Notice2021-17683
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical Survey in the Arctic Ocean
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 18, 2021
Effective
August 11, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
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 University of Alaska Geophysics Institute (UAGI) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment, marine mammals during geophysical surveys in the Arctic Ocean. This project is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46181-46199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17683]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XB140]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical Survey in the Arctic
Ocean
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the 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
[[Page 46182]]
University of Alaska Geophysics Institute (UAGI) to incidentally
harass, by Level B harassment, marine mammals during geophysical
surveys in the Arctic Ocean. This project is funded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF).
DATES: This Authorization is effective for one year, from August 11,
2021 through August 10, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. 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: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act</a>. In case of problems accessing these
documents please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 monitoring and
reporting of the takings.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On February 12, 2021, NMFS received a request from UAGI for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to a geophysical survey in the Arctic
Ocean. The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 6,
2021. UAGI's request is for take of 13 species of marine mammals, by
Level B harassment only. No Level A harassment is anticipated. Neither
UAGI nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Researchers at UAGI, with funding from NSF, plan to conduct a
seismic survey from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq in the Arctic
Ocean to document the structure and stratigraphy of the Chukchi
Borderland and adjacent Canada basin (see Figure 1). The proposed
activity is planned to take place in late summer 2021 (August/
September) with a total of 30 days of data acquisition. The survey will
include both high-energy and low-energy components. High-energy ocean
bottom seismometer (OBS) refraction surveys will use a 6-airgun, 3,120
cubic inch (in\3\) array and consist of ~12 percent of total survey
effort (henceforth referred to as high-energy survey). Low-energy
multi-channel seismic (MCS) reflection surveys will use a 2-airgun
array with a total discharge volume of 1040 in\3\ and consist of ~88
percent of total survey effort (henceforth referred to as low-energy
survey).
Dates and Duration
The activity will occur between August and September, 2021. The
activity is planned to occur for 45 days total, with ~30 days dedicated
to seismic data acquisition (with 24-hours a day operations), ~8 days
devoted to transit and 7 days used for equipment deployment and
recovery.
Specific Geographic Region
The surveys will occur within ~73.5-81.0[deg] N, ~139.5-168[deg] W
(>=300 kilometer (km) north of Utqia[gdot]vik). Representative survey
track lines can be seen in Figure 1. Some deviation in 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. Thus,
the track lines could occur anywhere within the coordinates noted above
and within the study area. Four percent of the surveys will occur
within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with the remaining part
of the survey occurring beyond the EEZ. The activity will take place in
depths ranging from 200-4,000 meters (m). The R/V Sikuliaq would likely
leave from and return to Nome, AK.
The low-energy survey activity will begin ~300 km from the Alaska
coastline (North of Utqiagvik) and extend ~800 km north from the
initial survey site (i.e., the survey would occur ~300-1,100 km from
the Alaska coastline). The high-energy survey activity will only occur
~530 km from the coastline and occur only in the northeastern part of
the survey area (See Figure 1). Eighty percent of the total survey will
occur in deep waters (>1,000 m) with the remainder of the survey
occurring in intermediate depth waters (100-1,000m); no surveying will
occur in waters <100 m deep. All high-energy surveys (680 km total)
will occur in deep waters, while 67 percent of low-energy surveys will
occur in deep waters (3,981 km). The remainder of low-energy surveys
(1,189 km or 23 percent) will occur in intermediate depth waters.
A detailed description of the planned geophysical survey project is
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR
28787; May 28, 2021). Since that time, no changes have been made to the
planned survey activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the
description of the specified activity.
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in
detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and
Reporting).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 46183]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18AU21.169
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Comments and Responses
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to UAGI was published in
the Federal Register on May 28, 2021 (86 FR 28787). That notice
described, in detail, UAGI's proposed activity, the marine mammal
species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated
effects on marine mammals. NMFS received a letter from the Alaska
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), which was the only comment received
for this project. The letter noted that AEWC does not oppose UAGI's
project but expressed concern regarding NMFS' decision not to subject
the associated monitoring plan to independent peer review prior to
making a decision regarding the requested IHA. In noting its concern,
AEWC asserted that NMFS does not have discretion regarding whether to
subject monitoring plans to peer review, stating that NMFS' discretion
extends only to how it engages peer review. While NMFS agrees with
AEWC's statement in cases where the proposed activity may affect the
availability of a species or stock of marine mammals for taking for
subsistence purposes, NMFS' determined the proposed activity will not
affect the availability of any species or stock of marine mammals for
taking for subsistence purposes. Therefore,
[[Page 46184]]
peer review of the monitoring plan is not required.
NMFS' conclusion that UAGI's survey activity will not affect the
availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for taking for
subsistence purposes was based on the fact that the activity is a
significant distance from shore and well beyond traditional hunting
areas. The take UAGI requested will occur incidental to activities
conducted well beyond 200 km from any hunting area or buffer. The
survey will occur no closer than 300 km from the Alaska coastline, with
the high-energy portion of the project occurring no closer than 530 km
from the coastline. The maximum estimated harassment zone for the
survey is 2.4 km and 4.65 km for the low-energy and high-energy survey
portions, respectively. Therefore, any take from these activities will
not directly interfere with the hunt. Furthermore, there is no
information supporting a conclusion that any behavioral disturbance of
bowhead whales occurring at such great distance from traditional
hunting areas (300-500 km) would affect their subsequent behavior in a
manner that would interfere with subsistence uses should those whales
later interact with hunters. As stated above, based on the foregoing
information, NMFS determined that the activity would not affect the
availability of any species or stock for taking for subsistence
purposes and, therefore, that peer review of the monitoring plan was
not warranted. No changes have been made from the proposed IHA to the
final IHA in response to comments.
Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA
Following the public comment period, NMFS identified an error in
the calculation of bowhead whale density. The density value for bowhead
whales described in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28,
2021) (0.0124) was itself correct, but represents the number of
individuals per 100 km\2\ rather than individuals per 1 km\2\, as was
assumed for the proposed IHA. NMFS has corrected this error and, as a
result, the authorized Level B harassment take number is reduced from
339 to 3.
Additionally, NMFS identified errors made when calculating the
total take numbers proposed for authorization for all species due to
use of incorrect estimated Level A harassment ensonified areas and
double counting of estimated exposures within Level A harassment zones
(i.e., estimated exposures were double counted as both Level B
harassment takes and as independently estimated exposures within the
Level A harassment zones, which were also tallied as takes by Level B
harassment). These errors have been corrected, and the revised
authorized take numbers are shown in Table 7. All revised take numbers
are lower than those proposed for authorization (86 FR 28787; May 28,
2021). Please refer to the Estimated Take section for further detail
regarding this change.
Lastly, we note a mistake in the proposed IHA that has since been
corrected. One section of the proposed IHA (4(f)(iv)) described the
shutdown mitigation measure for bowhead whales to be at any distance
while the proposed FR notice and the rest of the proposed IHA stated
this distance to be at 1,500 m. This has since been corrected for the
final IHA and the shutdown area and the exclusion zone will be at 1,500
m bowhead whales. Additionally, the requirement for bigeye binoculars
has been removed as they are not available on board the R/V Sikuliaq.
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; <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS'
website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>). Additional
information may be found in the Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine Mammals
(ASAMM) reports, which are available online at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-mammal-protection/aerial-surveys-arctic-marine-mammals">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-mammal-protection/aerial-surveys-arctic-marine-mammals</a>.
Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
authorized for this action, 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 from the
Society for Marine Mammalogy (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
comprise that stock. For most species, stock abundance estimates are
based on sightings within the U.S. EEZ; however, for some species, this
geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. Survey abundance
estimates may be used for other species. Survey abundance (as compared
to stock or species abundance) is the total number of individuals
estimated within the survey area, which may or may not align completely
with a stock's geographic range as defined in the SARs. These surveys
may also extend beyond U.S. waters. In this case, the survey area
outside of the U.S. EEZ does not necessarily overlap with the ranges
for stocks managed by NMFS. However, we assume that individuals of
these species that may be encountered during the survey would be part
of those stocks. Additionally, six species listed in Table 1 indicate
Unknown abundance estimates. This may be due to outdated data and
population estimates or data is not representative of the entire stock.
All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska
and Pacific SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021). All
values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time
of publication and are available in the 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021,
Carretta et al., 2021) (available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>).
In addition, the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and
the Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) may be found in the Arctic. However,
Pacific walruses and Polar bears are managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.
[[Page 46185]]
Table 1--Marine Mammals Expected To Occur in the Survey Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/ MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
Gray whale...................... Eschrichtius robustus.. Eastern N Pacific...... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 801 131
2016).
Family Balaenidae:
Bowhead whale................... Balaena mysticetus..... Western Arctic......... E, D, Y 16,820................ 161 56
(0.052,16,100, 2011)..
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Fin whale....................... Balaenoptera physalus.. Northeast Pacific \4\ * E, D, Y Unknown............... UND 0.6
Humpback whale.................. Megaptera novaeangliae. Western N Pacific *.... E, D, Y 1,107 (0.3, 865, 2006) 3 2.8
Minke whale..................... Balaenoptera Alaska \4\ *........... -, -, N Unknown............... UND 0
acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
Beluga whale.................... Delphinapterus leucas.. Beaufort Sea \4\....... -, -, N 39,258 (0.229, N/A. UND 104
1992).
Eastern Chukchi........ -, -, N 13,305 (0.51, 8,875, 178 55
2017).
Killer whale.................... Orcinus orca........... Alaska resident........ -, -, N 2,347 c (N/A, 2347, 24 1
2012).
Narwhal......................... Monodon Monoceros...... Unidentified \4\ *..... -, -, N Unknown............... UND 0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor Porpoise................. Phocoena phocoena...... Bering Sea \4\ *....... -, -, Y Unknown............... UND 0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Bearded Seal.................... Erignathus barbatus.... Beringia \4\ *......... T, D, Y Unknown............... UND 6,709
Ribbon Seal..................... Histriophoca fasciata.. Unidentified *......... -, -, N 184,687 (see SAR, 9,785 163
163,086, 2013).
Ringed Seal..................... Pusa hispida........... Arctic................. T, D, Y Unknown............... 5,100 6,459
Spotted Seal.................... Phoca largha........... Bering................. -, -, N 461,625 (see SAR, 25,394 5,254
423,237, 2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Stocks marked with an asterisk are addressed in further detail in the text below.
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <a href="http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/">www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/</a>. 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.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021), represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious
injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ Abundance 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 present the best available
information for use in this document.
As indicated above, all 13 species (with 14 managed stocks) in
Table 1 could temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to
the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have
authorized it. All species that could potentially occur in the survey
areas are included in Table 4 of the IHA application.
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the
geophysical survey, including brief introductions to the species and
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR
28787; May 28, 2021); since that time, we are not aware of any changes
in the status of these species or stocks; therefore, detailed
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal
Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS'
website (<a href="http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/">www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/</a>) for generalized species
accounts.
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: <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-unusual-mortality-events">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-unusual-mortality-events</a>. Currently recognized
UMEs in Alaska involving species under NMFS' jurisdiction include those
affecting ice seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and gray whales.
Since June 1, 2018, elevated strandings for bearded, ringed and spotted
seals have occurred in the Bering and Chukchi seas in Alaska, with
causes undetermined. As of August 5, 2021, there have been 357 recorded
seal strandings. For more information, please visit:
<a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska</a>.
Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred
along the west coast of North America from Mexico through Alaska. As of
August 5, 2021, there have been a total of 487 whales reported in the
event, with approximately 225 dead whales in Mexico, 244 whales in the
United States (including 108 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 this same time-period.
[[Page 46186]]
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: <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2020-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2020-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and</a>.
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 Revision to
its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound
on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance) (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 low-frequency 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 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
(baleen whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
(true porpoises, Kogia, river
dolphins, cephalorhynchid,
Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(underwater) (sea lions and fur
seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] 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.
Thirteen marine mammal species (nine cetacean and four pinniped (all
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the
survey activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the cetacean species
that may be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all mysticete species), three are classified as mid-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid species), and one is classified as high-
frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on 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). Section VII of UAGI's application provides a comprehensive
discussion of the potential effects of the survey. We have reviewed
UAGI's application and believe it is accurate and complete. No
significant new information is available. The effects of underwater
noise from UAGI's geophysical survey have the potential to result in
behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action
area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 28787;
May 28, 2021) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic
noise on marine mammals, therefore that information is not repeated
here; please to the aforementioned notice for that information.
The Estimated Take section includes a quantitative analysis of the
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this 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.
Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources
The notice of proposed IHA provided a brief technical background on
sound, on the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics
used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the
specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document.
Please see that document (86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) for additional
information. For general information on sound and its interaction with
the marine environment, please see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008);
Richardson et al. (1995); Urick (1983).
[[Page 46187]]
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
for authorization through this IHA, which informed 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 will be by Level B harassment, as use of seismic
airguns may result, either directly or as a result of TTS, in
disruption of behavioral patterns of marine mammals. The mitigation and
related monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of
such taking to the extent practicable. Moreover, based on the nature of
the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation
measures (i.e., implementation of extended shutdown distances for
certain species)--discussed in detail below in the Mitigation section--
Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.
As described previously, no 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 estimate.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of 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 Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--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), the receiving animals
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context), and
the distance between the sound source and the animal, 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 160 dB
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for the impulsive sources (i.e., seismic airguns)
evaluated here.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--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 non-impulsive). UAGI's seismic survey includes the use of
impulsive sources (seismic airgun).
These thresholds are provided in Table 3 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
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance</a>.
Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219; Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans......... Cell 5 Lpk,flat: 202 dB; Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
(Underwater).......................... LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)................ Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
(Underwater).......................... LE,OW,24h: 203 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 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
[[Page 46188]]
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and acoustic
propagation modeling.
The acoustic propagation modeling methodologies are described in
greater detail in Appendix A of UAGI's IHA application. The survey will
primarily acquire data using the 2-airgun array with a total discharge
volume of 1,040 in\3\ and an approximately 15-second shot interval.
During approximately 12 percent of the planned survey tracklines, the
6-airgun, 3,120 in\3\ array will be used with a 60-second shot
interval. All tracklines will be surveyed with a maximum tow depth of 9
m. The modeling assumed an airgun firing pressure of 2,540 psi.
Propagation modeling for UAGI's application follows the approach used
by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for other, similar IHA
applications. L-DEO 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
constant-velocity half-space (infinite homogeneous ocean layer,
unbounded by a seafloor). To validate the model results, L-DEO measured
propagation of pulses from a 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 Marcus G. Langseth (with
the same 36-airgun array referenced above) 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 (>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 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) (see Table 4).
Water depths in the project area may be up to 4,000 m, but marine
mammals in the region are generally not anticipated to dive below 2,000
m (Costa and Williams, 1999). The radii for intermediate water depths
(100-1,000 m) are derived from the deep-water ones by applying a
correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5. No survey effort will occur
in water depths <100 m.
The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the
planned survey lines into a GIS and then ``buffering'' the lines by the
applicable 160-dB distance (see Appendix B in IHA application). The
resulting ensonified areas were then increased by 25 percent to allow
for any necessary additional operations, such as re-surveying segments
where data quality was insufficient. This approach assumes that no
marine mammals would move away or toward the trackline in response to
increasing sound levels before the levels reach the threshold as R/V
Sikuliaq approaches.
Table 4--Predicted Radial Distances to Isopleths Corresponding to Level B Harassment Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level B
Source and volume Tow depth (m) Water depth harassment zone
(m) (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 airgun array; 3,120 in\3\.................................. 9 >1,000 \1\ 4,640
100-1,000 \3\ 6,960
2 airgun array; 1,040 in\3\.................................. 9 >1,000 \1\ 1,604
100-1,000 \2\ 2,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distance based on L-DEO model results.
\2\ Based on L-DEO model results with 1.5x correction factor applied.
Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary
based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on L-DEO
modeling performed 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
the cumulative sound exposure level) SEL<INF>cum</INF> 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 SEL<INF>cum</INF> metric considers both level and duration of
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 SEL<INF>cum</INF> 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 SEL<INF>cum</INF> and peak Sound Pressure Level
(SPL) 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
[[Page 46189]]
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. 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 (modeled in 1 Hz bands) were 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 ([mu]Pa) 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 source velocities
and shot intervals specific to the planned survey, potential radial
distances to auditory injury zones were then calculated for
SEL<INF>cum</INF> thresholds. For full detail of the modeling
methodology used for estimating distance to Level A harassment peak
pressure and cumulative SEL criteria, please see Appendix A of UAGI's
application.
Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the form of estimated source
levels are shown in Appendix A of UAGI's application. User Spreadsheets
used by UAGI 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 (SEL<INF>cum</INF>
and Peak SPL<INF>flat</INF>) is exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the
largest isopleth).
Table 5--Modeled Radial Distances (m) to Isopleths Corresponding to Level A Harassment Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment zone (m)
Source (volume) Threshold ------------------------------------------------------------
LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-airgun array (3,120 in\3\)... SELcum............ 51 0 0 0
Peak.............. 30 7 212 34
2-airgun array (1,040 in\3\)... SELcum............ 17 0 0 0
Peak.............. 10 3 73 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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 and low-
frequency cetaceans given very small modeled zones of injury for those
species (all estimated zones less than 10 m for mid-frequency
cetaceans, up to a maximum of 51 m for low-frequency cetaceans and 34 m
for phocid pinnipeds), in context of distributed source dynamics.
Similarly, for high-frequency cetaceans, the maximum modeled injury
zone for the low-energy array (88 percent of survey effort) is 73 m and
auditory injury would be unlikely to occur during use of that array.
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 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 estimated Level A harassment isopleth
distances would in all cases (other than for high-frequency cetaceans)
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
relevant harassment criteria would not necessarily exist.
In consideration of the received sound levels in the near-field as
described above, we expect the potential for Level A harassment of low-
and mid-frequency cetaceans 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.
A similar conclusion may be drawn for high-frequency cetaceans relative
to use of the low-energy airgun
[[Page 46190]]
array. We do not believe that Level A harassment is a likely outcome
for any low- or mid-frequency cetacean or phocid pinniped and are not
authorizing any Level A harassment for these species. For high-
frequency cetaceans, the larger estimated Level A harassment zone
associated with the high-energy array will be present for only 12
percent of total survey effort, and given the expected rarity of
occurrence for harbor porpoise, no incidents of Level A harassment are
expected.
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 28787; May 28, 2021). Information that
has remained unchanged is not reprinted here. Density values are shown
in Table 6.
The bowhead whale density value described in the notice of proposed
IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) was correct; however, the incorrect
units were used. The value reported in the notice of proposed IHA
(0.0124 whales/km\2\) would correctly be stated as 0.0124 whales/100
km\2\, and the corrected density is used here.
Table 6--Density Values Used for Take Analysis, Calculated by UAGI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density
Species (individuals/km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale...................................... 0.000124
Gray whale......................................... 0
Fin whale.......................................... 0
Humpback whale..................................... 0
Minke whale........................................ 0
Beluga whale....................................... 0.0255
Killer whale....................................... Unknown
Narwhal............................................ Unknown
Harbor porpoise.................................... Unknown
Bearded seal....................................... 0.0332
Ribbon seal........................................ 0.0677
Ringed seal........................................ 0.376
Spotted seal....................................... 0.0007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 7. As noted previously, UAGI has added 25 percent in the form
of operational days, which is equivalent to adding 25 percent to the
line-kilometers to be surveyed. This accounts for the possibility that
additional operational days are required, and is included in the
estimates of actual exposures.
The number of individual marine mammals potentially exposed to
airgun sounds with received levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa<INF>rms</INF>
(Level B) was estimated following NSF's take calculation method by
multiplying the estimated densities by the total area expected to be
ensonified above the Level threshold. The total ensonified area was
multiplied by 25 percent to account for any necessary additional
operations, such as re-surveying segments where data quality was
insufficient. This approach assumes that no marine mammals would move
away or toward the trackline in response to increasing sound levels
before the levels reach the threshold as R/V Sikuliaq approaches. This
value was then multiplied by the estimated densities for each species
to produce estimated Level B takes. Given the location of the survey
being far north in the Arctic, we expect that the density values, and
thus estimated take numbers, are conservative estimates of what is
likely to be encountered during the survey.
Table 7--Estimated Taking by Level A and Level B Harassment, and Percentage of Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Authorized Authorized
Species Stock \1\ Level B Level A Level B Level A Total Percent of
harassment harassment harassment harassment take stock \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................................ Western Arctic................. 3 0 3 0 3 0.02
Humpback whale \2\........................... WN Pacific..................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.01
Fin whale 2 4................................ NE Pacific..................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.18
Gray whale \2\............................... EN Pacific..................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.01
Minke whale 2 4.............................. Alaska......................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.01
Beluga whale................................. Beaufort Sea................... 696 1 697 0 697 1.33
Eastern Chukchi................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ....... ...........
Killer whale \2\............................. Alaska Resident................ 0 0 6 0 6 0.20
Narwhal 3 4.................................. Unidentified................... 0 0 2 0 2 n/a
Harbor porpoise 2 4.......................... Bering Sea..................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.04
Bearded seal \5\............................. Beringia....................... 900 6 907 0 907 0.73
Ringed seal \5\.............................. Arctic......................... 10,198 70 10,269 0 10,269 5.99
Spotted seal................................. Bering......................... 19 0 19 0 19 0.00
Ribbon seal.................................. Unidentified................... 1,836 13 1,849 0 1,849 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 authorized takes occurred within each stock. Where necessary, additional discussion is provided in the ``Small Numbers Analysis''
section.
\2\ UAGI requests authorization of gray whale, humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, killer whale, and harbor porpoise take equivalent to exposure of
one group (Clarke et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2019).
\3\ UAGI requests authorization of two takes of narwhals.
\4\ As noted in Table 1, there is no estimate of abundance available for these species. See ``Small Numbers Analysis'' section for further discussion.
\5\ Due to rounding, the total estimated Level B harassment does not equal the sum of Level A harassment and Level B harassment.
[[Page 46191]]
Although gray whales, fin whales, humpback whales, minke whales,
narwhals and harbor porpoises are not expected to occur this far north
in the Arctic, we agree with NSF that there is possibility that this
activity might encounter these species and thus a conservative number
of takes has been authorized based on average group size from yearly
Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) (Clark et al., 2016,
2017, 2018, 2019). As described previously in the Changes from the
Proposed IHA to Final IHA section, errors in take estimate calculations
have been corrected from the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 18787; May
28, 2021) as shown in Table 7. These changes were made after
identifying that the original estimated take numbers used the incorrect
Level A harassment ensonified areas in addition to doubling the
estimated exposures within the Level A harassment zone. These
corrected, authorized take numbers presented here are either equal to
or smaller than those proposed for authorization.
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. 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, as
well as subsistence uses. 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 and impact on
operations.
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.
Due to the use of high- and low-energy airgun arrays used within
this survey, two separate mitigation protocols are required for use
throughout the activity depending on which array is in use (Table 8).
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), within
which observation of certain marine mammals requires shutdown of the
acoustic source, but also a buffer zone. 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-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 standard
EZ is 500 m from the edges of the airgun array for high-energy surveys
and 100 m for low-energy surveys. For high-energy surveys, 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). For low-energy surveys, the buffer zone
encompasses the area at and below the sea surface from the edge of the
0-100 m EZ, out to a radius of 200 m from the edges of the airgun array
(100-200 m).
Visual monitoring of the EZ and buffer zones 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 na[iuml]ve marine mammals that may be in the
area during pre-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.
UAGI 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 PSOs aboard the vessel must have a
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in the roles, 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
[[Page 46192]]
times during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise
through 30 minutes following sunset). Visual monitoring of the EZ and
buffer zone must begin no less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and
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[deg] 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 EZ and buffer zone. 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.
During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime the acoustic source is
active, including ramp-up), detections of marine mammals within the
buffer zone (but outside the EZ) should 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 four 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.
Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer 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 behavioral patterns. The
PSOs would establish a minimum EZ with a 500- or 100-m radius, during
use of the high-energy and low-energy arrays, respectively, for all
species except bowhead whales. The EZ would 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).
The EZs are intended to be precautionary in the sense that they
would be expected to contain sound exceeding the injury criteria for
all cetacean hearing groups, (based on the dual criteria of
SEL<INF>cum</INF> and peak SPL), while also providing a consistent,
reasonably observable zone within which PSOs would typically be able to
conduct effective observational effort. Additionally, the EZs are
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 these
distances are likely regularly attainable for PSOs using the naked eye
during typical conditions.
An extended EZ of 1,500/500 m must be implemented for all bowhead
whales during high-energy and low-energy survey effort, respectively,
because of their importance to subsistence hunters and protected
status. No buffer of this extended EZ is required.
Pre-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 for high-energy airgun
arrays. Ramp-up for the low-energy array, which includes only two
elements, may be shorter. The intent of pre-clearance observation (30
minutes) is to ensure no protected species are observed within the
buffer zone prior to the beginning of ramp-up. During pre-clearance is
the only time observations of protected species in the buffer zone
would prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of ramp-up). The intent
of ramp-up is to warn protected species 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-clearance and ramp-up
requirements:
<bullet> 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 EZ and buffer zone for 30
minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance);
<bullet> Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time
spent with the source activated prior to reaching the designated run-
in;
<bullet> One of the PSOs conducting pre-clearance observations must
be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures
and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed;
<bullet> Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is
within the applicable EZ or buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed
within the applicable EZ or the buffer zone during the 30 minute pre-
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 large delphinids, such as beluga whales and killer whales);
<bullet> 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 for high-energy arrays. The operator must provide
information to the PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were
followed;
<bullet> PSOs must monitor the relevant EZ and buffer zone during
ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon
detection of a marine mammal within the applicable EZ. Once ramp-up 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;
<bullet> Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including
nighttime, if
[[Page 46193]]
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;
<bullet> 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-
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-clearance watch of 30 minutes is not
required; and
<bullet> Testing of the acoustic source involving all elements
requires ramp-up. Testing limited to individual source elements or
strings does not require ramp-up but does require pre-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
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 the
airgun array is active (i.e., anytime one or more airguns is active,
including during ramp-up) and a marine mammal appears within or enters
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.
Following a shutdown, airgun activity would 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,
or it has not been seen within the EZ for 15 min in the case of small
odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in the case of mysticetes and
large odontocetes, including beluga whales and killer whales.
Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be reactivated
after the marine mammal(s) has been observed exiting the applicable EZ
(i.e., animal is not required to fully exit the buffer zone where
applicable) or following 15 minutes for small odontocetes and
pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for mysticetes and all other odontocetes,
including beluga whales and killer whales, with no further observation
of the marine mammal(s).
UAGI 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. UAGI must also implement shutdown if any of the
following are observed at any distance:
<bullet> Any large whale (defined as 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); and/or
<bullet> An aggregation of six or more large whales.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)
NMFS will not require the use of PAM for this activity. PAM would
only be applicable to the small portion of the survey (12 percent)
using the high-energy array and UAGI has indicated that it would not be
practicable to carry the additional monitoring personnel required for
implementation of towed PAM. Additionally, species of greatest interest
in prescribing use of towed PAM (e.g., sperm whales, beaked whales) are
not present in the planned survey area. Further details of this
decision are described in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May
28, 2021).
Table 8--Mitigation Protocols for High- and Low-Energy Arrays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation protocols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources..................... High-energy (6- Low-energy (2-airgun
airgun array with array with 1040
3120 in\3\ total in\3\ total
discharge volume). discharge volume).
Visual PSOs................. Minimum of 2 NMFS- Minimum of 2 NMFS-
approved PSOs on approved PSOs on
duty during duty during
daylight hours (30 daylight hours (30
minutes before minutes before
sunrise through 30 sunrise through 30
minutes after minutes after
sunset); Limit of 2 sunset); Limit of 2
consecutive hours consecutive hours
on watch followed on watch followed
by a break of at by a break of at
least 1 hour; least 1 hour;
Maximum of 12 hours Maximum of 12 hours
on watch per 24- on watch per 24-
hour period. hour period.
Passive acoustic monitoring. Not Required........ Not required.
Exclusion zones............. <bullet> 500 m (all <bullet> 100 m (all
marine mammals). marine mammals).
<bullet> 1,500 m <bullet> 500 m
(Bowhead whales). (Bowhead whales).
Pre-start clearance......... Required; 30-minute Required; 30-minute
clearance period of clearance period of
the following the following
zones: zones:
<bullet> 1,000 m <bullet> 200 m (all
(all marine marine mammals).
mammals). <bullet> 500 m
<bullet> 1,500 m (Bowhead whales).
(Bowhead whales).
Following detection Following detection
within zone, animal within zone, animal
must be observed must be observed
exiting or exiting or
additional period additional period
of 15 or 30 minutes. of 15 or 30
minutes.
Ramp-up..................... Required; duration Required; duration
>=20 minutes. not more than 20
minutes.
Shutdown.................... Shutdown required Shutdown required
for marine mammal for marine mammal
detected within detected within
defined EZs; Re- defined EZs; Re-
start allowed start allowed
following clearance following clearance
period of 15 or 30 period of 15 or 30
minutes. minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 protected species. 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
[[Page 46194]]
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 identify a marine mammal as a bowhead whale,
other whale (defined in this context as baleen whales other than
bowhead whales), or other marine mammal.
2. Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 knots 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 bowhead whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as
a species other than a bowhead whale, the vessel operator must assume
that it is a bowhead whale and take appropriate action.
4. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m
from 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 protected species 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.
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 did not identify any mitigation specifically appropriate for
habitat. 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 area; 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. The
specified activity is of relatively short duration (30 days) and the
disturbance will be temporary in nature, similar habitat and resources
are available in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals
and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or
their populations. No Biologically Important Areas (BIAs), designated
critical habitat, or other habitat of known significance would be
impacted by the planned activities.
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 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, and on the availability of
such species or stock for subsistence uses (see Unmitigable Adverse
Impact Analysis and Determination).
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:
<bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
<bullet> 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).
<bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
<bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
<bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
<bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring
As described above, PSO observations would take place during
daytime airgun operations. During seismic operations, at least five
visual PSOs would be based aboard the R/V Sikuliaq. Two visual PSOs
would be on duty at all time during daytime hours. Monitoring shall be
conducted in accordance with the following requirements:
<bullet> 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:
<bullet> PSOs shall be independent, dedicated, trained visual and
acoustic PSOs and must be employed by a third-party observer provider;
<bullet> PSOs shall have no tasks other than to conduct
observational effort, 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);
<bullet> PSOs shall have successfully completed an approved PSO
training course;
<bullet> 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
[[Page 46195]]
syllabus, and course reference material as well as a document stating
successful completion of the course;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has
acquired the relevant skills through alternate 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. Traditional ecological
knowledge is also a relevant consideration.
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:
<bullet> Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated
with survey) and call signs;
<bullet> PSO names and affiliations;
<bullet> Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;
<bullet> Date and participants of PSO briefings;
<bullet> Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort;
<bullet> Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort
began and ended and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts;
<bullet> Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual
PSO duty shifts and upon any line change;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> 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-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:
<bullet> Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort,
opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
<bullet> PSO who sighted the animal;
<bullet> Time of sighting;
<bullet> Vessel location at time of sighting;
<bullet> Water depth;
<bullet> Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
<bullet> Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
<bullet> Pace of the animal;
<bullet> Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative
to vessel at initial sighting;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
<bullet> Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings,
juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Animal's closest point of approach (CPA) and/or closest
distance from any element of the acoustic source;
<bullet> Platform activity at time of sighting (e.g., deploying,
recovering, testing, shooting, data acquisition, other); and
<bullet> Description of any actions implemented in response to the
sighting (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and time and location of the
action.
Reporting
A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of
the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted
and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will
provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation
pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the
dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal
sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic
survey activities).
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 UAGI shall report the
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS, and the NMFS
Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
[[Page 46196]]
report must include the following information:
<bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
<bullet> Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
<bullet> Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
<bullet> Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
<bullet> If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
<bullet> 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,
UAGI 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:
<bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
<bullet> Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
<bullet> Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being
conducted (if applicable);
<bullet> Status of all sound sources in use;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the
strike;
<bullet> Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
<bullet> Estimated size and length of the animal that was struck;
<bullet> Description of the behavior of the animal immediately
preceding and following the strike;
<bullet> If available, description of the presence and behavior of
any other marine mammals present immediately preceding the strike;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of
the animal(s).
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., population-
level 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' 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.
NMFS does not anticipate that injury, serious injury or mortality
will occur as a result of UAGI's planned survey, even in the absence of
mitigation, and none will be authorized. Similarly, non-auditory
physical effects, stranding, and vessel strike are not expected to
occur. Although a few incidents of Level A harassment were predicted
through the quantitative exposure estimation process (see Estimated
Take), NMFS has determined that this is not a realistic result due to
the small estimated Level A harassment zones for the species (no
greater than approximately 50 m) and the mitigation requirements, and
no Level A harassment is authorized. These estimated zones are larger
than what would realistically occur, as discussed in the Estimated Take
section. Although no Level A harassment would be expected to occur even
absent mitigation, the extended distance exclusion zones for bowhead
whales further strengthen this conclusion.
We expect that takes would 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). The
number of takes for bowhead whales is 0.02 percent of the population.
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 area; 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 (30 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 long-term
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. No
BIAs, designated critical habitat, or other habitat of known
significance would be impacted by the planned activities.
Negligible Impact Conclusions
The survey would be of short duration (30 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 expected to only temporarily affect
marine mammal behavior in the form of avoidance, and the potential for
longer-term avoidance of important areas is limited. Short term
exposures to survey operations are not likely to impact 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 observers, and by
[[Page 46197]]
minimizing the severity of any potential exposures via shutdowns of the
airgun array.
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks
due to UAGI'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
estimates 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:
<bullet> No Level A harassment, serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized;
<bullet> The activity is temporary and of relatively short duration
(30 days);
<bullet> The anticipated impacts of the activity on marine mammals
would primarily be temporary behavioral changes in the form of
avoidance of the area around the survey vessel;
<bullet> Location of the survey is further north in the Arctic
Ocean and away from areas where most of the species listed in Table 1
have been observed and is north of summer feeding areas and migratory
routes.
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> The mitigation measures, including visual monitoring,
shutdowns, ramp-up, and prescribed measures based on energy size 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 monitoring and mitigation
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 the take 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 (see 86 FR 5322, January 19,
2021). 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 there is no currently accepted
stock abundance estimate. These include the fin whale Northeast Pacific
stock, the minke whale Alaska stock, the narwhal Unidentified stock,
the bearded seal Beringia stock, and the ringed seal Arctic stock. In
those cases, qualitative factors are used to inform an assessment of
whether the likely number of individual marine mammals taken is
appropriately considered small. We discuss these in further detail
below.
For all other stocks (aside from those without accepted abundance
estimates), the authorized take is less than 7 percent of the best
available stock abundance, well less than the one-third threshold for
exceeding small numbers (and some of those takes may be repeats of the
same individual, thus rendering the actual percentage even lower). We
also acknowledge that, given the location of the planned survey
activity high in the Arctic Ocean, the stock ranges referenced in the
SARs do not always fully overlap the area of the planned survey
activity. However, given the very small percentage of the best
available stock abundance estimates for these species and the
likelihood that the numbers of take authorized would be very small
relative to any reasonable population abundance estimate, we conclude
these numbers are small.
The stock abundance estimates for fin whale, minke whale, narwhal,
bearded seal and ringed seal stocks that occur in the surveys area are
unknown, according to the latest 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, Carretta
et al., 2021). Therefore, we reviewed other scientific information in
making our small numbers determinations for these animals. The
abundance estimate of 20,000 minke whales was taken from the Northwest
Pacific and Okhotsk Sea (IWC 2021). In addition, as noted previously,
partial 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 authorized take number of 2 is of
small numbers. The same surveys produced partial abundance estimates of
1,652 and 1,061 fin whales, for the same areas, respectively, which are
similarly sufficient to demonstrate that the authorized take number of
2 is small numbers. The bearded seal estimate of 125,000 was estimated
for the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea (Boveng et al., 2017) and
155,000 bearded seals for the entire Alaska stock (Cameron et al.,
2010). These partial abundance estimates near the survey are sufficient
to demonstrate that the authorized take number of 916 seals is small
numbers. Similarly, the ringed seal abundance estimate of 171,418
ringed seals was based on a limited sub-sample from the Bering Sea
(Conn et al., 2014 in Muto et al., 2020). This minimal abundance
estimate for the Alaska region is enough to demonstrate that a take of
10,373 will be small numbers at 6.05 percent of the Bering Sea
population. There is no abundance information available for narwhals.
However, the take number is sufficiently small (2) that we assume that
it is small relative to any reasonable assumption of likely population
abundance for the narwhal. Additionally, the survey area encompasses a
very small portion of the hypothesized range of the species.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including
the 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
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1)
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing
the
[[Page 46198]]
marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
The coast and nearshore waters of Alaska are of cultural importance
to indigenous peoples for fishing, hunting, gathering, and ceremonial
purposes. Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by
coastal Alaska Natives. There are seven communities in the North Slope
Borough region of Alaska (northwestern and northern Alaska) that
harvest seals, including from west to east Point Hope, Point Lay,
Wainwright, Utqia[gdot]vik, Atqusak, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik (Ice Seal
Committee 2019). Bearded seals are the preferred species to harvest as
food and for skin boat coverings, but ringed seals are also commonly
taken for food and their blubber (Ice Seal Committee 2019). Ringed
seals are typically harvested during the summer and can extend up to 64
km from shore (Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010). No ribbon seals
have been harvested in any of the North Slope Borough communities since
the 1960s (Ice Seal Committee 2019). However, the number of seals
harvested each year varies considerably.
A subsistence harvest of bowheads and belugas is also practiced by
Alaskan Natives, providing nutritional and cultural needs. In 2019, 36
bowhead whales were taken during the Alaskan subsistence hunt (Suydam
et al., 2020). Whaling near Utqia[gdot]vik occurs during spring (April
and May) and autumn, and can continue into November, depending on the
quota and conditions. Communities that harvested bowheads during 2019
include Utqia[gdot]vik, Gamgell, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point
Lay, and Wainwright. Bowhead whales and gray whales are also taken in
the aboriginal subsistence hunt in the Russian Federation (Zharikov et
al., 2020). During 2019, 135 gray whales and one bowhead whale were
harvested at Chukotka.
Beluga whales from the eastern Chukchi Sea stock are an important
subsistence resource for residents of the village of Point Lay,
adjacent to Kasegaluk Lagoon, and other villages in northwest Alaska.
Each year, hunters from Point Lay drive belugas into the lagoon to a
traditional hunting location. The beluga whales have been predictably
sighted near the lagoon from late June through mid to late July (Suydam
et al., 2001). The mean annual number of Beaufort Sea belugas landed by
Alaska Native subsistence hunters in 2011-2015 was 47, and an average
of 92 were taken in Canadian waters; the mean annual number of Eastern
Chukchi Sea belugas landed by Alaska Native subsistence hunters in
2011-2015 was 67 (Muto et al., 2020).
The survey by UAGI will occur within ~73.5-81.0[deg] N, ~139.5-
168[deg] W and over 300 km from the Alaska coastline. Due to the
location of the survey being far north in the Arctic and over 200
kilometers from any hunting area or buffer (<a href="http://www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/bowhead%20migration%20map%2021mar03%20distribution.pdf">http://www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/bowhead%20migration%20map%2021mar03%20distribution.pdf</a>), no impacts on
the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses are expected to
occur. Specifically, based on the survey methods and location planned,
there is no reason to believe that there will be any behavioral
disturbance of bowhead whales that would also impact their behavior in
a manner that would interfere with subsistence use later. Although
fishing/hunting would not be precluded in the survey area, a safe
distance would need to be kept from R/V Sikuliaq and the towed seismic
equipment. The principal investigator for the survey presented the
action to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) at the July 2020,
October 2020, and February 2021 Triannual Meetings. As specifically
noted, during the meetings, daily email communications with interested
community members would be made from the vessel. Communication may
include notice of any unusual marine mammal observations during the
survey. Any potential space use conflicts would be further avoided
through direct communication with subsistence fishers/hunters during
the surveys. Considering the limited time that the planned seismic
surveys would take place and the far offshore location of the surveys,
no direct interaction with subsistence fishers/hunters would be
anticipated. However, UAGI will still be required to remain in constant
communication with subsistence fishers/hunters during the surveys.
Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the mitigation and monitoring
measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable
adverse impact on subsistence uses from UAGI's activities.
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), NSF
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct,
indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from
this marine geophysical survey in the Arctic. 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 UAGI. In compliance with
NEPA and CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-2,
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 <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/">www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/</a>, and NMFS' FONSI
is available at <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-lamont-doherty-earth-observatory-marine-geophysical-survey-2">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-lamont-doherty-earth-observatory-marine-geophysical-survey-2</a>.
Endangered Species Act
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.
The NMFS OPR ESA Interagency Cooperation Division issued a
Biological Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an
IHA to UAGI under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS OPR
Permits and Conservation Division and NSF's funding of the survey. The
Biological Opinion concluded that the action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed bowhead whales, fin
whales, the Western North Pacific population of gray whales, the Mexico
DPS and Western North Pacific DPS of humpback whales, bearded seals and
ribbon seals, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the
proposed critical habitat for bearded seals and ringed seals. There is
no designated critical habitat in the action area for the other ESA-
listed species.
Authorization
As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to UAGI
for conducting marine geophysical surveys in the Arctic in August and
September,
[[Page 46199]]
2021, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Dated: August 11, 2021.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17683 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 18, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.