Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

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 101a5D 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
216.104a11.
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 measures 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:34 Aug 17, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 MMPAs 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 stocks 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 highand lowenergy 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
PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

46191

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 0500 m EZ, out to a radius of 1,000 m from the edges of the airgun array 5001,000 m. For lowenergy surveys, the buffer zone encompasses the area at and below the sea surface from the edge of the 0100
m EZ, out to a radius of 200 m from the edges of the airgun array 100200 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 nave 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 atsea 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
E:FRFM18AUN1.SGM

18AUN1