take of marine mammals is not 

expected to occur incidental to L–DEO’s 

use of OBSs. 

The airguns will fire at a shot interval 

of 50 m (approximately 23 seconds (s)) 

during MCS shooting with the 

hydrophone streamer (approximately 42 

percent of survey effort), at a 150-m 

interval (approximately 69 s) during 

refraction surveying to OBSs 

(approximately 29 percent of survey 

effort), and at a shot interval of every 

minute (approximately 130 m) during 

turns (approximately 29 percent of 

survey effort). 

Short-period OBSs will be deployed 

first along five OBS refraction lines by 

CCGS Tully. Two OBS lines run parallel 

to the coast, and three are perpendicular 

to the coast; one perpendicular line is 

located off Southeast Alaska, one is off 

Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, and 

another is located in Dixon Entrance. 

Please see Figure 1 for all location 

references. Following refraction 

shooting of a single line, short-period 

instruments on that line will be 

recovered, serviced, and redeployed on 

a subsequent refraction line while MCS 

data will be acquired by the Langseth. 

MCS lines will be acquired off 

Southeast Alaska, Haida Gwaii, and 

Dixon Entrance. The coast-parallel OBS 

refraction transect nearest to shore will 

only be surveyed once at OBS shot 

spacing. The other coast-parallel OBS 

refraction transect (on the ocean side) 

will be acquired twice, once during 

refraction and once during reflection 

surveys. In addition, portions of the 

three coast-perpendicular OBS 

refraction lines will also be surveyed 

twice, once for OBS shot spacing and 

once for MCS shot spacing. The 

coincident reflection/refraction profiles 

that run parallel to the coast will be 

acquired in multiple segments to ensure 

straight-line geometry. Sawtooth transits 

during which seismic data will be 

acquired will take place between 

transect lines when possible; otherwise, 

boxcar turns will be performed to save 

time. Both reflection and refraction 

surveys will use the same airgun array 

with the same discharge volume. There 

could be additional seismic operations 

associated with turns, airgun testing, 

and repeat coverage of any areas where 

initial data quality is sub-standard, and 

25 percent has been added to the 

assumed survey line-kms to account for 

this potential. 

In addition to the operations of the 

airgun array, a multibeam echosounder 

(MBES), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP), 

and an Acoustic Doppler Current 

Profiler (ADCP) will be operated from R/ 

V Langseth continuously during the 

seismic surveys, but not during transit 

to and from the survey area. Take of 

marine mammals is not expected to 

occur incidental to use of the MBES, 

SBP, or ADCP because they will be 

operated only during seismic 

acquisition, and it is assumed that, 

during simultaneous operations of the 

airgun array and the other sources, any 

marine mammals close enough to be 

affected by the MBES, SBP, and ADCP 

would already be affected by the 

airguns. However, whether or not the 

airguns are operating simultaneously 

with the other sources, given the other 

sources’ characteristics (e.g., narrow 

downward-directed beam), marine 

mammals would experience no more 

than one or two brief ping exposures 

from them, if any exposure were to 

occur. No take of marine mammals is 

expected to occur incidental to the use 

of these sources, regardless of whether 

they are used in conjunction with the 

airgun array. Required mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures are 

described in detail later in this 

document (please see Mitigation and 

Monitoring and Reporting). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 4, 2021 (86 FR 30006). During the 

30-day public comment period, NMFS 

did not receive any substantive public 

comments. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA 

The primary change from the 

proposed IHA is the addition of take 

authorization for the North Pacific right 

whale. In the notice of proposed IHA, 

we described available information 

regarding North Pacific right whale 

occurrence in the survey region and 

determined that encounter was unlikely 

and that authorization of take was not 

warranted. Following publication of the 

notice of proposed IHA, on 

approximately June 15, 2021, a North 

Pacific right whale was observed in 

Canadian waters off Haida Gwaii during 

survey effort by the Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Kloster, 

2021). As a result, NMFS has authorized 

North Pacific right whale take, as 

described in greater detail in Estimated 

Take, given the potential for a repeat 

encounter during L–DEO’s survey. 

In addition, we rectify an error in the 

estimated take of Steller sea lions 

occurring within Canadian territorial 

waters. Estimates of take that may occur 

within foreign territorial waters are not 

authorized under the MMPA, but are 

considered in making a finding of 

negligible impact on the affected species 

or stocks. In this case, we incorrectly 

applied a density value to L–DEO 

survey effort in deep water, when in fact 

the density of Steller sea lions in the 

deep depth stratum is correctly assumed 

to be zero (DoN, 2021). Through 

correction of this error, the estimated 

take of Steller sea lions in Canadian 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37290 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

territorial waters is revised from 2,522 

to 2,278. Please see Table 7. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the survey 

area and summarizes information 

related to the population or stock, 

including regulatory status under the 

MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2021). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Pacific and Alaska SARs. 

All MMPA stock information presented 

in Table 1 is the most recent available 

at the time of publication and is 

available in the 2019 SARs (Caretta et 

al., 2020; Muto et al., 2020) and draft 

2020 SARs (available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). Where available, abundance 

and status information is also presented 

for marine mammals in British 

Columbia waters. Twenty-two species 

(with 29 managed stocks) are considered 

to have the potential to occur in the 

survey area. 

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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent abundance 

survey) 2

British 

Columbia 

abundance 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae: 

North Pacific right 

whale.

Eubalaena japonica ........... Eastern North Pacific 

(ENP).

E/D; Y 31 (0.226; 26; 2008) ........................ 0.05 0 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale .................. Eschrichtius robustus ........ Eastern North Pacific 

(ENP) *.

-; N 26,960 (0.05; 25,849; 

2016).

........................ 801 131 

Western North Pacific 

(WNP)*.

E/D; Y 290 (n/a; 271; 2016) ........................ 0.12 Unk 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ........ Megaptera novaeangliae 

kuzira.

Central North Pacific 

(CNP) *.

E/D; Y 10,103 (0.3; 7,891; 

2006).

1,029 83 26 

Minke whale ................ Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

scammoni.

Alaska * .............................. -; N Unknown ................... 522 Undet. 0 

Sei whale .................... B. borealis borealis ............ ENP ................................... E/D; Y 519 (0.4; 374; 2014) ........................ 0.75 ≥0.2 

Fin whale .................... B. physalus physalus ......... Northeast Pacific * ............. E/D; Y Unknown ................... 329 Undet. 0.6 

Blue whale .................. B. musculus musculus ....... ENP ................................... E/D; Y 1,496 (0.44; 1,050; 

2014).

........................ 7 1.2 ≥19.4 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

Sperm whale ............... Physeter macrocephalus ... North Pacific * .................... E/D; Y Unknown ................... ........................ Undet. 3.5 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked 

whales): 

Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris .............. Alaska * .............................. -; N Unknown ................... ........................ Undet. 0 

Baird’s beaked whale Berardius bairdii ................. Alaska * .............................. -; N Unknown ................... ........................ Undet. 0 

Stejneger’s beaked 

whale.

Mesoplodon stejnegeri ...... Alaska * .............................. -; N Unknown ................... ........................ Undet. 0 

Family Delphinidae: 

Pacific white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens.

North Pacific 6 .................... -; N 26,880 (n/a; 26,880; 

1990).

22,160 Undet. 0 

Northern right whale 

dolphin.

Lissodelphis borealis ......... CA/OR/WA ......................... -; N 26,556 (0.44; 18,608; 

2014).

........................ 179 3.8 

Risso’s dolphin ............ Grampus griseus ............... CA/OR/WA ......................... -; N 6,336 (0.32; 4,817; 

2014).

........................ 46 ≥3.7 

Killer whale ................. Orcinus orca 5 .................... ENP Offshore .................... -; N 300 (0.1; 276; 2012) 371 2.8 0 

ENP Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering 

Sea Transient.

-; N 587 (n/a; 2012) ......... 5.9 0.8 

ENP West Coast Transient -; N 349 (n/a; 2018) ......... 3.5 0.4 

ENP Alaska Resident ........ -; N 2,347 (n/a; 2012) ...... 24 1 

Northern Resident ............. -; N 302 (n/a; 2018) ......... 2.2 0.2 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37291 

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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent abundance 

survey) 2

British 

Columbia 

abundance 3

PBR Annual 

M/SI 4

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor porpoise .......... Phocoena phocoena 

vomerina.

Southeast Alaska * ............. –; Y Unknown ................... 8,091 Undet. 34 

Dall’s porpoise ............ Phocoenoides dalli dalli ..... Alaska 6 .............................. -; N 83,400 (0.097; n/a; 

1991).

5,303 Undet. 38 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared 

seals and sea lions): 

Northern fur seal ......... Callorhinus ursinus ............ Pribilof Islands/Eastern Pacific.D; Y 608,143 (0.2; 

514,738; 2018).

........................ 11,067 387 

California sea lion ....... Zalophus californianus ....... United States ..................... –/-; N 257,606 (N/A, 

233,515, 2014).

........................ 14,011 ≥321 

Steller sea lion ............ Eumetopias jubatus 

jubatus.

Western U.S. * ................... E/D; Y 52,932 (n/a; 2019) .... 15,348 318 255 

E. j. monteriensis ............... Eastern U.S. * .................... –/-; N 43,201 (n/a; 2017) .... ........................ 2,592 112 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Harbor seal ................. Phoca vitulina richardii ...... Sitka/Chatham Strait .......... -; N 13,289 (n/a; 11,883; 

2015).

24,916 356 77 

Dixon/Cape Decision ......... -; N 23,478 (n/a; 21,453; 

2015).

644 69 

Clarence Strait ................... -; N 27,659 (n/a; 24,854; 

2015).

746 40 

Northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris ..... California Breeding ............ -; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 

2010).

........................ 4,882 8.8 

*Stocks marked with an asterisk were addressed in further detail in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 30006; June 4, 2021). 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For most stocks of killer whales, the abundance values represent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, 

abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the species’ (or 

similar species’) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore. 3Total abundance estimates for animals in British Columbia based on surveys of the Strait of Georgia, Johnstone Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait, and 

Dixon Entrance. This column represents estimated abundance of animals in British Columbia, where available, but does not necessarily represent additional stocks. 

Please see Best et al. (2015) and Pitcher et al. (2007) for additional information. 4These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, subsistence hunting, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value. All M/SI values are 

as presented in the draft 2020 SARs. 5Transient and resident killer whales are considered unnamed subspecies (Committee on Taxonomy, 2020). 

6Abundance estimates for these stocks are not considered current. PBR is therefore considered undetermined for these stocks, as there is no current minimum 

abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as these represent the best available information for use 

in this document. 7This stock is known to spend a portion of time outside the U.S. EEZ. Therefore, the PBR presented here is the allocation for U.S. waters only and is a portion of 

the total. The total PBR for blue whales is 2.1 (7/12 allocation for U.S. waters). Annual M/SI presented for these species is for U.S. waters only. 

Table 1 denotes the status of species 

and stocks under the U.S. MMPA and 

ESA. We note also that under Canada’s 

Species at Risk Act, the sei whale and 

blue whale are listed as endangered; the 

fin whale and northern resident, 

offshore, and transient populations of 

killer whales are listed as threatened; 

and the humpback whale, harbor 

porpoise, and Steller sea lion are 

considered species of special concern. 

The North Pacific right whale 

historically occurred across the North 

Pacific Ocean in subpolar to temperate 

waters, including waters off the coast of 

British Columbia (Scarff, 1986; Clapham 

et al., 2004). Sightings of this 

endangered species are now extremely 

rare, occurring primarily in the Okhotsk 

Sea and the eastern Bering Sea 

(Brownell et al., 2001; Shelden et al., 

2005; Wade et al., 2006; Zerbini et al., 

2010). The summer range of the eastern 

North Pacific stock includes the Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA) and the Bering Sea, while 

the winter calving grounds remain 

unknown. Sightings in GOA are 

extremely rare. During three separate 

marine mammal surveys in the northern 

GOA from 2013–2019, including one 

dedicated to right whales, right whales 

were acoustically detected off Kodiak 

Island but were not visually observed 

(Muto et al., 2020). 

In 2013, two North Pacific right whale 

sightings were made off the coast of 

British Columbia (U.S. Department of 

the Navy, 2015), representing the first 

sightings in Canadian waters since the 

1950s. Individual sightings in Canadian 

waters were subsequently recorded in 

2018 and 2020 (Muto et al., 2020). There 

have also been four sightings, each of a 

single North Pacific right whale, in 

California waters within approximately 

the last 30 years (most recently in 2017) 

(Carretta et al., 1994; Brownell et al., 

2001; Price, 2017). This historical 

paucity of sightings in the region led 

NMFS to conclude that there would be 

a very low probability of encountering 

this species in the action area and, 

therefore, that take should not be 

proposed for authorization. However, 

following the June 2021 sighting of a 

single right whale in Canadian waters 

discussed above, we have determined 

that an encounter could occur and, 

therefore, that take should be 

authorized. This sighting, and the 

subsequent decision to authorize take, is 

not necessarily inconsistent with the 

analysis presented in the notice of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37292 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

proposed authorization. Rather, this 

sighting is consistent with the recent 

historical record of infrequent, 

unpredictable occurrence in the region. 

The fact that this most recent sighting 

has occurred within the survey area and 

nearly contemporaneous with the 

planned survey means that there is 

some heightened potential for encounter 

that should be considered in authorizing 

take that may occur incidental to the 

survey activity. See Estimated Take for 

additional discussion. 

Two populations of gray whales are 

recognized, eastern and western North 

Pacific (ENP and WNP). WNP whales 

are known to feed in the Okhotsk Sea 

and off of Kamchatka before migrating 

south to poorly known wintering 

grounds, possibly in the South China 

Sea. The two populations have 

historically been considered 

geographically isolated from each other; 

however, data from satellite-tracked 

whales indicate that there is some 

overlap between the stocks. Two WNP 

whales were tracked from Russian 

foraging areas along the Pacific rim to 

Baja California (Mate et al., 2011), and, 

in one case where the satellite tag 

remained attached to the whale for a 

longer period, a WNP whale was tracked 

from Russia to Mexico and back again 

(IWC, 2012). A number of whales are 

known to have occurred in the eastern 

Pacific through comparisons of ENP and 

WNP photo-identification catalogs 

(IWC, 2012; Weller et al., 2011; Burdin 

et al., 2011). Therefore, a portion of the 

WNP population is assumed to migrate, 

at least in some years, to the eastern 

Pacific during the winter breeding 

season. Based on guidance provided 

through interagency consultation under 

section 7 of the ESA, approximately 0.1 

percent of gray whales occurring in 

southeast Alaska and northern British 

Columbia are likely to be from the 

Western North Pacific stock; the rest 

would be from the Eastern North Pacific 

stock. 

Prior to 2016, humpback whales were 

listed under the ESA as an endangered 

species worldwide. Following a 2015 

global status review (Bettridge et al., 

2015), NMFS delineated 14 distinct 

population segments (DPS) with 

different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. 

The DPSs that occur in U.S. waters do 

not necessarily equate to the existing 

stocks designated under the MMPA and 

shown in Table 1. 

In the eastern North Pacific, three 

humpback whale DPSs may occur: the 

Hawaii DPS (not listed), Mexico DPS 

(threatened), and Central America DPS 

(endangered). Individuals encountered 

in the proposed survey area would 

likely be from the Hawaii DPS, followed 

by the Mexico DPS; individuals from 

the Central America DPS are unlikely to 

feed in northern British Columbia and 

Southeast Alaska (Ford et al., 2014). 

According to Wade (2017), in southeast 

Alaska and northern British Columbia, 

encountered whales are most likely to 

be from the Hawaii DPS (96.1 percent), 

but could be from the Mexico DPS (3.8 

percent). 

Additional detailed information 

regarding the potentially affected stocks 

of marine mammals was provided in the 

notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 30006; 

June 4, 2021). No new information is 

available, and we do not reprint that 

discussion here. Please see the notice of 

proposed IHA for additional 

information. 

Important Habitat 

Several biologically important areas 

(BIA) for marine mammals are 

recognized in southeast Alaska, and 

critical habitat is designated in 

southeast Alaska for the Steller sea lion 

(58 FR 45269; August 27, 1993) and the 

Mexico DPS of humpback whale (86 FR 

21082; April 21, 2021). Note that 

although the eastern DPS of Steller sea 

lion was delisted in 2013, the change in 

listing status does not affect the 

designated critical habitat. Critical 

habitat is defined by section 3 of the 

ESA as (1) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, on which 

are found those physical or biological 

features (a) essential to the conservation 

of the species and (b) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection; and (2) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination by the Secretary that such 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

Mexico DPS humpback whale critical 

habitat includes marine waters in 

Washington, Oregon, California, and 

Alaska. Only the areas designated in 

southeast Alaska fall within the survey 

area. The relevant designated critical 

habitat (Unit 10) extends from 139°24′ 

W, southeastward to the U.S. border 

with Canada. The area also extends 

offshore to a boundary drawn along the 

2,000-m isobath. The essential feature 

for Mexico DPS humpback whale 

critical habitat is prey species, primarily 

euphausiids and small pelagic schooling 

fishes of sufficient quality, abundance, 

and accessibility within humpback 

whale feeding areas to support feeding 

and population growth. This area was 

drawn to encompass well-established 

feeding grounds in southeast Alaska and 

an identified feeding BIA (86 FR 21082; 

April 21, 2021). Humpback whales 

occur year-round in this unit, with 

highest densities occurring in summer 

and fall (Baker et al., 1985, 1986). 

Critical habitat for humpback whales 

has been designated under Canadian 

law in four locations in British 

Columbia (DFO, 2013), including in the 

waters of the survey area off Haida 

Gwaii (Langara Island and Southeast 

Moresby Island). These areas show 

persistent aggregations of humpback 

whales and have features such as prey 

availability, suitable acoustic 

environment, water quality, and 

physical space that allow for feeding, 

foraging, socializing, and resting (DFO, 

2013). 

Designated Steller sea lion critical 

habitat includes terrestrial, aquatic, and 

air zones that extend 3,000 ft (0.9 km) 

landward, seaward, and above each 

major rookery and major haul-out in 

Alaska. Within the survey area, critical 

habitat is located on islands off the coast 

of southeast Alaska (e.g., Sitka, 

Coronation Island, Noyes Island, and 

Forrester Island). The physical and 

biological features identified for the 

aquatic areas of Steller sea lion 

designated critical habitat that occur 

within the survey area are those that 

support foraging, such as adequate prey 

resources and available foraging habitat. 

The proposed survey tracklines do not 

directly overlap any areas of Steller sea 

lion critical habitat, though the extent of 

the estimated ensonified area associated 

with the survey would overlap with 

units of Steller sea lion critical habitat. 

However, the brief duration of 

ensonification for any critical habitat 

unit leads us to conclude that any 

impacts on Steller sea lion habitat 

would be insignificant and would not 

affect the conservation value of the 

critical habitat. 

For humpback whales, seasonal 

feeding BIAs for spring (March–May), 

summer (June–August), and fall 

(September–November) are recognized 

in southeast Alaska (Ferguson et al., 

2015). It should be noted that the 

aforementioned designated critical 

habitat in the survey area was based in 

large part on the same information that 

informed an understanding of the BIAs. 

Though the BIAs are not synonymous 

with critical habitat designated under 

the ESA, they were regarded by the 

humpback whale critical habitat review 

team as an important source of 

information and informative to their 

review of areas that meet the definition 

of critical habitat for humpback whales 

(86 FR 21082; April 21, 2021). The 

aforementioned southeast Alaska unit of 

designated critical habitat encompasses 

the BIAs, with the offshore and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37293 

nearshore boundaries corresponding 

with the BIA boundary. 

A separate feeding BIA is recognized 

in southeast Alaska for gray whales. 

Once considered only a migratory 

pathway, the Gulf of Alaska is now 

known to provide foraging and 

overwintering habitat for ENP gray 

whales (Ferguson et al., 2015). Based on 

the regular occurrence of feeding gray 

whales (including repeat sightings of 

individuals across years) off southeast 

Alaska, an area off of Sitka is 

recognized. The greatest densities of 

gray whales on the feeding area in 

southeast Alaska occur from May to 

November. However, this area is located 

to the north of the proposed survey area 

and would not be expected to be 

meaningfully impacted by the survey 

activities. A separate migratory BIA is 

recognized as extending along the 

continental shelf throughout the Gulf of 

Alaska. During their annual migration, 

most gray whales pass through the Gulf 

of Alaska in the fall (November through 

January; southbound) and again in the 

spring (March through May; 

northbound) (Ferguson et al., 2015). 

Therefore, the planned survey would 

not be expected to impact gray whale 

migratory habitat due to the timing of 

the survey in late summer. No important 

behaviors of gray whales in either the 

feeding or migratory BIAs are expected 

to be affected. For more information on 

BIAs, please see Ferguson et al. (2015) 

or visit https://oceannoise.noaa.gov/ 

biologically-important-areas. 

Unusual Mortality Events (UME) 

A UME is defined under the MMPA 

as ‘‘a stranding that is unexpected; 

involves a significant die-off of any 

marine mammal population; and 

demands immediate response.’’ For 

more information on UMEs, please visit: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-unusual-mortality-events. 

There is a currently ongoing UME 

affecting gray whales throughout their 

migratory range. 

Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray 

whale strandings have occurred along 

the west coast of North America from 

Mexico through Alaska. As of July 1, 

2021, there have been a total of 480 

whales reported in the event, with 

approximately 225 dead whales in 

Mexico, 237 whales in the United States 

(70 in California; 11 in Oregon; 55 in 

Washington, 101 in Alaska), and 18 

whales in British Columbia, Canada. For 

the United States, the historical 18-year 

5-month average (Jan–May) is 14.8 

whales for the four states for this same 

time-period. Several dead whales have 

been emaciated with moderate to heavy 

whale lice (cyamid) loads. Necropsies 

have been conducted on a subset of 

whales with additional findings of 

vessel strike in three whales and 

entanglement in one whale. In Mexico, 

50–55 percent of the free-ranging whales 

observed in the lagoons in winter have 

been reported as ‘‘skinny’’ compared to 

the annual average of 10–12 percent 

‘‘skinny’’ whales normally seen. The 

cause of the UME is as yet 

undetermined. For more information, 

please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-life-distress/2019– 

2020-gray-whale-unusual-mortalityevent-along-west-coast-and. 

Another recent, notable UME 

involved large whales and occurred in 

the western Gulf of Alaska and off of 

British Columbia, Canada. Beginning in 

May 2015, elevated large whale 

mortalities (primarily fin and humpback 

whales) occurred in the areas around 

Kodiak Island, Afognak Island, Chirikof 

Island, the Semidi Islands, and the 

southern shoreline of the Alaska 

Peninsula. Although most carcasses 

have been non-retrievable as they were 

discovered floating and in a state of 

moderate to severe decomposition, the 

UME is likely attributable to ecological 

factors, i.e., the 2015 El Nin ̃ o, ‘‘warm 

water blob,’’ and the Pacific Coast 

domoic acid bloom. The UME was 

closed in 2016. More information is 

available online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-life-distress/2015-2016-largewhale-unusual-mortality-event-westerngulf-alaska. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 2. 

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

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ..................................................................................................................... 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ........................................... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. 

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) ................................................................................................................... 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .............................................................................................. 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37294 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Twenty-two 

marine mammal species (17 cetacean 

and 5 pinniped (3 otariid and 2 phocid) 

species) are considered herein. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 

seven are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 

eight are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid 

species and the sperm whale), and two 

are classified as high-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., porpoises). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary of 

the ways that L–DEO’s specified activity 

may impact marine mammals and their 

habitat. Detailed descriptions of the 

potential effects of similar specified 

activities have been provided in other 

recent Federal Register notices, 

including for survey activities using the 

same methodology and over a similar 

amount of time, and affecting similar 

species (e.g., 83 FR 29212, June 22, 

2018; 84 FR 14200, April 9, 2019; 85 FR 

19580, April 7, 2020). No significant 

new information is available, and we 

refer the reader to these documents for 

additional detail. The Estimated Take 

section includes a quantitative analysis 

of the number of individuals that are 

expected to be taken by L–DEO’s 

activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination section considers the 

potential effects of the specified activity, 

the Estimated Take section, and the 

Mitigation section, to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of these 

activities on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and how 

those impacts on individuals are likely 

to impact marine mammal species or 

stocks. The notice of proposed IHA (86 

FR 30006; June 4, 2021) provided a 

discussion and background information 

regarding active acoustic sound sources 

and acoustic terminology, which is not 

repeated here. Please see that notice for 

additional information. 

Summary on Specific Potential Effects 

of Acoustic Sound Sources 

Underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can include one or 

more of the following: Temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, 

and masking. The degree of effect is 

intrinsically related to the signal 

characteristics, received level, distance 

from the source, and duration of the 

sound exposure. Marine mammals 

exposed to high-intensity sound, or to 

lower-intensity sound for prolonged 

periods, can experience hearing 

threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of 

hearing sensitivity at certain frequency 

ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be 

permanent (PTS), in which case the loss 

of hearing sensitivity is not fully 

recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 

which case the animal’s hearing 

threshold would recover over time 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Due to the characteristics of airgun 

arrays as a distributed sound source, 

maximum estimated Level A 

harassment isopleths for species of 

certain hearing groups are assumed to 

fall within the near field of the array. 

For these species, i.e., mid-frequency 

cetaceans and all pinnipeds, animals in 

the vicinity of L–DEO’s proposed 

seismic survey activity are unlikely to 

incur PTS. For low-frequency cetaceans 

and high-frequency cetaceans, potential 

exposures sufficient to cause low-level 

PTS may occur on the basis of 

cumulative exposure level and 

instantaneous exposure to peak pressure 

levels, respectively. However, when 

considered in conjunction with the 

potential for aversive behavior, relative 

motion of the exposed animal and the 

sound source, and the anticipated 

efficacy of the proposed mitigation 

requirements, a reasonable conclusion 

may be drawn that PTS is not a likely 

outcome for any species. However, we 

propose to authorize take by Level A 

harassment, where indicated by the 

quantitative exposure analysis, for 

species from the low- and highfrequency cetacean hearing groups. 

Please see Estimated Take and 

Mitigation for further discussion. 

Behavioral disturbance may include a 

variety of effects, including subtle 

changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 

avoidance of an area or changes in 

vocalizations), more conspicuous 

changes in similar behavioral activities, 

and more sustained and/or potentially 

severe reactions, such as displacement 

from or abandonment of high-quality 

habitat. Behavioral responses to sound 

are highly variable and context-specific 

and any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors. 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. 

In addition, sound can disrupt 

behavior through masking, or interfering 

with, an animal’s ability to detect, 

recognize, or discriminate between 

acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those 

used for intraspecific communication 

and social interactions, prey detection, 

predator avoidance, navigation). 

Masking occurs when the receipt of a 

sound is interfered with by another 

coincident sound at similar frequencies 

and at similar or higher intensity, and 

may occur whether the sound is natural 

(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, 

precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., 

shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in 

origin. 

Sound may affect marine mammals 

through impacts on the abundance, 

behavior, or distribution of prey species 

(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, 

zooplankton) (i.e., effects to marine 

mammal habitat). Prey species exposed 

to sound might move away from the 

sound source, experience TTS, 

experience masking of biologically 

relevant sounds, or show no obvious 

direct effects. The most likely impacts 

(if any) for most prey species in a given 

area would be temporary avoidance of 

the area. Surveys using active acoustic 

sound sources move through an area 

relatively quickly, limiting exposure to 

multiple pulses. In all cases, sound 

levels would return to ambient once a 

survey ends and the noise source is shut 

down and, when exposure to sound 

ends, behavioral and/or physiological 

responses are expected to end relatively 

quickly. Finally, the survey equipment 

will not have significant impacts to the 

seafloor and does not represent a source 

of pollution. 

Vessel Strike 

Vessel collisions with marine 

mammals, or ship strikes, can result in 

death or serious injury of the animal. 

These interactions are typically 

associated with large whales, which are 

less maneuverable than are smaller 

cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to 

large vessels. The severity of injuries 

typically depends on the size and speed 

of the vessel, with the probability of 

death or serious injury increasing as 

vessel speed increases (Knowlton and 

Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; 

Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn 

and Silber, 2013). Impact forces increase 

with speed, as does the probability of a 

strike at a given distance (Silber et al., 

2010; Gende et al., 2011). The chances 

of a lethal injury decline from 

approximately 80 percent at 15 kn to 

approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn. At 

speeds below 11.8 kn, the chances of 

lethal injury drop below 50 percent 

(Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37295 

Ship strikes generally involve 

commercial shipping, which is much 

more common in both space and time 

than is geophysical survey activity and 

which typically involves larger vessels 

moving at faster speeds. Jensen and 

Silber (2004) summarized ship strikes of 

large whales worldwide from 1975– 

2003 and found that most collisions 

occurred in the open ocean and 

involved large vessels (e.g., commercial 

shipping). Commercial fishing vessels 

were responsible for 3 percent of 

recorded collisions, while no such 

incidents were reported for geophysical 

survey vessels during that time period. 

For vessels used in geophysical 

survey activities, vessel speed while 

towing gear is typically only 4–5 kn. At 

these speeds, both the possibility of 

striking a marine mammal and the 

possibility of a strike resulting in 

serious injury or mortality are so low as 

to be discountable. At average transit 

speed for geophysical survey vessels 

(approximately 10 kn), the probability of 

serious injury or mortality resulting 

from a strike (if it occurred) is less than 

50 percent (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 

2007; Conn and Silber, 2013). However, 

the likelihood of a strike actually 

happening is again low given the 

smaller size of these vessels and 

generally slower speeds. We anticipate 

that vessel collisions involving seismic 

data acquisition vessels towing gear, 

while not impossible, represent 

unlikely, unpredictable events for 

which there are no preventive measures. 

Given the required mitigation measures, 

the relatively slow speeds of vessels 

towing gear, the presence of bridge crew 

watching for obstacles at all times 

(including marine mammals), the 

presence of marine mammal observers, 

and the small number of seismic survey 

cruises relative to commercial ship 

traffic, we believe that the possibility of 

ship strike is discountable and, further, 

that were a strike of a large whale to 

occur, it would be unlikely to result in 

serious injury or mortality. No 

incidental take resulting from ship 

strike is anticipated or proposed for 

authorization, and this potential effect 

of the specified activity will not be 

discussed further in the following 

analysis. 

The potential effects of L–DEO’s 

specified survey activity are expected to 

be limited to Level B harassment 

consisting of behavioral harassment 

and/or temporary auditory effects and, 

for certain species of low- and highfrequency cetaceans only, low-level 

permanent auditory effects. No 

permanent auditory effects for any 

species belonging to other hearing 

groups, or significant impacts to marine 

mammal habitat, including prey, are 

expected. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through the IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

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). 

Authorized takes are primarily by 

Level B harassment, as use of seismic 

airguns has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) for mysticetes and 

high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., 

porpoises). The mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the take 

numbers. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that 

identify the received level of 

underwater sound above which exposed 

marine mammals would be reasonably 

expected to be behaviorally harassed 

(equated to Level B harassment) or to 

incur PTS of some degree (equated to 

Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and 

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison 

et al., 2012). NMFS uses a generalized 

acoustic threshold based on received 

level to estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals may be behaviorally harassed 

(i.e., Level B harassment) when exposed 

to underwater anthropogenic noise 

above received levels of 160 dB re 1 

microPascal (root mean square) (mPa 

(rms)) for the impulsive sources (i.e., 

seismic airguns) evaluated here. 

Level A Harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). L–DEO’s seismic survey 

includes the use of impulsive (seismic 

airguns) sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37296 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

and other relevant information that will 

feed into identifying the area ensonified 

above the acoustic thresholds. 

L–DEO’s modeling methodologies are 

described in greater detail in Appendix 

A of L–DEO’s IHA application. The 2D 

survey will acquire data using the 36- 

airgun array with a total discharge 

volume of 6,600 in3 at a maximum tow 

depth of 12 m. L–DEO’s modeling 

approach uses ray tracing for the direct 

wave traveling from the array to the 

receiver and its associated source ghost 

(reflection at the air-water interface in 

the vicinity of the array), in a constantvelocity half-space (infinite 

homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded 

by a seafloor). To validate the model 

results, L–DEO measured propagation of 

pulses from the 36-airgun array at a tow 

depth of 6 m in the Gulf of Mexico, for 

deep water (∼1,600 m), intermediate 

water depth on the slope (∼600–1,100 

m), and shallow water (∼50 m) (Tolstoy 

et al., 2009; Diebold et al., 2010). 

L–DEO collected a MCS data set from 

R/V Langseth (array towed at 9 m depth) 

on an 8-km streamer in 2012 on the 

shelf of the Cascadia Margin off of 

Washington in water up to 200 m deep 

that allowed Crone et al. (2014) to 

analyze the hydrophone streamer data 

(>1,100 individual shots). These 

empirical data were then analyzed to 

determine in situ sound levels for 

shallow and upper intermediate water 

depths. These data suggest that modeled 

radii were 2–3 times larger than the 

measured radii in shallow water. 

Similarly, data collected by Crone et al. 

(2017) during a survey off New Jersey in 

2014 and 2015 confirmed that in situ 

measurements collected by the R/V 

Langseth hydrophone streamer were 2– 

3 times smaller than the predicted radii. 

L–DEO model results are used to 

determine the assumed radial distance 

to the 160-dB rms threshold for these 

arrays in deep water (>1,000 m) (down 

to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m). 

Water depths in the project area may be 

up to 2,800 m, but marine mammals in 

the region are generally not anticipated 

to dive below 2,000 m (e.g., Costa and 

Williams, 1999). L–DEO typically 

derives estimated distances for 

intermediate water depths by applying a 

correction factor of 1.5 to the model 

results for deep water. In this case, the 

estimated radial distance for 

intermediate (100–1,000 m) and shallow 

(<100 m) water depths is taken from 

Crone et al. (2014), as these empirical 

data were collected in the same region 

as this survey. A correction factor of 

1.15 was applied to account for 

differences in array tow depth. 

The estimated distances to the Level 

B harassment isopleths for the array are 

shown in Table 4. 

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

Source and volume Tow depth 

(m) 

Water depth 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment 

zone 

(m) 

36 airgun array; 6,600 in3 ............................................................................................................ 12 >1000 1 6,733 

100–1000 2 9,468 

<100 2 12,650 

1 Distance based on L–DEO model results. 

2Based on empirical data from Crone et al. (2014) with scaling. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal hearing groups, 

were calculated based on modeling 

performed by L–DEO using the 

NUCLEUS source modeling software 

program and the NMFS User 

Spreadsheet, described below. The 

acoustic thresholds for impulsive 

sounds (e.g., airguns) contained in the 

Technical Guidance were presented as 

dual metric acoustic thresholds using 

both cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) and peak sound pressure 

metrics (NMFS 2018). As dual metrics, 

NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the two metrics is 

exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 

largest isopleth). The SELcum metric 

considers both level and duration of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37297 

exposure, as well as auditory weighting 

functions by marine mammal hearing 

group. In recognition of the fact that the 

requirement to calculate Level A 

harassment ensonified areas could be 

more technically challenging to predict 

due to the duration component and the 

use of weighting functions in the new 

SELcum thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. 

The values for SELcum and peak SPL 

for the Langseth airgun arrays were 

derived from calculating the modified 

far-field signature. The farfield signature 

is often used as a theoretical 

representation of the source level. To 

compute the farfield signature, the 

source level is estimated at a large 

distance below the array (e.g., 9 km), 

and this level is back projected 

mathematically to a notional distance of 

1 m from the array’s geometrical center. 

However, when the source is an array of 

multiple airguns separated in space, the 

source level from the theoretical farfield 

signature is not necessarily the best 

measurement of the source level that is 

physically achieved at the source 

(Tolstoy et al., 2009). Near the source (at 

short ranges, distances <1 km), the 

pulses of sound pressure from each 

individual airgun in the source array do 

not stack constructively, as they do for 

the theoretical farfield signature. The 

pulses from the different airguns spread 

out in time such that the source levels 

observed or modeled are the result of 

the summation of pulses from a few 

airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al., 

2009). At larger distances, away from 

the source array center, sound pressure 

of all the airguns in the array stack 

coherently, but not within one time 

sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels (a few dB) than the source level 

derived from the farfield signature. 

Because the farfield signature does not 

take into account the large array effect 

near the source and is calculated as a 

point source, the modified farfield 

signature is a more appropriate measure 

of the sound source level for distributed 

sound sources, such as airgun arrays. L– 

DEO used the acoustic modeling 

methodology as used for estimating 

Level B harassment distances with a 

small grid step of 1 m in both the inline 

and depth directions. The propagation 

modeling takes into account all airgun 

interactions at short distances from the 

source, including interactions between 

subarrays, which are modeled using the 

NUCLEUS software to estimate the 

notional signature and MATLAB 

software to calculate the pressure signal 

at each mesh point of a grid. 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data for the Langseth’s airgun 

array (modeled in 1 Hz bands) was used 

to make adjustments (dB) to the 

unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (mPa) in order to 

integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

(described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the 

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation and information 

specific to the planned survey (i.e., the 

2.2 m/s source velocity and (worst-case) 

23-s shot interval), potential radial 

distances to auditory injury zones were 

then calculated for SELcum thresholds. 

Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the 

form of estimated source levels are 

shown in Appendix A of L–DEO’s 

application. User Spreadsheets used by 

L–DEO to estimate distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the airgun 

arrays are also provided in Appendix A 

of the application. Outputs from the 

User Spreadsheets in the form of 

estimated distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the survey are 

shown in Table 5. As described above, 

NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the dual metrics (SELcum

and Peak SPLflat) is exceeded (i.e., 

metric resulting in the largest isopleth). 

TABLE 5—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Source 

(volume) Threshold 

Level A harassment zone 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids Otariids 

36-airgun array (6,600 in3) ........................ SELcum ......... 320 0 1 10 0 

Peak ............. 39 14 268 44 11 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used (e.g., stationary receiver with no 

vertical or horizontal movement in 

response to the acoustic source), 

isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree, which 

will ultimately result in some degree of 

overestimation of Level A harassment. 

However, these tools offer the best way 

to predict appropriate isopleths when 

more sophisticated modeling methods 

are not available, and NMFS continues 

to develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as this seismic 

survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts 

the closest distance at which a 

stationary animal would not incur PTS 

if the sound source traveled by the 

animal in a straight line at a constant 

speed. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur 

for mid-frequency cetaceans, otariid 

pinnipeds, and phocid pinnipeds given 

very small modeled zones of injury for 

those species (all estimated zones less 

than 15 m for mid-frequency cetaceans 

and otariid pinnipeds, up to a maximum 

of 44 m for phocid pinnipeds), in 

context of distributed source dynamics. 

The source level of the array is a 

theoretical definition assuming a point 

source and measurement in the far-field 

of the source (MacGillivray, 2006). As 

described by Caldwell and Dragoset 

(2000), an array is not a point source, 

but one that spans a small area. In the 

far-field, individual elements in arrays 

will effectively work as one source 

because individual pressure peaks will 

have coalesced into one relatively broad 

pulse. The array can then be considered 

a ‘‘point source.’’ For distances within 

the near-field, i.e., approximately 2–3 

times the array dimensions, pressure 

peaks from individual elements do not 

arrive simultaneously because the 

observation point is not equidistant 

from each element. The effect is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37298 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

destructive interference of the outputs 

of each element, so that peak pressures 

in the near-field will be significantly 

lower than the output of the largest 

individual element. Here, the peak 

isopleth distances would in all cases be 

expected to be within the near-field of 

the array where the definition of source 

level breaks down. Therefore, actual 

locations within this distance of the 

array center where the sound level 

exceeds peak SPL isopleth distances 

would not necessarily exist. In general, 

Caldwell and Dragoset (2000) suggest 

that the near-field for airgun arrays is 

considered to extend out to 

approximately 250 m. We provided 

additional discussion and quantitative 

support for this theoretical argument in 

the notice of proposed IHA. Please see 

that notice (86 FR 30006; June 4, 2021) 

for additional information. 

In consideration of the received sound 

levels in the near-field as described 

above, we expect the potential for Level 

A harassment of mid-frequency 

cetaceans, otariid pinnipeds, and 

phocid pinnipeds to be de minimis, 

even before the likely moderating effects 

of aversion and/or other compensatory 

behaviors (e.g., Nachtigall et al., 2018) 

are considered. We do not believe that 

Level A harassment is a likely outcome 

for any mid-frequency cetacean, otariid 

pinniped, or phocid pinniped and do 

not authorize any Level A harassment 

for these species. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

Information about the presence, 

density, and group dynamics of marine 

mammals that informs the take 

calculations was provided in our notice 

of proposed IHA (86 FR 30006; June 4, 

2021). That information is not re-printed 

here. For additional detail, please see 

the notice of proposed IHA. Density 

values were provided in Table 6 of that 

notice. No new density information is 

available since we published the notice 

of proposed IHA, and no changes have 

been made. We relied largely upon the 

Navy’s Marine Species Density Database 

(DoN, 2019, 2021), which is currently 

the most comprehensive compendium 

for density data available for the GOA 

and the only source of density data 

available for southeast Alaska. 

As described above in Changes from 

the Proposed IHA, the estimated take of 

Steller sea lions in Canadian territorial 

waters was incorrect. The correct 

density values were provided in Table 

6 of the notice of proposed IHA; 

however, an erroneous density value 

was applied in producing the incorrect 

estimate provided in Table 8 of the 

notice of proposed IHA. That error has 

been corrected herein (see Table 7). 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. In 

order to estimate the number of marine 

mammals predicted to be exposed to 

sound levels that would result in Level 

A or Level B harassment, radial 

distances from the airgun array to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those radial distances 

are then used to calculate the area(s) 

around the airgun array predicted to be 

ensonified to sound levels that exceed 

the Level A and Level B harassment 

thresholds. The distance for the 160-dB 

threshold (based on L–DEO model 

results) was used to draw a buffer 

around every transect line in GIS to 

determine the total ensonified area in 

each depth category. Estimated 

incidents of exposure above Level A and 

Level B harassment criteria are 

presented in Table 6. For additional 

details regarding calculations of 

ensonified area, please see Appendix D 

of L–DEO’s application. As noted 

previously, L–DEO has added 25 

percent in the form of operational days, 

which is equivalent to adding 25 

percent to the line-kms to be surveyed. 

This accounts for the possibility that 

additional operational days are 

required, but likely results in an 

overestimate of actual exposures. 

For North Pacific right whales, the 

recent observation of an individual 

whale in Canadian waters where the 

survey will occur means that the 

potential for an encounter, while still 

unpredictable, is heightened. While we 

here assume that a North Pacific right 

whale encounter may occur, we also 

assume that such an event is unlikely 

(during two weeks of survey effort, the 

DFO researchers had a single encounter) 

and would occur no more than once 

during the survey. In order to determine 

the appropriate take number for 

authorization, we reviewed available 

information for North Pacific right 

whales. While most observations 

outside of typical habitat near Kodiak 

Island in the northern GOA and in the 

eastern Bering Sea have been of single 

individuals, the average group size 

during observations in more typical 

habitat is of two whales (Shelden et al., 

2005; Waite et al., 2003; Wade et al., 

2011; Muto et al., 2020). The 

assumption that an encounter will occur 

once, in conjunction with a conservative 

assumption that the encounter could be 

with an average group, supports a 

determination that authorization of two 

takes is appropriate as a precautionary 

approach to ensuring that potential 

effects to North Pacific right whales are 

evaluated and that unauthorized take is 

avoided. We also note that application 

of density data from the Navy’s northern 

GOA Temporary Marine Activities Area 

would produce an estimate of two 

exposures. Although it is likely that this 

density information is not an accurate 

representation of North Pacific right 

whale occurrence off of southeast 

Alaska and British Columbia, this 

approach provides additional support 

for the authorization of two takes. 

As previously noted, NMFS cannot 

authorize incidental take under the 

MMPA that may occur within the 

territorial seas of foreign nations (from 

0–12 nmi (22.2 km) from shore), as the 

MMPA does not apply in those waters. 

However, NMFS has still calculated the 

estimated level of incidental take in the 

entire activity area (including Canadian 

territorial waters) as part of the analysis 

supporting our determination under the 

MMPA that the activity will have a 

negligible impact on the affected 

species. The total estimated take in U.S. 

and Canadian waters is presented in 

Table 7 (see Negligible Impact Analysis 

and Determination). 

The estimated marine mammal 

exposures above harassment thresholds 

are generally assumed here to equate to 

take, and the estimates form the basis 

for our take authorization numbers. For 

the species for which NMFS does not 

expect there to be a reasonable potential 

for take by Level A harassment to occur, 

i.e., mid-frequency cetaceans and all 

pinnipeds, the estimated exposures 

above Level A harassment thresholds 

have been added to the estimated 

exposures above the Level B harassment 

threshold to produce a total number of 

incidents of take by Level B harassment 

that is authorized. Estimated exposures 

and take numbers for authorization are 

shown in Table 6. Regarding humpback 

whale take numbers, we assume that 

whales encountered will follow Wade 

(2017), i.e., that 96.1 percent of takes 

would accrue to the Hawaii DPS and 3.8 

percent to the Mexico DPS. Of the 

estimated take of gray whales, and based 

on guidance provided through 

interagency consultation under section 

7 of the ESA, we assume that 0.1 

percent of encountered whales would be 

from the WNP stock and authorize take 

accordingly. For Steller sea lions, 2.2 

percent are assumed to belong to the 

western DPS (Hastings et al., 2020). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37299 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED TAKING BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

Species Stock 

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

Authorized 

Level B 

harassment 

Authorized 

Level A 

harassment 

Total take Percent of 

stock 1

North Pacific right whale 2 ..... ................................................ 2 0 2 0 2 6.1 

Gray whale ............................ WNP ...................................... 1,450 45 2 0 2 0.7 

ENP ....................................... 1,448 45 1,493 5.5 

Humpback whale ................... ................................................ 403 14 403 14 417 4.1 

Blue whale ............................. ................................................ 31 1 31 1 32 2.1 

Fin whale 3 ............................. ................................................ 873 44 873 44 917 n/a 

Sei whale ............................... ................................................ 34 1 34 1 35 6.7 

Minke whale 3 ........................ ................................................ 57 2 57 2 59 n/a 

Sperm whale 3 ....................... ................................................ 131 0 131 0 131 n/a 

Baird’s beaked whale 3 .......... ................................................ 29 0 29 0 29 n/a 

Stejneger’s beaked whale 3 ... ................................................ 120 0 120 0 120 n/a 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 3 ........ ................................................ 114 0 114 0 114 n/a 

Pacific white-sided dolphin .... ................................................ 1,371 3 1,374 0 1,374 5.1 

Northern right whale dolphin ................................................ 922 5 927 0 927 3.5 

Risso’s dolphin 4 .................... ................................................ 1 0 22 0 22 0.3 

Killer whale ............................ Offshore ................................. 290 0 290 0 290 96.7 

GOA/BSAI Transient ............. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 49.4 

WC Transient ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 83.1 

AK Resident .......................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 12.4 

Northern Resident ................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 96.0 

Dall’s porpoise ....................... ................................................ 5,661 178 5,661 178 5,839 7.0 

Harbor porpoise ..................... ................................................ 990 26 990 26 1,016 n/a 

Northern fur seal ................... ................................................ 5,804 8 5,812 0 5,812 1.0 

California sea lion .................. ................................................ 1,256 1 1,258 0 1,258 0.5 

Steller sea lion ....................... WDPS .................................... 2,433 2 54 0 54 0.1 

EDPS ..................................... ........................ ........................ 2,381 0 2,381 5.5 

Northern elephant seal .......... ................................................ 6,811 39 6,850 0 6,850 3.8 

Harbor seal ............................ Sitka/Chatham Strait ............. 5,992 21 6,012 0 6,012 45.2 

Dixon/Cape Decision ............. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 25.6 

Clarence Strait ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 21.7 

1 In most cases, where multiple stocks are being affected, for the purposes of calculating the percentage of the stock impacted, the take is being analyzed as if all 

takes occurred within each stock. Where necessary, additional discussion is provided in the Small Numbers section. 2Take number represents qualitative consideration of likelihood of encounter, average group size, and available density information. 3As noted in Table 1, there is no estimate of abundance available for these species. 

4Estimated exposure of one Risso’s dolphin increased to group size of 22 (Barlow, 2016). 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to the 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

the species or stock for taking for certain 

subsistence uses (latter not applicable 

for this action). NMFS regulations 

require applicants for incidental take 

authorizations to include information 

about the availability and feasibility 

(economic and technological) of 

equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

In order to satisfy the MMPA’s least 

practicable adverse impact standard, 

NMFS has evaluated a suite of basic 

mitigation protocols for seismic surveys 

that are required regardless of the status 

of a stock. Additional or enhanced 

protections may be required for species 

whose stocks are in particularly poor 

health and/or are subject to some 

significant additional stressor that 

lessens that stock’s ability to weather 

the effects of the specified activities 

without worsening its status. We 

reviewed seismic mitigation protocols 

required or recommended elsewhere 

(e.g., HESS, 1999; DOC, 2013; IBAMA, 

2018; Kyhn et al., 2011; JNCC, 2017; 

DEWHA, 2008; BOEM, 2016; DFO, 

2008; GHFS, 2015; MMOA, 2016; 

Nowacek et al., 2013; Nowacek and 

Southall, 2016), recommendations 

received during public comment 

periods for previous actions, and the 

available scientific literature. We also 

considered recommendations given in a 

number of review articles (e.g., Weir and 

Dolman, 2007; Compton et al., 2008; 

Parsons et al., 2009; Wright and 

Cosentino, 2015; Stone, 2015b). This 

exhaustive review and consideration of 

public comments regarding previous, 

similar activities has led to development 

of the protocols included here. 

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation 

Monitoring 

Visual monitoring requires the use of 

trained observers (herein referred to as 

visual protected species observers 

(PSOs)) to scan the ocean surface for the 

presence of marine mammals. The area 

to be scanned visually includes 

primarily the exclusion zone (EZ), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37300 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

within which observation of certain 

marine mammals requires shutdown of 

the acoustic source, but also a buffer 

zone and, to the extent possible 

depending on conditions, the 

surrounding waters. The buffer zone 

means an area beyond the EZ to be 

monitored for the presence of marine 

mammals that may enter the EZ. During 

pre-start clearance monitoring (i.e., 

before ramp-up begins), the buffer zone 

also acts as an extension of the EZ in 

that observations of marine mammals 

within the buffer zone would also 

prevent airgun operations from 

beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The buffer 

zone encompasses the area at and below 

the sea surface from the edge of the 0– 

500 m EZ, out to a radius of 1,000 m 

from the edges of the airgun array (500– 

1,000 m). This 1,000-m zone (EZ plus 

buffer) represents the pre-start clearance 

zone. Visual monitoring of the EZ and 

adjacent waters is intended to establish 

and, when visual conditions allow, 

maintain zones around the sound source 

that are clear of marine mammals, 

thereby reducing or eliminating the 

potential for injury and minimizing the 

potential for more severe behavioral 

reactions for animals occurring closer to 

the vessel. Visual monitoring of the 

buffer zone is intended to (1) provide 

additional protection to naı ̈ve marine 

mammals that may be in the area during 

pre-start clearance, and (2) during 

airgun use, aid in establishing and 

maintaining the EZ by alerting the 

visual observer and crew of marine 

mammals that are outside of, but may 

approach and enter, the EZ. 

L–DEO must use dedicated, trained, 

NMFS-approved PSOs. The PSOs must 

have no tasks other than to conduct 

observational effort, record 

observational data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements. 

PSO resumes shall be provided to 

NMFS for approval. 

At least one of the visual and two of 

the acoustic PSOs (discussed below) 

aboard the vessel must have a minimum 

of 90 days at-sea experience working in 

those roles, respectively, with no more 

than 18 months elapsed since the 

conclusion of the at-sea experience. One 

visual PSO with such experience shall 

be designated as the lead for the entire 

protected species observation team. The 

lead PSO shall serve as primary point of 

contact for the vessel operator and 

ensure all PSO requirements per the 

IHA are met. To the maximum extent 

practicable, the experienced PSOs 

should be scheduled to be on duty with 

those PSOs with appropriate training 

but who have not yet gained relevant 

experience. 

During survey operations (e.g., any 

day on which use of the acoustic source 

is planned to occur, and whenever the 

acoustic source is in the water, whether 

activated or not), a minimum of two 

visual PSOs must be on duty and 

conducting visual observations at all 

times during daylight hours (i.e., from 

30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 

minutes following sunset). Visual 

monitoring of the pre-start clearance 

zone must begin no less than 30 minutes 

prior to ramp-up, and monitoring must 

continue until one hour after use of the 

acoustic source ceases or until 30 

minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall 

coordinate to ensure 360° visual 

coverage around the vessel from the 

most appropriate observation posts, and 

shall conduct visual observations using 

binoculars and the naked eye while free 

from distractions and in a consistent, 

systematic, and diligent manner. 

PSOs shall establish and monitor the 

exclusion and buffer zones. These zones 

shall be based upon the radial distance 

from the edges of the acoustic source 

(rather than being based on the center of 

the array or around the vessel itself). 

During use of the acoustic source (i.e., 

anytime airguns are active, including 

ramp-up), detections of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone (but 

outside the EZ) shall be communicated 

to the operator to prepare for the 

potential shutdown of the acoustic 

source. Visual PSOs will immediately 

communicate all observations to the on 

duty acoustic PSO(s), including any 

determination by the PSO regarding 

species identification, distance, and 

bearing and the degree of confidence in 

the determination. Any observations of 

marine mammals by crew members 

shall be relayed to the PSO team. During 

good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; 

Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), visual 

PSOs shall conduct observations when 

the acoustic source is not operating for 

comparison of sighting rates and 

behavior with and without use of the 

acoustic source and between acquisition 

periods, to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

Visual PSOs may be on watch for a 

maximum of 4 consecutive hours 

followed by a break of at least one hour 

between watches and may conduct a 

maximum of 12 hours of observation per 

24-hour period. Combined observational 

duties (visual and acoustic but not at 

same time) may not exceed 12 hours per 

24-hour period for any individual PSO. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

Acoustic monitoring means the use of 

trained personnel (sometimes referred to 

as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 

operators, herein referred to as acoustic 

PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to 

acoustically detect the presence of 

marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring 

involves acoustically detecting marine 

mammals regardless of distance from 

the source, as localization of animals 

may not always be possible. Acoustic 

monitoring is intended to further 

support visual monitoring (during 

daylight hours) in maintaining an EZ 

around the sound source that is clear of 

marine mammals. In cases where visual 

monitoring is not effective (e.g., due to 

weather, nighttime), acoustic 

monitoring may be used to allow certain 

activities to occur, as further detailed 

below. 

PAM will take place in addition to the 

visual monitoring program. 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. Acoustic monitoring can 

be used in addition to visual 

observations to improve detection, 

identification, and localization of 

cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring 

serves to alert visual PSOs (if on duty) 

when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. 

It is only useful when marine mammals 

vocalize, but it can be effective either by 

day or by night, and does not depend on 

good visibility. It will be monitored in 

real time so that the visual observers can 

be advised when cetaceans are detected. 

The R/V Langseth will use a towed 

PAM system, which must be monitored 

by at a minimum one on duty acoustic 

PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior 

to ramp-up and at all times during use 

of the acoustic source. Acoustic PSOs 

may be on watch for a maximum of 4 

consecutive hours followed by a break 

of at least one hour between watches 

and may conduct a maximum of 12 

hours of observation per 24-hour period. 

Combined observational duties (acoustic 

and visual but not at same time) may 

not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period 

for any individual PSO. 

Survey activity may continue for 30 

minutes when the PAM system 

malfunctions or is damaged, while the 

PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the 

diagnosis indicates that the PAM system 

must be repaired to solve the problem, 

operations may continue for an 

additional 5 hours without acoustic 

monitoring during daylight hours only 

under the following conditions: 

• Sea state is less than or equal to 

BSS 4; 

• No marine mammals (excluding 

delphinids) detected solely by PAM in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37301 

the applicable EZ in the previous 2 

hours; 

• NMFS is notified via email as soon 

as practicable with the time and 

location in which operations began 

occurring without an active PAM 

system; and 

• Operations with an active acoustic 

source, but without an operating PAM 

system, do not exceed a cumulative total 

of 5 hours in any 24-hour period. 

Establishment of Exclusion and PreStart Clearance Zones 

An EZ is a defined area within which 

occurrence of a marine mammal triggers 

mitigation action intended to reduce the 

potential for certain outcomes, e.g., 

auditory injury, disruption of critical 

behaviors. The PSOs will establish a 

minimum EZ with a 500-m radius. The 

500-m EZ will be based on radial 

distance from the edge of the airgun 

array (rather than being based on the 

center of the array or around the vessel 

itself). With certain exceptions 

(described below), if a marine mammal 

appears within or enters this zone, the 

acoustic source will be shut down. 

The pre-start clearance zone is 

defined as the area that must be clear of 

marine mammals prior to beginning 

ramp-up of the acoustic source, and 

includes the EZ plus the buffer zone. 

Detections of marine mammals within 

the pre-start clearance zone will prevent 

airgun operations from beginning (i.e., 

ramp-up). 

The 500-m EZ is intended to be 

precautionary in the sense that it would 

be expected to contain sound exceeding 

the injury criteria for all cetacean 

hearing groups, (based on the dual 

criteria of SELcum and peak sound 

pressure level (SPL)), while also 

providing a consistent, reasonably 

observable zone within which PSOs will 

typically be able to conduct effective 

observational effort. Additionally, a 500- 

m EZ is expected to minimize the 

likelihood that marine mammals will be 

exposed to levels likely to result in more 

severe behavioral responses. Although 

significantly greater distances may be 

observed from an elevated platform 

under good conditions, we believe that 

500 m is likely regularly attainable for 

PSOs using the naked eye during typical 

conditions. The pre-start clearance zone 

simply represents the addition of a 

buffer to the EZ, doubling the EZ size 

during pre-clearance. 

An extended EZ of 1,500 m must be 

enforced for all beaked whales. No 

buffer of this extended EZ is required. 

Pre-Start Clearance and Ramp-Up 

Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘soft start’’) means the gradual and 

systematic increase of emitted sound 

levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up 

begins by first activating a single airgun 

of the smallest volume, followed by 

doubling the number of active elements 

in stages until the full complement of an 

array’s airguns are active. Each stage 

should be approximately the same 

duration, and the total duration should 

not be less than approximately 20 

minutes. The intent of pre-start 

clearance observation (30 minutes) is to 

ensure no protected species are 

observed within the pre-clearance zone 

(or extended EZ, for beaked whales) 

prior to the beginning of ramp-up. 

During pre-start clearance period is the 

only time observations of marine 

mammals in the buffer zone would 

prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of 

ramp-up). The intent of ramp-up is to 

warn marine mammals of pending 

seismic operations and to allow 

sufficient time for those animals to leave 

the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up 

procedure, involving a step-wise 

increase in the number of airguns firing 

and total array volume until all 

operational airguns are activated and 

the full volume is achieved, is required 

at all times as part of the activation of 

the acoustic source. All operators must 

adhere to the following pre-start 

clearance and ramp-up requirements: 

• The operator must notify a 

designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time should not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up in order to allow the 

PSOs time to monitor the pre-start 

clearance zone (and extended EZ) for 30 

minutes prior to the initiation of rampup (pre-start clearance); 

• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as 

to minimize the time spent with the 

source activated prior to reaching the 

designated run-in; 

• One of the PSOs conducting prestart clearance observations must be 

notified again immediately prior to 

initiating ramp-up procedures and the 

operator must receive confirmation from 

the PSO to proceed; 

• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any 

marine mammal is within the applicable 

exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine 

mammal is observed within the pre-start 

clearance zone (or extended EZ, for 

beaked whales) during the 30 minute 

pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may 

not begin until the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting the zones or until an 

additional time period has elapsed with 

no further sightings (15 minutes for 

small odontocetes and pinnipeds, and 

30 minutes for all mysticetes and all 

other odontocetes, including sperm 

whales, beaked whales, and large 

delphinids, such as killer whales); 

• Ramp-up shall begin by activating a 

single airgun of the smallest volume in 

the array and shall continue in stages by 

doubling the number of active elements 

at the commencement of each stage, 

with each stage of approximately the 

same duration. Duration shall not be 

less than 20 minutes. The operator must 

provide information to the PSO 

documenting that appropriate 

procedures were followed; 

• PSOs must monitor the pre-start 

clearance zone (and extended EZ) 

during ramp-up, and ramp-up must 

cease and the source must be shut down 

upon detection of a marine mammal 

within the applicable zone. Once rampup has begun, detections of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone do not 

require shutdown, but such observation 

shall be communicated to the operator 

to prepare for the potential shutdown; 

• Ramp-up may occur at times of 

poor visibility, including nighttime, if 

appropriate acoustic monitoring has 

occurred with no detections in the 30 

minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. 

Acoustic source activation may only 

occur at times of poor visibility where 

operational planning cannot reasonably 

avoid such circumstances; 

• If the acoustic source is shut down 

for brief periods (i.e., less than 30 

minutes) for reasons other than that 

described for shutdown (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty), it may be 

activated again without ramp-up if PSOs 

have maintained constant visual and/or 

acoustic observation and no visual or 

acoustic detections of marine mammals 

have occurred within the applicable EZ. 

For any longer shutdown, pre-start 

clearance observation and ramp-up are 

required. For any shutdown at night or 

in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 

or greater), ramp-up is required, but if 

the shutdown period was brief and 

constant observation was maintained, 

pre-start clearance watch of 30 minutes 

is not required; and 

• Testing of the acoustic source 

involving all elements requires rampup. Testing limited to individual source 

elements or strings does not require 

ramp-up but does require pre-start 

clearance of 30 min. 

Shutdown 

The shutdown of an airgun array 

requires the immediate de-activation of 

all individual airgun elements of the 

array. Any PSO on duty will have the 

authority to delay the start of survey 

operations or to call for shutdown of the 

acoustic source if a marine mammal is 

detected within the applicable EZ. The 

operator must also establish and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37302 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

maintain clear lines of communication 

directly between PSOs on duty and 

crew controlling the acoustic source to 

ensure that shutdown commands are 

conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs 

to maintain watch. When both visual 

and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all 

detections will be immediately 

communicated to the remainder of the 

on-duty PSO team for potential 

verification of visual observations by the 

acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections 

by visual PSOs. When the airgun array 

is active (i.e., anytime one or more 

airguns is active, including during 

ramp-up) and (1) a marine mammal 

appears within or enters the applicable 

EZ and/or (2) a marine mammal (other 

than delphinids, see below) is detected 

acoustically and localized within the 

applicable EZ, the acoustic source will 

be shut down. When shutdown is called 

for by a PSO, the acoustic source will 

be immediately deactivated and any 

dispute resolved only following 

deactivation. Additionally, shutdown 

will occur whenever PAM alone 

(without visual sighting), confirms 

presence of marine mammal(s) in the 

EZ. If the acoustic PSO cannot confirm 

presence within the EZ, visual PSOs 

will be notified but shutdown is not 

required. 

Following a shutdown, airgun activity 

will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the EZ. The animal 

would be considered to have cleared the 

EZ if it is visually observed to have 

departed the EZ (i.e., animal is not 

required to fully exit the buffer zone 

where applicable), or it has not been 

seen within the EZ for 15 minutes for 

small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 

minutes for all mysticetes and all other 

odontocetes, including sperm whales, 

beaked whales, and large delphinids, 

such as killer whales. 

The shutdown requirement can be 

waived for small dolphins if an 

individual is detected within the EZ. As 

defined here, the small dolphin group is 

intended to encompass those members 

of the Family Delphinidae most likely to 

voluntarily approach the source vessel 

for purposes of interacting with the 

vessel and/or airgun array (e.g., bow 

riding). This exception to the shutdown 

requirement applies solely to specific 

genera of small dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus and Lissodelphis). 

We include this small dolphin 

exception because shutdown 

requirements for small dolphins under 

all circumstances represent 

practicability concerns without likely 

commensurate benefits for the animals 

in question. Small dolphins are 

generally the most commonly observed 

marine mammals in the specific 

geographic region and would typically 

be the only marine mammals likely to 

intentionally approach the vessel. As 

described above, auditory injury is 

extremely unlikely to occur for midfrequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), 

as this group is relatively insensitive to 

sound produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

for the onset of auditory injury (i.e., 

permanent threshold shift). 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small dolphins commonly 

approach vessels and/or towed arrays 

during active sound production for 

purposes of bow riding, with no 

apparent effect observed in those 

delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012, 

2018). The potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure would require the Langseth to 

revisit the missed track line to reacquire 

data, resulting in an overall increase in 

the total sound energy input to the 

marine environment and an increase in 

the total duration over which the survey 

is active in a given area. Although other 

mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., 

large delphinids) are no more likely to 

incur auditory injury than are small 

dolphins, they are much less likely to 

approach vessels. Therefore, retaining a 

shutdown requirement for large 

delphinids would not have similar 

impacts in terms of either practicability 

for the applicant or corollary increase in 

sound energy output and time on the 

water. We do anticipate some benefit for 

a shutdown requirement for large 

delphinids in that it simplifies 

somewhat the total range of decisionmaking for PSOs and may preclude any 

potential for physiological effects other 

than to the auditory system as well as 

some more severe behavioral reactions 

for any such animals in close proximity 

to the source vessel. 

Visual PSOs shall use best 

professional judgment in making the 

decision to call for a shutdown if there 

is uncertainty regarding identification 

(i.e., whether the observed marine 

mammal(s) belongs to one of the 

delphinid genera for which shutdown is 

waived or one of the species with a 

larger EZ). 

L–DEO must implement shutdown if 

a marine mammal species for which 

take was not authorized, or a species for 

which authorization was granted but the 

takes have been met, approaches the 

Level A or Level B harassment zones. L– 

DEO must also implement shutdown if 

any of the following are observed at any 

distance: 

• Any large whale (defined as a 

sperm whale or any mysticete species) 

with a calf (defined as an animal less 

than two-thirds the body size of an adult 

observed to be in close association with 

an adult); 

• An aggregation of six or more large 

whales; and/or 

• A North Pacific right whale. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

1. Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all 

protected species and slow down, stop 

their vessel, or alter course, as 

appropriate and regardless of vessel 

size, to avoid striking any marine 

mammal. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel must monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone around the vessel 

(distances stated below). Visual 

observers monitoring the vessel strike 

avoidance zone may be third-party 

observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew members, 

but crew members responsible for these 

duties must be provided sufficient 

training to (1) distinguish marine 

mammals from other phenomena and 

(2) broadly to identify a marine mammal 

as a right whale, other whale (defined in 

this context as sperm whales or baleen 

whales other than right whales), or other 

marine mammal. 

2. Vessel speeds must also be reduced 

to 10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs, 

pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans 

are observed near a vessel. 

3. All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 500 m 

from right whales. If a whale is observed 

but cannot be confirmed as a species 

other than a right whale, the vessel 

operator must assume that it is a right 

whale and take appropriate action. 

4. All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from sperm whales and all other baleen 

whales. 

5. All vessels must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

understanding that at times this may not 

be possible (e.g., for animals that 

approach the vessel). 

6. When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

shall take action as necessary to avoid 

violating the relevant separation 

distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel 

to the animal’s course, avoid excessive 

speed or abrupt changes in direction 

until the animal has left the area). If 

marine mammals are sighted within the 

relevant separation distance, the vessel 

must reduce speed and shift the engine 

to neutral, not engaging the engines 

until animals are clear of the area. This 

does not apply to any vessel towing gear 

or any vessel that is navigationally 

constrained. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37303 

7. These requirements do not apply in 

any case where compliance would 

create an imminent and serious threat to 

a person or vessel or to the extent that 

a vessel is restricted in its ability to 

maneuver and, because of the 

restriction, cannot comply. 

We have carefully evaluated the suite 

of mitigation measures described here 

and considered a range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

we prescribe the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Based on our 

evaluation of the required measures, as 

well as other measures considered by 

NMFS described above, NMFS has 

determined that the mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Mitigation Measures in Canadian 

Waters 

As stated previously, NMFS cannot 

authorize the incidental take of marine 

mammals in the territorial seas of 

foreign nations, as the MMPA does not 

apply in those waters. L–DEO is 

required to adhere to the mitigation 

measures described above while 

operating within the U.S. EEZ and 

Canadian EEZ. The requirements do not 

apply within Canadian territorial 

waters. DFO may prescribe mitigation 

measures that would apply to L–DEO’s 

survey operations within the Canadian 

EEZ and Canadian territorial waters but 

NMFS is currently unaware of the 

specifics of any potential measures. 

While operating within the Canadian 

EEZ but outside Canadian territorial 

waters, if mitigation requirements 

prescribed by NMFS differ from the 

requirements established under 

Canadian law, L–DEO would adhere to 

the most protective measure. For 

operations in Canadian territorial 

waters, L–DEO would implement 

measures required under Canadian law 

(if any). 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA 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 are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

will take place during daytime airgun 

operations. During seismic operations, 

at least five visual PSOs will be based 

aboard the Langseth. Two visual PSOs 

will be on duty at all time during 

daytime hours. Monitoring shall be 

conducted in accordance with the 

following requirements: 

• The operator shall provide PSOs 

with bigeye binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150; 

2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus; 

height control) of appropriate quality 

(i.e., Fujinon or equivalent) solely for 

PSO use. These shall be pedestalmounted on the deck at the most 

appropriate vantage point that provides 

for optimal sea surface observation, PSO 

safety, and safe operation of the vessel; 

and 

• The operator will work with the 

selected third-party observer provider to 

ensure PSOs have all equipment 

(including backup equipment) needed 

to adequately perform necessary tasks, 

including accurate determination of 

distance and bearing to observed marine 

mammals. 

PSOs must have the following 

requirements and qualifications: 

• PSOs shall be independent, 

dedicated, trained visual and acoustic 

PSOs and must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider; 

• PSOs shall have no tasks other than 

to conduct observational effort (visual or 

acoustic), collect data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of protected species and mitigation 

requirements (including brief alerts 

regarding maritime hazards); 

• PSOs shall have successfully 

completed an approved PSO training 

course appropriate for their designated 

task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs 

are required to complete specialized 

training for operating PAM systems and 

are encouraged to have familiarity with 

the vessel with which they will be 

working; 

• PSOs can act as acoustic or visual 

observers (but not at the same time) as 

long as they demonstrate that their 

training and experience are sufficient to 

perform the task at hand; 

• NMFS must review and approve 

PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant 

training course information packet that 

includes the name and qualifications 

(i.e., experience, training completed, or 

educational background) of the 

instructor(s), the course outline or 

syllabus, and course reference material 

as well as a document stating successful 

completion of the course; 

• NMFS shall have one week to 

approve PSOs from the time that the 

necessary information is submitted, 

after which PSOs meeting the minimum 

requirements shall automatically be 

considered approved; 

• PSOs must successfully complete 

relevant training, including completion 

of all required coursework and passing 

(80 percent or greater) a written and/or 

oral examination developed for the 

training program; 

• PSOs must have successfully 

attained a bachelor’s degree from an 

accredited college or university with a 

major in one of the natural sciences, a 

minimum of 30 semester hours or 

equivalent in the biological sciences, 

and at least one undergraduate course in 

math or statistics; and 

• The educational requirements may 

be waived if the PSO has acquired the 

relevant skills through alternate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37304 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

experience. Requests for such a waiver 

shall be submitted to NMFS and must 

include written justification. Requests 

shall be granted or denied (with 

justification) by NMFS within one week 

of receipt of submitted information. 

Alternate experience that may be 

considered includes, but is not limited 

to (1) secondary education and/or 

experience comparable to PSO duties; 

(2) previous work experience 

conducting academic, commercial, or 

government-sponsored protected 

species surveys; or (3) previous work 

experience as a PSO; the PSO should 

demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

For data collection purposes, PSOs 

shall use standardized data collection 

forms, whether hard copy or electronic. 

PSOs shall record detailed information 

about any implementation of mitigation 

requirements, including the distance of 

animals to the acoustic source and 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), 

any observed changes in behavior before 

and after implementation of mitigation, 

and if shutdown was implemented, the 

length of time before any subsequent 

ramp-up of the acoustic source. If 

required mitigation was not 

implemented, PSOs should record a 

description of the circumstances. At a 

minimum, the following information 

must be recorded: 

• Vessel names (source vessel and 

other vessels associated with survey) 

and call signs; 

• PSO names and affiliations; 

• Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name; 

• Date and participants of PSO 

briefings; 

• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort; 

• Vessel location (latitude/longitude) 

when survey effort began and ended and 

vessel location at beginning and end of 

visual PSO duty shifts; 

• Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change; 

• Environmental conditions while on 

visual survey (at beginning and end of 

PSO shift and whenever conditions 

changed significantly), including BSS 

and any other relevant weather 

conditions including cloud cover, fog, 

sun glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon; 

• Factors that may have contributed 

to impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions changed (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); 

and 

• Survey activity information, such as 

acoustic source power output while in 

operation, number and volume of 

airguns operating in the array, tow 

depth of the array, and any other notes 

of significance (i.e., pre-start clearance, 

ramp-up, shutdown, testing, shooting, 

ramp-up completion, end of operations, 

streamers, etc.). 

The following information should be 

recorded upon visual observation of any 

protected species: 

• Watch status (sighting made by PSO 

on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

• PSO who sighted the animal; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Vessel location at time of sighting; 

• Water depth; 

• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); 

• Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

• Pace of the animal; 

• Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting; 

• Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified) and 

the composition of the group if there is 

a mix of species; 

• Estimated number of animals (high/ 

low/best); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

• Description (as many distinguishing 

features as possible of each individual 

seen, including length, shape, color, 

pattern, scars or markings, shape and 

size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and 

blow characteristics); 

• Detailed behavior observations (e.g., 

number of blows/breaths, number of 

surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, 

feeding, traveling; as explicit and 

detailed as possible; note any observed 

changes in behavior); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

(CPA) and/or closest distance from any 

element of the acoustic source; 

• Platform activity at time of sighting 

(e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, 

shooting, data acquisition, other); and 

• Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and 

time and location of the action. 

If a marine mammal is detected while 

using the PAM system, the following 

information should be recorded: 

• An acoustic encounter 

identification number, and whether the 

detection was linked with a visual 

sighting; 

• Date and time when first and last 

heard; 

• Types and nature of sounds heard 

(e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst 

pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of 

signal); and 

• Any additional information 

recorded such as water depth of the 

hydrophone array, bearing of the animal 

to the vessel (if determinable), species 

or taxonomic group (if determinable), 

spectrogram screenshot, and any other 

notable information. 

Reporting 

A report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report will summarize the 

dates and locations of seismic 

operations, and all marine mammal 

sightings (dates, times, locations, 

activities, associated seismic survey 

activities), and provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. 

The draft report shall also include 

geo-referenced time-stamped vessel 

tracklines for all time periods during 

which airguns were operating. 

Tracklines should include points 

recording any change in airgun status 

(e.g., when the airguns began operating, 

when they were turned off, or when 

they changed from full array to single 

gun or vice versa). GIS files shall be 

provided in ESRI shapefile format and 

include the UTC date and time, latitude 

in decimal degrees, and longitude in 

decimal degrees. All coordinates shall 

be referenced to the WGS84 geographic 

coordinate system. In addition to the 

report, all raw observational data shall 

be made available to NMFS. The report 

must summarize the data collected as 

described above and in the IHA. A final 

report must be submitted within 30 days 

following resolution of any comments 

on the draft report. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

Discovery of injured or dead marine 

mammals—In the event that personnel 

involved in survey activities covered by 

the authorization discover an injured or 

dead marine mammal, the L–DEO shall 

report the incident to the Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and 

to the NMFS Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator as soon as feasible. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37305 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Vessel strike—In the event of a ship 

strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 

involved in the activities covered by the 

authorization, L–DEO shall report the 

incident to OPR, NMFS and to the 

NMFS Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator as soon as feasible. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

• Status of all sound sources in use; 

• Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measure were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Estimated size and length of the 

animal that was struck; 

• Description of the behavior of the 

animal immediately preceding and 

following the strike; 

• If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals present immediately 

preceding the strike; 

• Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., 

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

• To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Actions To Minimize Additional Harm 

to Live-Stranded (or Milling) Marine 

Mammals 

In the event of a live stranding (or 

near-shore atypical milling) event 

within 50 km of the survey operations, 

where the NMFS stranding network is 

engaged in herding or other 

interventions to return animals to the 

water, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or 

designee) will advise L–DEO of the need 

to implement shutdown for all active 

acoustic sources operating within 50 km 

of the stranding. Procedures related to 

shutdowns for live stranding or milling 

marine mammals include the following: 

• If at any time, the marine 

mammal(s) die or are euthanized, or if 

herding/intervention efforts are stopped, 

the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee) 

will advise L–DEO that the shutdown 

around the animals’ location is no 

longer needed. 

• Otherwise, shutdown procedures 

will remain in effect until the Director 

of OPR, NMFS (or designee) determines 

and advises L–DEO that all live animals 

involved have left the area (either of 

their own volition or following an 

intervention). 

• If further observations of the marine 

mammals indicate the potential for restranding, additional coordination with 

L–DEO will be required to determine 

what measures are necessary to 

minimize that likelihood (e.g., 

extending the shutdown or moving 

operations farther away) and to 

implement those measures as 

appropriate. 

Additional Information Requests—If 

NMFS determines that the 

circumstances of any marine mammal 

stranding found in the vicinity of the 

activity suggest investigation of the 

association with survey activities is 

warranted, and an investigation into the 

stranding is being pursued, NMFS will 

submit a written request to L–DEO 

indicating that the following initial 

available information must be provided 

as soon as possible, but no later than 7 

business days after the request for 

information: 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

48 hours preceding the estimated time 

of stranding and within 50 km of the 

discovery/notification of the stranding 

by NMFS; and 

• If available, description of the 

behavior of any marine mammal(s) 

observed preceding (i.e., within 48 

hours and 50 km) and immediately after 

the discovery of the stranding. 

In the event that the investigation is 

still inconclusive, the investigation of 

the association of the survey activities is 

still warranted, and the investigation is 

still being pursued, NMFS may provide 

additional information requests, in 

writing, regarding the nature and 

location of survey operations prior to 

the time period above. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

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 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). 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 harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all species listed in Table 1, 

given that NMFS expects the anticipated 

effects of the planned geophysical 

survey 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. 

As described above, we authorize 

only the takes estimated to occur 

outside of Canadian territorial waters 

(Table 6); however, for the purposes of 

our negligible impact analysis and 

determination, we consider the total 

number of takes that are anticipated to 

occur as a result of the entire survey 

(including the portion of the survey that 

would occur within the Canadian 

territorial waters (approximately 13 

percent of the survey) (Table 7). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37306 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 7—TOTAL ESTIMATED TAKE INCLUDING CANADIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS

Species 

Level B 

harassment 

(excluding 

Canadian 

territorial 

waters) 

Level A 

harassment 

(excluding 

Canadian 

territorial 

waters) 

Level B 

harassment 

(Canadian 

territorial 

waters) 

Level A 

harassment 

(Canadian 

territorial 

waters) 

Total 

Level B 

harassment 

Total 

Level A 

harassment 

North Pacific right whale .......................... 2 0 0 0 2 0 

Gray whale, WNP .................................... 2 0 1 0 3 0 

Gray whale, ENP ..................................... 1,448 45 666 16 2,114 61 

Humpback whale ..................................... 403 14 165 4 568 18 

Blue whale ............................................... 31 1 4 0 35 1 

Fin whale .................................................. 873 44 69 1 942 45 

Sei whale ................................................. 34 1 7 0 41 1 

Minke whale ............................................. 57 2 14 0 71 2 

Sperm whale ............................................ 131 0 22 0 153 0 

Baird’s beaked whale ............................... 29 0 2 0 31 0 

Stejneger’s beaked whale ........................ 120 0 9 0 129 0 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ............................. 114 0 9 0 123 0 

Pacific white-sided dolphin ...................... 1,374 0 191 0 1,565 0 

Northern right whale dolphin .................... 927 0 451 0 1,378 0 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................... 22 0 22 0 44 0 

Killer whale ............................................... 290 0 89 0 379 0 

Dall’s porpoise ......................................... 5,661 178 1,825 36 7,486 214 

Harbor porpoise ....................................... 990 26 455 9 1,445 35 

Northern fur seal ...................................... 5,812 0 1,213 0 7,025 0 

California sea lion .................................... 1,258 0 433 0 1,691 0 

Steller sea lion, wDPS ............................. 54 0 46 0 100 0 

Steller sea lion, eDPS .............................. 2,381 0 2,232 0 4,613 0 

Northern elephant seal ............................ 6,850 0 1,429 0 8,279 0 

Harbor seal .............................................. 6,012 0 6,228 0 12,240 0 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result of L–DEO’s planned survey, even 

in the absence of mitigation, and none 

is authorized. Similarly, non-auditory 

physical effects, stranding, and vessel 

strike are not expected to occur. 

We are authorizing a limited number 

of instances of Level A harassment of 

seven species (low- and high-frequency 

cetacean hearing groups only) and Level 

B harassment only of the remaining 

marine mammal species. However, we 

believe that any PTS incurred in marine 

mammals as a result of the planned 

activity would be in the form of only a 

small degree of PTS, not total deafness, 

because of the constant movement of 

both the R/V Langseth and of the marine 

mammals in the project areas, as well as 

the fact that the vessel is not expected 

to remain in any one area in which 

individual marine mammals would be 

expected to concentrate for an extended 

period of time. Since the duration of 

exposure to loud sounds will be 

relatively short it would be unlikely to 

affect the fitness of any individuals. 

Also, as described above, we expect that 

marine mammals would likely move 

away from a sound source that 

represents an aversive stimulus, 

especially at levels that would be 

expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice of the R/V Langseth’s 

approach due to the vessel’s relatively 

low speed when conducting seismic 

surveys. We expect that the majority of 

takes will be in the form of short-term 

Level B behavioral harassment in the 

form of temporary avoidance of the area 

or decreased foraging (if such activity 

were occurring), reactions that are 

considered to be of low severity and 

with no lasting biological consequences 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 

2012). 

Marine mammal habitat may be 

impacted by elevated sound levels, but 

these impacts would be temporary. Prey 

species are mobile and are broadly 

distributed throughout the project areas; 

therefore, marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

relatively short duration (27 days) and 

temporary nature of the disturbance, the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

The tracklines of this survey either 

traverse or are proximal to critical 

habitat for the Mexico DPS of humpback 

whales and for Steller sea lions, and to 

feeding BIAs for humpback whales in 

general (including both the Hawaii and 

Mexico DPSs/Central North Pacific 

stock whales that are anticipated to 

occur in the survey area). As described 

previously, the survey area is near a 

feeding BIA for gray whales and covers 

the gray whale migratory BIA. However, 

these BIAs would not be affected as they 

are spatially and temporally separated, 

respectively, from the survey. 

Yazvenko et al. (2007) reported no 

apparent changes in the frequency of 

feeding activity in Western gray whales 

exposed to airgun sounds in their 

feeding grounds near Sakhalin Island. 

Goldbogen et al. (2013) found blue 

whales feeding on highly concentrated 

prey in shallow depths (such as the 

conditions expected within humpback 

feeding BIAs) were less likely to 

respond and cease foraging than whales 

feeding on deep, dispersed prey when 

exposed to simulated sonar sources, 

suggesting that the benefits of feeding 

for humpbacks foraging on high-density 

prey may outweigh perceived harm 

from the acoustic stimulus, such as the 

seismic survey (Southall et al., 2016). 

Additionally, L–DEO will shut down 

the airgun array upon observation of an 

aggregation of six or more large whales, 

which would reduce impacts to 

cooperatively foraging animals. For all 

habitats, no physical impacts to habitat 

are anticipated from seismic activities. 

While SPLs of sufficient strength have 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37307 

been known to cause injury to fish and 

fish and invertebrate mortality, in 

feeding habitats, the most likely impact 

to prey species from survey activities 

would be temporary avoidance of the 

affected area and any injury or mortality 

of prey species would be localized 

around the survey and not of a degree 

that would adversely impact marine 

mammal foraging. The duration of fish 

avoidance of a given area after survey 

effort stops is unknown, but a rapid 

return to normal recruitment, 

distribution and behavior is expected. 

Given the short operational seismic time 

near or traversing important habitat 

areas, as well as the ability of cetaceans 

and prey species to move away from 

acoustic sources, NMFS expects that 

there would be, at worst, minimal 

impacts to animals and habitat within 

these areas. 

Critical habitat for Steller sea lions 

has been established at three rookeries 

in southeast Alaska (Hazy Island, White 

Sisters Island, and Forrester Island near 

Dixon Entrance), at several major haulouts, and including aquatic zones that 

extend 0.9 km seaward and air zones 

extending 0.9 km above the rookeries. 

Steller sea lions occupy rookeries and 

pup from late-May through early-July 

(NMFS. 2008), indicating that L–DEO’s 

survey is unlikely to impact important 

sea lion behaviors in critical habitat. 

Impacts to Steller sea lions within these 

areas, and throughout the survey area, 

as well as impacts to other pinniped 

species, are expected to be limited to 

short-term behavioral disturbance, with 

no lasting biological consequences. 

Negligible Impact Conclusions 

The survey would be of short duration 

(27 days of seismic operations), and the 

acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the survey would 

be small relative to the ranges of the 

marine mammals that would potentially 

be affected. Sound levels would 

increase in the marine environment in 

a relatively small area surrounding the 

vessel compared to the range of the 

marine mammals within the survey 

area. Short term exposures to survey 

operations are not likely to significantly 

disrupt marine mammal behavior, and 

the potential for longer-term avoidance 

of important areas is limited. 

The mitigation measures are expected 

to reduce the number and/or severity of 

takes by allowing for detection of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

vessel by visual and acoustic observers, 

and by minimizing the severity of any 

potential exposures via shutdowns of 

the airgun array. Based on previous 

monitoring reports for substantially 

similar activities associated with NMFSissued IHAs, we expect that the 

mitigation will be effective in 

preventing, at least to some extent, 

potential PTS in marine mammals that 

may otherwise occur in the absence of 

the mitigation (although all authorized 

PTS has been accounted for in this 

analysis). 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to L–DEO’s survey would result in only 

short-term (temporary and short in 

duration) effects to individuals exposed, 

over relatively small areas of the 

affected animals’ ranges. Animals may 

temporarily avoid the immediate area, 

but are not expected to permanently 

abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat 

use, distribution, or foraging success are 

not expected. NMFS does not anticipate 

the authorized take to impact annual 

rates of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• The activity is temporary and of 

relatively short duration (27 days); 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

activity on marine mammals would 

primarily be temporary behavioral 

changes due to avoidance of the area 

around the survey vessel; 

• The number of instances of 

potential PTS that may occur are 

expected to be very small in number. 

Instances of potential PTS that are 

incurred in marine mammals are 

expected to be of a low level, due to 

constant movement of the vessel and of 

the marine mammals in the area, and 

the nature of the survey design (not 

concentrated in areas of high marine 

mammal concentration); 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the survey to avoid 

exposure to sounds from the activity; 

• The potential adverse effects on fish 

or invertebrate species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

survey would be temporary and 

spatially limited, and impacts to marine 

mammal foraging would be minimal; 

and 

• The required mitigation measures, 

including visual and acoustic 

monitoring and shutdowns are expected 

to minimize potential impacts to marine 

mammals (both amount and severity). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

required mitigation and monitoring 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of 

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one-third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

There are several stocks for which the 

estimated instances of take appear high 

when compared to the stock abundance 

(Table 6), or for which there is no 

currently accepted stock abundance 

estimate. These include the fin whale, 

minke whale, sperm whale, three 

species of beaked whale, four stocks of 

killer whales, harbor porpoise, and one 

stock of harbor seal. However, when 

other qualitative factors are used to 

inform an assessment of the likely 

number of individual marine mammals 

taken, the resulting numbers are 

appropriately considered small. We 

discuss these in further detail below. 

For all other stocks (aside from those 

referenced above and discussed below), 

the proposed take is less than one-third 

of the best available stock abundance 

(recognizing that some of those takes 

may be repeats of the same individual, 

thus rendering the actual percentage 

even lower), and noting that we 

generally excluded consideration of 

abundance information for British 

Columbia in considering the amount of 

take relative to the best available stock 

abundance information. 

The stock abundance estimates for the 

fin, minke, beaked, and sperm whale 

stocks that occur in the survey area are 

unknown, according to the latest SARs. 

The same is true for the harbor porpoise. 

Therefore, we reviewed other scientific 

information in making our small 

numbers determinations for these 

species. As noted previously, partial 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37308 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

abundance estimates of 1,233 and 2,020 

minke whales are available for shelf and 

nearshore waters between the Kenai 

Peninsula and Amchitka Pass and for 

the eastern Bering Sea shelf, 

respectively. For the minke whale, these 

partial abundance estimates alone are 

sufficient to demonstrate that the 

proposed take number of 59 is of small 

numbers. The same surveys produced 

partial abundance estimates of 1,652 

and 1,061 fin whales, for the same areas, 

respectively. Considering these two 

partial abundance estimates in 

conjunction with the British Columbia 

abundance estimate of 329 whales 

produces a total partial estimate of 3,042 

whales for shelf and nearshore waters 

between the Kenai Peninsula and 

Amchitka Pass, the eastern Bering Sea 

shelf, and British Columbia. Given that 

the Northeast Pacific stock of fin 

whale’s range is described as covering 

the entire GOA and Bering Sea, we 

reasonably assume that a total 

abundance estimate for the stock would 

show that the take number proposed for 

authorization (917) is small. In addition, 

for these stocks as well as for other 

stocks discussed below whose range 

spans the GOA, given that the estimated 

take will take place in a relatively small 

portion of the stock’s range, it is likely 

there would be repeat takes of a smaller 

number of individuals, and therefore, 

the number of individual animals taken 

will be lower. 

As noted previously, Kato and 

Miyashita (1998) produced an 

abundance estimate of 102,112 sperm 

whales in the western North Pacific. 

However, this estimate is believed to be 

positively biased. We therefore refer to 

Barlow and Taylor (2005)’s estimate of 

26,300 sperm whales in the northeast 

temperate Pacific to demonstrate that 

the take number of 136 is a small 

number. There is no abundance 

information available for any Alaskan 

stock of beaked whale. However, the 

take numbers are sufficiently small 

(ranging from 29–120) that we can safely 

assume that they are small relative to 

any reasonable assumption of likely 

population abundance for these stocks. 

As an example, we review available 

abundance information for other stocks 

of Cuvier’s beaked whales, which is 

widely distributed throughout deep 

waters of all oceans and is typically the 

most commonly encountered beaked 

whale in its range. Where some degree 

of bias correction, which is critical to an 

accurate abundance estimate for cryptic 

species like beaked whales, is 

incorporated to the estimate, we see 

typical estimates in the thousands of 

animals, demonstrating that the 

authorized take numbers are reasonably 

considered small. Current abundance 

estimates include the Western North 

Atlantic stock (5,744 animals; CV = 

0.36), the Hawaii Pelagic stock (4,431 

animals, CV = 0.41), and the California/ 

Oregon/Washington stock (3,274 

animals; CV = 0.67). 

For the southeast Alaska stock of 

harbor porpoise, whose range is defined 

as from Dixon Entrance to Cape 

Suckling (including inland waters), the 

SAR describes a partial abundance 

estimate, covering inland waters but not 

coastal waters, totaling 1,354 porpoise. 

This most recent abundance estimate is 

based on survey effort in inland waters 

during 2010–12 (Dahlheim et al., 2015). 

An older abundance estimate, based on 

survey effort conducted in 1997, 

covering both coastal and inland waters 

of the stock’s range, provides a more 

complete abundance estimate of 11,146 

animals (Hobbs and Waite, 2010). This 

estimate is sufficient to demonstrate that 

the take number (1,016) is small. 

For the potentially affected stocks of 

killer whale, it would be unreasonable 

to assume that all takes would accrue to 

any one stock. Although the Gulf of 

Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea 

(GOA/BSAI) transient stock could occur 

in southeast Alaska, it is unlikely that 

any significant proportion of 

encountered whales would belong to 

this stock, which is generally 

considered to occur mainly from Prince 

William Sound through the Aleutian 

Islands and Bering Sea. Transient killer 

whales in Canadian waters are 

considered part of the West Coast 

transient stock, further minimizing the 

potential for encounter with the GOA/ 

BSAI transient stock. We assume that 

only nominal, if any, take would 

actually accrue to this stock. Similarly, 

the offshore stock is encountered only 

rarely compared with resident and 

transient stocks. Seasonal sighting data 

collected in southeast Alaska waters 

between 1991 and 2007 shows a ratio of 

offshore and resident killer whale 

sightings of 0.05 (Dahlheim et al., 2009), 

and it is unlikely that any amount of 

take accruing to this stock would exceed 

small numbers. We anticipate that most 

killer whales encountered would be 

transient or resident whales. For the 

remaining stocks, we assume that take 

would accrue to each stock in a manner 

roughly approximate to the stocks’ 

relative abundances, i.e., 78 percent 

Alaska resident, 12 percent West Coast 

transient, and 10 percent northern 

resident. This would equate to 

approximately 226 takes from the 

Alaska resident stock (9.6 percent of the 

stock abundance); 35 takes from the 

West Coast transient stock (10 percent of 

the stock abundance), and 29 takes from 

the northern resident stock (9.6 percent 

of the stock abundance). Based on the 

assumptions described in this 

paragraph, we find that the authorized 

taking is of no greater than small 

numbers for any stock of killer whale. 

If all authorized takes are allotted to 

each individual harbor seal stock, the 

estimated instances of take would be 

greater than one-third of the best 

available abundance estimate for the 

Sitka/Chatham Strait stock of harbor 

seal. However, similar to the discussion 

provided above for killer whale, it 

would be unreasonable to assume that 

all takes would accrue to any one stock. 

Based on the location of the survey 

relative to the potentially affected 

stocks’ ranges, it is unlikely that a 

significant proportion of the estimated 

takes would occur to the Sitka/Chatham 

Strait stock (whose range just overlaps 

with the northern extent of the survey 

area) (Muto et al., 2020). A majority of 

takes are likely to accrue to the Dixon/ 

Cape Decision stock, which most 

directly overlaps with the survey area. 

In the unlikely event that all takes 

occurred to the Dixon/Cape Decision 

stock, the amount of take would be of 

small numbers. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the required mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

Marine mammals are legally hunted 

in Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska 

Natives. In the GOA, the only marine 

mammals under NMFS’ jurisdiction that 

are currently hunted are Steller sea lions 

and harbor seals. These species are an 

important subsistence resource for 

Alaska Natives from southeast Alaska to 

the Aleutian Islands. There are 

numerous communities along the shores 

of the GOA that participate in 

subsistence hunting, including Juneau, 

Ketchikan, Sitka, and Yakutat in 

southeast Alaska (Wolfe et al., 2013). 

According to Muto et al. (2019), the 

annual subsistence take of Steller sea 

lions from the eastern stock was 11, and 

415 northern fur seals are taken 

annually. In addition, 340 harbor seals 

are taken annually (Muto et al. 2019). 

The seal harvest throughout Southeast 

Alaska is generally highest during 

spring and fall, but can occur any time 

of the year (Wolfe et al., 2013). 

Given the temporary nature of the 

activities and the fact that most 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37309 

operations would occur further from 

shore, the survey would not be expected 

to have any impact on the availability of 

the species or stocks for subsistence 

users. L–DEO conducted outreach to 

local stakeholders, including 

subsistence communities, to notify 

subsistence hunters of the planned 

survey, to identify the measures that 

would be taken to minimize any effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence uses, and to provide an 

opportunity for comment on these 

measures. During operations, radio 

communications and Notice to Mariners 

would keep interested parties apprised 

of vessel activities. NMFS is unaware of 

any other subsistence uses of the 

affected marine mammal stocks or 

species that could be implicated by this 

action. On this basis, NMFS 

preliminarily determined that the total 

taking of affected species or stocks 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes, and requested 

comments or any information that may 

help to inform this determination. We 

did not receive any comments or 

additional information regarding 

potential impacts on the availability of 

marine mammals for subsistence uses. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by 

the regulations published by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), the National 

Science Foundation prepared an 

Environmental Analysis (EA) to 

consider the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects to the human 

environment from this geophysical 

survey of the Queen Charlotte Fault. 

NSF’s EA was made available to the 

public for review and comment in 

relation to its suitability for adoption by 

NMFS in order to assess the impacts to 

the human environment of issuance of 

an IHA to L–DEO. In compliance with 

NEPA and the CEQ regulations, as well 

as NOAA Administrative Order 216–6A, 

NMFS has reviewed the NSF’s EA, 

determined it to be sufficient, and 

adopted that EA and signed a Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI). NSF’s 

EA is available at www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/ 

envcomp/, and NMFS’ FONSI is 

available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

action/incidental-take-authorizationlamont-doherty-earth-observatorygeophysical-survey-queen. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

On July 7, 2021, the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR) ESA 

Interagency Cooperation Division issued 

a Biological Opinion under section 7 of 

the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to 

L–DEO under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA by the NMFS OPR Permits and 

Conservation Division. The Biological 

Opinion concluded that the proposed 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the sei whale, fin 

whale, blue whale, sperm whale, 

Mexico DPS of humpback whale, 

western North Pacific DPS of gray 

whale, North Pacific right whale, and 

western DPS of Steller sea lion. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to L–DEO for 

conducting a marine geophysical survey 

of the Queen Charlotte Fault beginning 

in July 2021, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: July 12, 2021. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15046 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB222] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of Letter of 

Authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended, its implementing 

regulations, and NMFS’ MMPA 

Regulations for Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Geophysical 

Surveys Related to Oil and Gas 

Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 

notification is hereby given that a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) has been issued 

to Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell) for the take 

of marine mammals incidental to 

geophysical survey activity in the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from July 

15, 2021, through August 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and 

supporting documentation are available 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

action/incidental-take-authorization-oiland-gas-industry-geophysical-surveyactivity-gulf-mexico. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Laws, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES