Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Conductor Pipe Installation Activities at Harmony…
Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Conductor Pipe Installation Activities at Harmony Platform in Santa Barbara Channel Offshore of
Notice; issuance of an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA).
RIN Number: "RIN 0648-XD188"
Citation: "79 FR 58914"
Page Number: "58914"
"Notices"
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the
DATES: Effective
ADDRESSES: A copy of the final IHA and application are available by writing to
NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is also available at the same Internet address. NMFS also issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to evaluate the effects of the conductor pipe installation activities and IHA on marine species listed as threatened and endangered. Documents cited in this notice may be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, by
An authorization for the 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 subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined "negligible impact" in 50 CFR 216.103 as ". . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival."
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 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].
Summary of Request
On
The project's estimated dates are from mid-September to
Description of the Specified Activity
Overview
ExxonMobil plans to install six conductor pipes by hydraulic hammering at the Harmony Platform, Santa Ynez Production Unit, in the Santa Barbara Channel offshore of
Dates and Duration
ExxonMobil estimates that the planned conductor pipe installation activities will occur from mid-September to
Harmony Platform is located in the Santa Barbara Channel, which is approximately 100 km (54 nmi) long and 40 km (21.6 nmi) wide, situated between the
Detailed Description of the Specified Activity
ExxonMobil plans to install six conductor pipes by hydraulic hammering at Harmony Platform. The conductor pipe installation activities are estimated to occur from mid-September to
The total length of a single conductor pipe is approximately 505 m (1,656.8 ft). Each conductor consists of multiple sections of 66.04 centimeter (cm) (26 inch [in]) diameter steel pipe that will be sequentially welded end-to-end from an upper deck of the platform (see Figure 1-2 of the IHA application), and lowered into the 366 m water column through metal rings (conductor guides) affixed to the jacket structure that orient and guide the conductor. Once the conductor reaches the sediment surface, gravity-based penetration (i.e., the conductor will penetrate the seabed under its own weight) is expected to reach approximately 30 m (98.4 ft) below the seabed. A hydraulic hammer (S-90 IHC) with a manufacturer's specified energy range of 9 to 90 kiloJoules (kJ) will be located on the drill deck and used to drive the conductor to a target depth of approximately 90 to 100 m (295.3 to 328.1 ft) below the seabed; therefore, only roughly 60 m (196.9 ft) of each 505 m (1,656.8 ft) long conductor pipe will require hydraulic driving. The S-90 IHC hydraulic hammer will sit on the conductor throughout pile-driving operations, but a ram internal to the hammer will stroke back and forth using hydraulic pressure to impart energy to the conductor. No physical dropping of a weight will be employed to drive the conductor.
The S-90 IHC hydraulic hammer has an estimated blow rate of about 46 blows per minute. The portion of a complete conductor that must be actively driven (hammered) into the seafloor consists of 5 to 7 sections, which are sequentially welded end-to-end. Setup and welding will take 3.5 to 7.3 hours per section, mostly depending on the type of welding equipment used (e.g., automated welder). Impact hammer pipe-driving will take an estimated 2.5 to 3.3 hours for each section, depending primarily on sediment physical properties, which affect penetration rate. Complete installation of each conductor is estimated at approximately 14 days based on 24-hour (continuous) operations. Table 1-1 of the IHA application presents a summary of driving activities and estimated number of joints [requiring welding] for each conductor pipe). Figure 1-3 of the IHA application shows the estimated time in days for each of these activities that are required to install a single conductor pipe.
Table 1--Summary of Conductor Pipe Installation Activities and Associated Characteristics of Each Conductor Pipe at Harmony Platform Conductor pipe Pipe length (m) Estimated Pile-driving Estimated activity number of required number of joints days *3 Installation 49 (160.8 ft) 4 No 2 level to sea level Sea level to 366 (1,200.8 ft) 28 No 5.6 seafloor From 0 to 30 *1 (98.4 ft) 3 No 0.9 [approx.] 30 m below seafloor From [approx.] 60 (196.9 ft) 5 to 7 Yes *2 0.69 30 m to [approx.] 90 m below seafloor Hammer downtime NA NA No 1.52 Clean up and NA NA No 3.6 completion *1 Estimated range of gravity-based penetration. *2 See Figure 1-4 of the IHA application. *3 See Figure 1-3 of the IHA application.
NMFS provided a detailed description of the planned activities in a previous notice for the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Comments and Responses
A notice of the proposed IHA for
MMPA Concerns
Comment 1: The Commission states that the densities used to estimate the numbers of takes were derived using two different methods. For humpback, blue, and fin whales,
Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation. The densities of blue and fin whales in the IHA application and the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Table 2--Proposed and Corrected Density Estimates for Two of the Species/Stocks Proposed To Be Taken Incidental toExxonMobil's Conductor Pipe Installation Activities Species Density Corrected Calculated Corrected estimates density from takes/requeste calculated from Table 5 Redfern et al. d takes from takes/ of (2013) Table 5 of the authorized the Federal Federal takes Register Register notice notice of the of the proposed IHA proposed IHA Fin whale 0.004 0.0065 0.005/1 0.00392/2 (Balaenoptera physalus) Blue whale 0.008 0.006 0.011/1 0.000362/2 (Balaenoptera musculus)
Comment 2: The Commission states that for the species/stocks that are derived from Redfern et al. (2013),
Table 3--Proposed and Corrected Density Estimates, in Animals/km(2M), for Four of the Species/Stocks Proposed To Be Taken Incidental toExxonMobil's Conductor Pipe Installation Activities Species Density Corrected estimates from density estimates, Table 5 of the derived from Federal Register abundance estimates in notice of the Table 5 of the proposed IHA Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA Gray whale 0.5067 1.519 Cuvier's beaked whale 0.17 0.523 Mesoplodon spp. 0.08 0.055 Bottlenose dolphin 0.11 0.080
Therefore, the Commission recommends that NMFS revise the density estimates for gray whales, Cuvier's beaked whales, Mesoplodon spp., and common bottlenose dolphins to reflect the best available abundance estimates from Carretta et al. (2013); the corrected density estimates should then be used in NMFS's revised take estimates.
Response: The differences in the calculated densities reported in the IHA application (Tables 3-1 and 6-1 and the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
* The gray whale density in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
* The Cuvier's beaked whale density estimate in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
* NMFS provided a density estimate of 0.08 for the Mesoplodon spp. beaked whale in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
* The bottlenose dolphin density estimate in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Comment 3: The Commission states that
The Commission states that the take estimates should account for multiple days of exposure rather than aggregated hours of exposure. In this instance,
The CBD also states that NMFS underestimates the impacts as the planned conductor pipe installation activities are intermittent and not continuous as described in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendations and has revised the take calculations to account for 18.6 days of potential exposure. See Table 7 for the updated re-calculated take estimates and authorized take numbers.
Comment 4: The Commission states that
Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has increased the takes of sperm whales and short-beaked common dolphins from 1 and 45 to 2 and 450, respectively. NMFS has also increased the authorized take numbers for humpback (from 1 to 2), minke (from 1 to 2), sei (from 1 to 2), fin (from 1 to 2), blue (from 1 to 2), Baird's beaked (from 1 to 6), Cuvier's beaked (from 1 to 4), Mesoplodon spp. (from 1 to 2), killer (from 1 to 10), and short-finned pilot whales (from 1 to 40) as well as northern right whale dolphins (from 1 to 100) to account for average group size (Jefferson et al., 2008).
Comment 5: The CBD states that NMFS underestimates the harmful impact of the proposed conductor pipe installation activities on endangered blue whales. The Santa Barbara Channel is important blue whale habitat. The global blue whale population has been reduced by commercial whaling from over 300,000 to likely fewer than 10,000 individuals. Blue whales off
Response: NMFS fully considered the potential impacts of the planned conductor pipe installation activities on endangered blue whales. As described in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
NMFS's
Comment 6: The CBD states that blue whales congregate throughout the Santa Barbara Channel (it hosts the world's densest summer seasonal congregation), and Harmony Platform is in the region that is an important area for blue whales. A recent tagging study determined the areas of highest use by blue whales off the
Response: Harmony Platform, which is located at 34 22'35.906" North and 120 10'04.48 West, is on the coastal side of the shipping lane in the Santa Barbara Channel (see Figure 1-1 of the IHA application). Based on Figure 1 from CBD's letter (adapted from
Comment 7: CBD states that new science shows that blue whales, and possible other baleen whales, are highly susceptible to behavioral disturbance from noise pollution. The Goldbogen et al. (2013) study raises substantial concern because it demonstrates the potential impacts of high intensity noise on the essential life functions of blue whales. The study found that mid-frequency sonar can disrupt feeding and displace blue whales from high-quality prey patches, significantly impacting their foraging ecology, individual fitness, and population health. Even fairly low-received levels can have an adverse impact.
Response: The Goldbogen et al. (2013) study analyzed behavioral responses of tagged blue whales in response to simulated military sonar and other mid-frequency sounds used during a controlled exposure experiment in feeding areas within the Southern California Bight. The study concluded that the responses of animals to mid-frequency sonar were complex, dependent on the behavioral state and sound exposure factors, and represented a general avoidance response of a perceived threat that appeared to subside quickly after sound exposure.
Comment 8: The CBD states that the best available science indicates western North Pacific gray whales may be present in the survey area. Recently, a tagged western North Pacific gray whale traveled all the way from
Response: Western North Pacific gray whales are not expected to occur in the action area. There is evidence of movement between "eastern" and "western" populations of North Pacific gray whales, but the evidence thus far only supports low inter-area movements. For gray whales that migrate along the continental U.S., evidence from photo-identification work supports only seven confirmed western gray whale sightings (as well as a single satellite-tracked individual) ever in the central and eastern
Comment 9: The CBD states that the North Pacific right whale is a potentially impacted species for which no take may be authorized. There are an estimated 25 to 30 individuals in the eastern stock of North Pacific right whales, making it the most highly endangered large whale in the world (Wade et al., 2011). Although NMFS notes that North Pacific right whales may be present in the project area, it assumes, without support, that no North Pacific right whales will be taken.
Response: The North Pacific right whale is rarely found off the U.S. west coast. The majority of North Pacific right whale sightings from the eastern North Pacific stock occur in the
Comment 10: The CBD states that sperm whales reach peak abundance in
Response: Sperm whale abundance varied off
NMFS expects potential impacts by Level B harassment only to sperm whales; no injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated or authorized. The potential impacts are expected to be temporary and the action is not expected to have adverse consequences on the stock, including reductions in reproduction, numbers, or distribution that might appreciably reduce the stock's likelihood of surviving and recovering in the wild. Based on our analysis of the likely effects of the action on sperm whales and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and mitigation measures (see "Mitigation" below), NMFS finds that the take of small numbers of sperm whales by Level B harassment incidental to
NMFS's
Comment 11: The CCC states that sea surface temperatures off of southern
Response: NMFS has received anecdotal reports from the public, whale watching companies, and other sources of recent sightings of Bryde's, false killer, and short-finned pilot whales. As discussed in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Comment 12: The CBD is concerned with NMFS's conclusion to exclude consideration of
Response: NMFS does not expect
Mitigation
Comment 13: The CBD states that the mitigation measures are inadequate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact. If NMFS decides to approve the action it must require additional monitoring and mitigation measures to implement the least practicable impact on marine mammals.
Response:
Comment 14: The CBD states that NMFS must fully analyze time-area restrictions as a mitigation measure. NMFS must not allow pipe-driving when blue whales aggregate in the Santa Barbara Channel during June through November. The western portion of the Santa Barbara Channel, where Harmony Platform is located, provides a core area for the blue whales, and pipe-driving should be restricted in this important habitat for blue whales. This closure should further be extended to avoid overlap with the presence of other whales.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the CBD that time-area restrictions are necessary as a mitigation measure. The Harmony Platform is located at 34 22' 35.906" North and 120 10' 04.48" West, on the coastal side of the shipping lane in the Santa Barbara Channel (see Figure 1 of the IHA application). Based on Figure 1 in CBD's comment letter (adapted from
Comment 16: The CBD states that NMFS must fully analyze larger exclusion zones as a mitigation measure. The use of more accurate thresholds would lead to larger exclusion zones. Additionally, the modeled distances disagree with measured sound levels for other pile-driving activities. The exclusion zone of 3.5 m for pinnipeds and 10 m for cetaceans is woefully inadequate to mitigate Level A harassment. Bailey et al. (2010) measured 205 dB of broadband sound at 10 m from the pile-driving source. While the source was louder at 226 dB in that study, it indicates that the exclusion zone should be much larger.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the CBD's comment. For a response to CBD's comment regarding NMFS' thresholds for Level A harassment, see the response to comment 21 (below) X. NMFS and
Bailey et al. (2010) assessed the potential effects of underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm on marine mammals; however, the piles and pile-driving technical details as well as the sound analysis in that study are different than those planned to be used during
Comment 16: The CBD states that NMFS must fully analyze air bubble curtains, which can reduce sound by 20 to 30 dB depending on their design, or explore the use of other noise reduction technologies (e.g., pile caps, dewatered cofferdams, and other physical barriers) for mitigating underwater sound from impact hammer pipe-driving.
Response: NMFS and
NMFS and
NMFS and
Comment 17: The CBD states that NMFS must fully analyze and should restrict conductor pipe installation activities so that they do not occur during low visibility. The action is a 24-hour, continuous activity with pipe-driving potentially happening at night and during low visibility. The PSOs are ineffective at night and during low visibility. This means that during those times the exclusion zone will not be effective in mitigating take by Level A harassment. Furthermore, artificial lighting, while better for PSOs, brings hazards to migratory birds.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the CBD's comment. The IHA does consider and address conductor pipe installation activities during low-visibility and nighttime conditions. If inclement weather conditions (i.e., fog, rain, or rough Beaufort sea state) limit or impair PSO's visibility of the water's surface to less than 30.5 m (100 ft) within the action area, all noise-generating conductor pipe installation activities must be stopped until visibility improves. To facilitate visual monitoring during non-daylight hours, the exclusion zones must be illuminated by lights to allow for more effective viewing of the area by the PSO on-duty.
ExxonMobil is providing artificial lighting for conductor pipe installation activities during nighttime and low visibility operations at the +15 ft level of the Harmony Platform that will provide adequate visibility to allow observation of the 3.5 m and 10 m exclusion zones for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively, as well as the surrounding areas. The lighting will only be on for those periods when conductor pipes are being driven at night or during periods of low visibility which typically occur for only a short period of time during the activities using the impact hammer. The artificial lighting that will be installed will have light shields attached to direct the light downward toward the water. Note that the Harmony Platform has existing lighting to allow for safe operations and to comply with regulations.
Monitoring and Reporting
Comment 18: The Commission states that the accurate characterization of the sizes of the buffer and exclusion zones is critical for implementing mitigation measures and estimating the numbers of animals taken. In the past, the Commission has recommended a rapid turnaround of the in-situ sound source verification analysis to ensure that buffer and exclusion zones are the appropriate size. However, in at least one instance, rapid turnaround has resulted in errors, as occurred with ION's measurements of source levels during its 2012 Arctic in-ice survey. In that case, the size of the exclusion zone was decreased from that modeled based on erroneous field-report results. The error was not discovered until the end of the field season, when it was determined that the in-season adjustments resulted in unauthorized Level A harassment takes of bowhead whales. Since the purpose of sound source verification is to ensure protection of marine mammals, one way to reduce risk to marine mammals would be to allow only for expansion, but not contraction, of the buffer and/or exclusion zones after in-situ adjustment in the size of the buffer and/or exclusion zones if the size(s) of the estimated zones are determined to be too small. The CCC also supports an adaptive approach to adjusting the buffer and exclusion zones based on in-situ data collected during the sound source verification. The process of adjusting the zones should begin from a protective baseline.
Response: Monitoring will be performed during all impact hammer pipe-driving operations. Hydrophones will be deployed prior to the start of impact hammer pipe-driving the first pipe section. Data will be collected and analyzed upon completion of the conductor pipe's last pipe section. Monitoring equipment will be redeployed prior to installation of the remaining five conductor pipes. Upon completion of the first conductor pipe, acoustic data will be retrieved from the near field (approximately 10 m) and far field (approximately 325 to 500 m) recorders, analyzed, and compared to the predicted rms radii distances for the buffer and exclusion zones.
Comment 19: The CCC states that due to the uncertainties with modeling, site specific, and/or seasonal oceanographic conditions, they request being provided copies of the monitoring reports referenced in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Response: NMFS will provide copies of the in-water and in-air monitoring and sound source verification report for
Acoustic Thresholds
Comment 20: CBD states that NMFS's current 160 dB threshold for Level B harassment in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Response: NMFS's practice has been to apply the 160 dB received level threshold for underwater impulse sound levels to determine whether take by Level B harassment occurs. Specifically, NMFS derived the 160 dB threshold data from mother-calf pairs of migrating gray whales (Malme et al., 1983, 1984) and bowhead whales (
As mentioned in the
Comment 21: CBD states that NMFS's use of the 180 and 190 dB thresholds for estimating Level A harassment and the likelihood of temporary and/or permanent threshold shift do not consider the best available science and is not sufficiently conservative. CBD cites Kastak et al. (2008), Lucke et al. (2009), Wood et al. (2012) and Kajawa and Liberman (2009).
Response: As explained in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
NMFS's current Level A thresholds, which identify levels above which PTS could be incurred, were designed to be precautionary in that they were based on levels were animals had incurred TTS. NMFS is currently working on finalizing acoustic guidance that will identify revised TTS and PTS thresholds that references the studies identified by CBD. In order to ensure the best possible product, the process for developing the revised thresholds includes both peer and public review (both of which have already occurred) and NMFS will begin applying the new thresholds once the peer and public input have been addressed and the acoustic guidance is finalized.
Regarding the Lucke et al. (2009) study, the authors found a threshold shift (TS) of a harbor porpoise after exposing it to airgun noise (single pulse) with a received sound pressure level (SPL) at 200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re 1 [mu]Pa, which corresponds to a sound exposure level of 164.5 dB re 1 [mu]Pa2 s after integrating exposure. NMFS currently uses the root-mean-square (rms) of received SPL at 180 dB and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa as the threshold above which permanent threshold shift (PTS) could occur for cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. Because the pipe-driving noise is a broadband impulse, one cannot directly extrapolate the equivalent of rms SPL from the reported peak-to-peak SPLs reported in Lucke et al. (2009). However, applying a conservative conversion factor of 16 dB for broadband signals from seismic surveys (Harris et al., 2001; McCauley et al., 2000) to correct for the difference between peak-to-peak levels reported in Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs; the rms SPL for TTS would be approximately 184 dB re 1 [mu]Pa, and the received levels associated with PTS (Level A harassment) would be higher. This is still above the current 180 dB rms re 1 [mu]Pa threshold for injury. Yet, NMFS recognizes that the temporary threshold shift (TTS) of harbor porpoise is lower than other cetacean species empirically tested (Finneran et al., 2002; Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Kastelein et al., 2012). NMFS considered this information in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
A Thompson et al. (1998) telemetry study on harbor (Phoca vitulina) and grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) suggested that avoidance and other behavioral reactions by individual seals to small airgun sources may at times be strong, but short-lived. The researchers conducted 1-hour controlled exposure experiments exposing individual seals fitted with telemetry devices to small airguns with a reported source level of 215-224 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (peak-to-peak) (
In a study on the effect of non-impulsive sound sources on marine mammal hearing, Kastak et al. (2008) exposed one harbor seal to an underwater 4.1 kHz pure tone fatiguing stimulus with a maximum received sound pressure of 184 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for 60 seconds (Kastak et al., 2008; Finneran and Branstetter, 2013). A second 60-second exposure resulted in an estimated threshold shift of greater than 50 dB at a test frequency of 5.8 kHz (Kastak et al., 2008). The seal recovered at a rate of -10 dB per log (min). However, 2 months post-exposure, the researchers observed incomplete recovery from the initial threshold shift resulting in an apparent permanent threshold shift of 7 to 10 dB in the seal (Kastak et al., 2008). NMFS notes that pipe-driving using an impact hammer sound is an impulsive source, and the context of Kastak et al. (2008) study is related to the effect of non-impulsive sounds on marine mammals.
NMFS also considered two other Kastak et al. (1999, 2005) studies. Kastak et al. (1999) reported TTS of approximately 4-5 dB in three species of pinnipeds (harbor seal,
NMFS acknowledges that PTS could occur if an animal experiences repeated exposures to TTS levels. However, an animal would need to stay very close to the sound source for an extended amount of time to incur a serious degree of PTS, which in this case would be highly unlikely due to the required mitigation measures in place to avoid Level A harassment and the expectation that a mobile marine mammal would generally avoid an area where received sound pulse levels exceed 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) (review in
NMFS also considered recent studies by Kujawa and Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011). These studies found that despite completely reversible threshold shifts that leave cochlear sensory cells intact, large threshold shifts (40 to 50 dB) could cause synaptic level changes and delayed cochlear nerve degeneration in mice and guinea pigs, respectively. NMFS notes that the high level of TTS that led to the synaptic changes shown in these studies is in the range of the high degree of TTS that Southall et al. (2007) used to calculate PTS levels. It is not known whether smaller levels of TTS would lead to similar changes. NMFS, however, acknowledges the complexity of noise exposure on the nervous system, and will re-examine this issue as more data become available.
In contrast, a recent study on bottlenose dolphins (Schlundt, et al., 2013) measured hearing thresholds at multiple frequencies to determine the amount of TTS induced before and after exposure to a sequence of impulses produced by a seismic airgun. The airgun volume and operating pressure varied from 40 to 150 in3 and 1,000 to 2,000 psi, respectively. After three years and 180 sessions, the authors observed no significant TTS at any test frequency, for any combinations of airgun volume, pressure, or proximity to the dolphin during behavioral tests (Schlundt, et al., 2013). Schlundt et al. (2013) suggest that the potential for airguns (or in this case pipe-driving using an impact hammer) to cause hearing loss in dolphins is lower than previously predicted, perhaps as a result of the low-frequency content of airgun impulses compared to the high-frequency hearing ability of dolphins. Although the sounds from pipe-driving using an impact hammer are not equivalent to those produced by a seismic airgun, they are both considered impulse sounds.
Comment 22: CBD states that NMFS must consider that even behavioral disturbance can amount to Level A take if it interferes with essential life functions.
Response: NMFS notes that Level B take has been defined previously in this document and specifically relates to behavioral disturbance. NMFS acknowledge that behavioral harassment in certain contexts, or continued over long durations, may, in certain situations have impacts on health and fitness of marine mammals. The discussion of whether these more severse impacts on individuals (which could lead to population-level impacts) occur as a result of any particular project are included in the negligible impact analysis. They are also considered qualitatively in the development of mitigation measures, via consideration of biologically important areas in the analysis and for time-area closures, or other important factors. Please see the response to comment 21 for a discussion of studies addressing PTS (Level A harassment).
Comment 23: CBD requested that NMFS use a behavioral threshold below 160 dB for estimating take based on results reported in Bain and Williams (2006), Clark and
Response: NMFS is constantly evaluating new science and how to best incorporate it into our decisions. This process involves careful consideration of new data and how it is best interpreted within the context of a given management framework. Each of these articles emphasizes the importance of context (e.g., behavioral state of the animals, distance from the sound source, etc.) in evaluating behavioral responses of marine mammals to acoustic sources.
These papers and the studies discussed in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
In a passive acoustic research program that mapped the soundscape in the North Atlantic, Clark and
The authors conclude that there is not enough scientific knowledge to adequately evaluate whether or not these effects on singing or mating behaviors are significant or would alter survivorship or reproductive success (Clark and
MacLeod et al. (2006) discussed the possible displacement of fin and sei whales related to distribution patterns of the species during a large-scale seismic survey offshore the west coast of
Risch et al. (2012) documented reductions in humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) vocalizations in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary concurrent with transmissions of the Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing (OAWRS) low-frequency fish sensor system at distances of 200 km (108 nmi) from the source. The recorded OAWRS produced series of frequency modulated pulses and the signal received levels ranged from 88 to 110 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (Risch et al., 2012). The authors hypothesize that individuals did not leave the area but instead ceased singing and noted that the duration and frequency range of the OAWRS signals (a novel sound to the whales) were similar to those of natural humpback whale song components used during mating (Risch et al., 2012). Thus, the novelty of the sound to humpback whales in the study area provided a compelling contextual probability for the observed effects (Risch et al., 2012). However, the authors did not state or imply that these changes had long-term effects on individual animals or populations (Risch et al., 2012), nor did they necessarily rise to the level of an MMPA take. Thus, to address CBD's concerns related to the results of this study, NMFS again notes that the
With repeated exposure to sound, many marine mammals may habituate to the sound at least partially (Richardson & Wursig, 1997). Bain and Williams (2006) examined the effects of a large airgun array (maximum total discharge volume of 1,100 in3) on six species in shallow waters off
DeRuiter et al. (2013) recently observed that beaked whales (considered a particularly sensitive species to sound) exposed to playbacks (i.e., simulated) of U.S. tactical mid-frequency sonar from 89 to 127 dB re 1 [mu]Pa at close distances responded notably by altering their dive patterns. In contrast, individuals showed no behavioral responses when exposed to similar received levels from actual U.S. tactical mid-frequency sonar operated at much further distances (DeRuiter et al., 2013). As noted earlier, one must consider the importance of context (for example, the distance of a sound source from the animal) in predicting behavioral responses. Regarding the public comments submitted by Clark et al. (2012) in reference to NMFS's use of the current acoustic exposure criteria; please refer to our earlier response to CBD.
None of these studies on the effects of airgun noise on marine mammals point to any associated mortalities, strandings, or permanent abandonment of habitat by marine mammals. Bain and Williams (2006) specifically conclude that ". . . although behavioral changes were observed, the precautions utilized in the SHIPS survey did not result in any detectable marine mammal mortalities during the survey, nor were any reported subsequently by the regional marine mammal stranding network . . ." The
Currently NMFS is in the process of revising its behavioral noise exposure criteria based on the best and most recent scientific information. NMFS will use these criteria to develop methodologies to predict behavioral responses of marine mammals exposed to sound associated with conductor pipe installation activities (primary source impact hammer operations). Although using a uniform sound pressure level of 160-dB re 1 [mu]Pa for the onset of behavioral harassment for impulse noises may not capture all of the nuances of different marine mammal reactions to sound, it is an appropriate way to manage and regulate anthropogenic noise impacts on marine mammals until NMFS finalizes its acoustic guidelines.
Comment 24: The CCC states that it applies a more conservative approach to permitting pile-driving in state waters and recommends using the model-generated 160-dB threshold as the initial exclusion zone that would trigger a shut-down of conductor pipe installation activities using the impact hammer if marine mammals are sighted by PSOs approaching or entering this area. The more protective 160 dB exclusion zone generated by modeling could subsequently be reduced if in-situ measurements taken during the sound source verification indicate that this is warranted. If use of the model-generated 160 dB threshold for this purpose was found to be infeasible, the CCC staff would recommend an alternate strategy of imposing an additional protective buffer to the model-generated 180 and 190 dB based exclusion zones.
Response: NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli resulting from the impact hammer pipe-driving associated with the conductor pipe installation activities has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine mammals. NMFS disagrees with the CCC's recommendation to use the model-generated 160 dB threshold for underwater sounds as the initial exclusion zone that would trigger a shut-down for all marine mammals. Current NMFS practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level underwater sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to impulsive sounds at or above 180 and 190 dB (rms), respectively, have the potential to be injured (i.e., Level A harassment). NMFS considers the potential for Level B (behavioral) harassment to occur when marine mammals are exposed to sounds below injury thresholds but at or above the 160 dB (rms) threshold for impulse sounds (e.g., impact pile-driving) and the 120 dB (rms) threshold for continuous noise (e.g., vibratory pile-driving). No vibratory pile-driving is planned for
The CCC's recommendation to use the estimated 160 dB exclusion zone as a trigger for shut-down is inconsistent with existing NMFS practice, and would effectively expand the Level A harassment exclusion zone for cetaceans and pinnipeds. It should be noted that a much larger exclusion zone for triggering shut-downs of conductor pipe installation activities has the potential to result in operational delays which could extend impact hammer pipe-driving time and/or result of losing a conductor pipe because successful completion of installation relies on consistent movement of the steel pipe through the bed sediment.
NMFS also disagrees with the CCC's recommendation regarding the use of a protective buffer to the model-generated 180 and 190 dB based exclusion zones. Monitoring will be performed during all impact hammer pipe-driving operations. Hydrophones will be deployed prior to the start of impact hammer pipe-driving the first pipe section. Data will be collected and analyzed upon completion of the conductor pipe's last pipe section. Monitoring equipment will be redeployed prior to installation of the remaining five conductor pipes. Upon completion of the first conductor pipe, acoustic data will be retrieved from the near field (approximately 10 m) and far field (approximately 325 to 500 m) recorders, analyzed, and compared to the predicted rms radii distances for the buffer and exclusion zones.
NMFS and
Finally, the CCC cites IHAs issued previously by NMFS as precedent for its recommended approach to establishing exclusion zones using the 160 dB threshold as the trigger for implementing a shut-down procedure. Based on the citation provided by CCC (e.g.,
Effects Analyses
Comment 25: The CBD states that NMFS's evaluation in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Response: NMFS disagrees with the CBD's comment. The anticipated effects on marine mammal habitat, including effects on potential prey and potential foraging habitat were described in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
NEPA Concerns
Comment 26: The CBD states that NMFS must comply fully with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CBD states that NMFS notes that it will complete an EA prior to its decision on the IHA. Based on multiple factors in NEPA's regulations, that the proposed activities do constitute a significant impact, and NMFS should prepare a full EIS. The purpose and need for the action is unclear and unnecessary. The IHA application does not fully explain the need and purpose of the additional conductor pipes. The notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Response: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), NMFS completed an EA titled, "Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to
NMFS's EA includes all required components, including a brief discussion of need for the proposed action, a listing of the alternatives to the proposed action, a description of the affected environment, a brief discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6 contains criteria for determining the significance of the impacts of a proposed action. In addition, the
Comment 27: The CBD states NMFS must consider the additional suggested mitigation measures as alternatives in its NEPA analysis. An environmental review must "inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment." NMFS must "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated." In addition, an agency must discuss measures designed to mitigate its action's impact on the environment. Accordingly, time-area closures, larger exclusion zones, low-visibility limitations, and noise reducing techniques should be considered in the range of alternatives.
Response: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), NMFS completed an EA titled, "Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to
(1) Issuance of an IHA with mitigation measures, and
(2) A no action alternative (i.e., do not issue an IHA and do not conduct the seismic survey).
The EA also included a section on alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further consideration. NMFS considered whether other alternatives could meet the purpose and need and support
The EA will be available on the NMFS ITA Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/.
Comment 29: The CBD states that NMFS has a duty to consider the indirect impacts of its action. Indirect effects "are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." Although the purpose of the conductor pipes is unclear, any changes in production, drilling, waste, techniques, or lifetime of the oil and gas operations at Harmony Platform must be fully disclosed and adequately evaluated. If, for example, the conductor pipes will be used for or enable hydraulic fracturing or other unconventional well stimulation techniques then the environmental effects must evaluated.
Response: Changes to the production, drilling, waste, techniques, or lifetime of the oil and gas operations at Harmony Platform are regulated by the
NMFS notes that all produced fluids from
Comment 29: The CBD states that NMFS must also look at the cumulative effects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) of the action. For example, the Santa Barbara Channel is a busy shipping lane which means that the cumulative effects of noise pollution from ship traffic and ship strikes must be evaluated. Whales fleeing pile-driving activities may be forced into shipping lanes to continue their foraging. Additionally, hydraulic fracturing activities from offshore oil and gas platforms in the area threaten endangered species and marine mammals in numerous ways--from oil spills and vessel strikes to air and water pollution. More than half of the platforms in federal waters discharge their wastewater, which can include toxic fracking chemicals, into the ocean. Harmony Platform alone is permitted to discharge over 33,000 barrels of wastewater into the ocean each year.
Response: The NMFS EA analyzes the effects of NMFS's issuance of an IHA with mitigation and monitoring measures for the conductor pipe installation activities in light of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the area including (1) other impact pipe-driving activities; (2) research activities; (3) military testing and training activities; (4) oil and gas activities; (5) vessel traffic, noise, and collisions; (6) commercial and recreational fishing; and (7) climate change. The EA concludes that the impacts of the issuance of an IHA for
NMFS notes that Harmony Platform is located on the coastal side of the shipping lane in Santa Barbara Channel, while foraging areas are concentrated on the seaward side of the shipping lane; thus the whales would not be forced into the area busy with vessel traffic to forage. The shipping channel is located 12 to 14 km (6.5 to 7.6 nmi) from the Harmony Platform, and underwater sounds are within normal ambient ranges at the platform (e.g., 120 dB). As stated previously in this document,
General Concerns
Comment 30: Numerous private citizens, as supporters of
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Comment 31: The CBD states that NMFS should consider the environmental impacts of the activity on nearby marine protected areas (MPAs), reserves, and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary that are located in the vicinity of the conductor pipe installation activities.
Response: NMFS has considered environmental impacts of the conductor pipe installation activities on nearby MPAs as well as the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Individual mainland MPAs in southern
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary is about 25.9 km (14 nmi) southwest at its closest boundary to Harmony Platform. NMFS has contacted Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary regarding
Comment 32: The CBD states that noise from conductor pipe installation activities can impact EFH and NMFS must fully comply with its statutory obligation to consult on the impact of federal activities on essential fish habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The EFH consultation should include an evaluation of the effects of the action on EFH, proposed mitigation, and make conservation recommendations.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assessment. NMFS's issuance of an IHA and the mitigation and monitoring measures required by the IHA would not affect ocean and coastal habitat or EFH. Therefore, NMFS,
Comment 33: The CBD states that NMFS must comply fully with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and develop a robust Biological Opinion based on the best available science. The proposed conductor pipe installation activities may have harmful impacts on ESA-listed marine mammals (including North Pacific right, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales, as well as southern sea otters and
Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that each federal agency insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species. Of the species of marine mammals that may occur in the action area, several are listed as endangered under the ESA, including the North Pacific right, Western North Pacific gray, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales as well as the
NMFS's
NMFS's
Comment 34: The CBD states that NMFS must comply fully with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA requires that applicants for federal permits to conduct an activity affecting a natural resource of the coastal zone of a state "shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program." CBD states that marine species that will be affected by the project are "natural resources" protected by
Response: As the lead federal agency for the IHA, NMFS considered whether the action would have effects on the coastal resources of any state along the
Comment 35: The CBD is concerned that
Response: The OCSLA is administered by the
Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
The marine mammals that generally occur in the planned action area belong to four taxonomic groups: mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed whales), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), and fissipeds (sea otters). The marine mammal species that potentially occur within the
Marine mammal species listed as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 that could potentially occur in the action area (ESA; 16 U.S.C.
Cetaceans occur throughout the Santa Barbara Channel action area, including nearby the Harmony Platform, from the surf zone to open ocean environments beyond the
Systematic surveys (1991 to 1993, 1996, 2001, 2005) in the southern
Table 4--The Habitat, Occurrence, Range, Regional Abundance, and Conservation Status of Marine Mammals That May Occur in or Near the Pipe Installation Project Area Off the Coast ofCalifornia in thePacific Ocean [See text and Tables 3-1 inExxonMobil's IHA application for further details] Species Habitat Occurrence Range North Pacific right Coastal and Rare North Pacific whale (Eubalaena pelagic Ocean between 20 japonica) to 60 [degrees] North Gray whale Coastal and shelf Transient during North Pacific (Eschrichtius seasonal Ocean, Gulf of robustus) migrations California to Arctic--Eastern North Pacific stock Humpback whale Pelagic, nearshore Seasonal, Cosmopolitan (Megaptera waters, and banks sightings near novaeangliae) northern Channel Islands Minke whale Pelagic and Less common in Tropics and sub- (Balaenoptera coastal summer, small tropics to ice acutorostrata) number around edges northern Channel Islands Bryde's whale Pelagic and Rare, infrequent Tropical and sub- (Balaenoptera edeni) coastal summer off tropical zones California between 40 [degrees] North and 40 [degrees] South Sei whale Primarily Rare, infrequent Tropical to polar (Balaenoptera offshore, pelagic summer off zones, favor mid- borealis) California latitude temperate areas Fin whale Continental slope, Year-round Tropical, (Balaenoptera pelagic presence temperate, and physalus) polar zones of all oceans Blue whale Pelagic, shelf, Seasonal, arrive Tropical waters to (Balaenoptera coastal April to May, pack ice edges musculus) common late-summer to fall off Southern California Sperm whale Pelagic, deep sea Common year-round, Tropical waters to (Physeter more likely in pack ice edges macrocephalus) waters >1,000 m Pygmy sperm whale Pelagic, slope Seaward of 500 to Tropical to warm (Kogia breviceps) 1,000 m, Limited temperate zones sightings in (temperate Southern preference) California Bight Dwarf sperm whale Deep waters off Rare Tropical to warm (Kogia sima) the shelf temperate zones (warmer preference) Baird's beaked whale Pelagic Primarily along North Pacific (Berardius bairdii) continental slope Ocean and adjacent late spring to seas early fall Cuvier's beaked Pelagic Possible year- Cosmopolitan whale (Ziphius round occurrence cavirostris) Blainville's beaked Pelagic Rare, continental Temperate and whale (Mesoplodon slope region, tropical waters densirostris) generally seaward worldwide of 500 to 1,000 m depth Perrin's beaked Pelagic Rare, continental North Pacific whale (Mesoplodon slope region, Ocean perrini) generally seaward of 500 to 1,000 m depth Lesser beaked whale Pelagic Rare, continental Temperate and (Mesoplodon slope region, tropical waters peruvianis) generally seaward Eastern Pacific of 500 to 1,000 m Ocean depth Stejneger's beaked Pelagic Rare, continental North Pacific whale (Mesoplodon slope region, Ocean stejnegeri) generally seaward of 500 to 1,000 m depth Ginkgo-toothed Pelagic Rare, continental Temperate and beaked whale slope region, tropical waters (Mesoplodon generally seaward Indo-Pacific Ocean ginkgodens) of 500 to 1,000 m depth Hubbs' beaked Pelagic Rare, continental North Pacific (Mesoplodon slope region, Ocean carlhubbsi) generally seaward of 500 to 1,000 m depth Killer whale Pelagic, shelf, Varies on inter- Cosmopolitan (Orcinus orca) coastal, pack ice annual basis, likely in winter (January to February) False killer whale Pelagic Rare Tropical to warm (Pseudorca temperate zones crassidens) Short-finned pilot Pelagic, shelf, Uncommon, more Warm temperate to whale (Globicephala coastal common before 1982 tropical waters, macrorhynchus) [approx.] 50 [degrees] North to 40 [degrees] South Bottlenose dolphin Offshore, inshore, Offshore stock-- Tropical and (Tursiops truncatus) coastal, estuaries Year-round temperate waters presence Coastal between 45 stock--Limited, [degrees] North small population and South within 1 km of shore Striped dolphin Off continental Occasional visitor Tropical to (Stenella shelf temperate waters, coeruleoalba) 50 [degrees] North to 40 [degrees] South Short-beaked common Shelf, pelagic, Common, more Tropical to dolphin (Delphinus seamounts abundant in summer temperate waters delphis) of Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Long-beaked common Inshore Common, more Nearshore and dolphin (Delphinus inshore tropical waters capensis) distribution, year-round presence Pacific white-sided Offshore, slope Common, year- Temperate waters dolphin round, more of North Pacific (Lagenorhynchus abundant November Ocean obliquidens) to April Northern right whale Pelagic Common, more North Pacific dolphin abundant November Ocean, 30 to 50 (Lissodelphis to April [degrees] North borealis) Risso's dolphin Deep water, Common, present in Continental slope (Grampus griseus) seamounts summer, more and outer shelf of abundant November tropical to to April temperate waters Dall's porpoise Shelf, slope, Common, more North Pacific (Phocoenoides dalli) offshore abundant November Ocean, 30 to 62 to April [degrees] North Harbor porpoise Coastal and inland AK to Point Shallow temperate (Phocoena phocoena) waters Conception, CA to sub-polar waters of Northern Hemisphere California sea lion Coastal, shelf Common, Channel Eastern North (Zalophus Island breeding Pacific Ocean-- californianus) sites in summer Alaska to Mexico Steller sea lion Coastal, shelf Rare North Pacific (Eumetopias jubatus) Ocean--Central California to Korea Pacific harbor seal Coastal Common, haul-outs Coastal temperate (Phoca vitulina and rookeries in to polar regions richardii) Channel Islands, in Northern bulk of stock Hemisphere north of Point Conception Northern elephant Coastal, pelagic Common, haul-outs Eastern and seal (Mirounga when not migrating and rookeries in Central North angustirostris) Channel Islands, Pacific Ocean-- December to March Alaska to Mexico and April to August, spend 8 to 10 months at sea Northern fur seal Pelagic, offshore Common, small North Pacific (Callorhinus population breeds Ocean--Mexico to ursinus) on San Miguel Japan Island May to October Guadalupe fur seal Coastal, shelf Rare, observed in California to Baja (Arctocephalus Channel Islands California, Mexico townsendi) Southern sea otter Coastal Mainland coastline North Pacific (Enhydra lutris from San Mateo Rim--Japan to nereis) County to Santa Mexico Barbara County, CA San Nicolas Island
Table 4--The Habitat, Occurrence, Range, Regional Abundance, and Conservation Status of Marine Mammals That May Occur in or Near the Pipe Installation Project Area Off the Coast ofCalifornia in thePacific Ocean [See text and Tables 3-1 inExxonMobil's IHA application for further details] Species Best population ESA *2 MMPA *3 estimate (Minimum) *1 North Pacific right NA (26)--Eastern EN D whale (Eubalaena North Pacific japonica) stock Gray whale 19,126 (18,107)-- DL--Eastern North NC--Eastern North (Eschrichtius Eastern North Pacific stock EN-- Pacific stock D-- robustus) Pacific stock 155 Western North Western North (142)--Western Pacific population Pacific population North Pacific population Humpback whale 1,918 (1,855)-- EN D (Megaptera California/Oregon/ novaeangliae) Washington (CA/OR/WA) stock Minke whale 478 (202)-- NL NC (Balaenoptera CA/OR/WA stock acutorostrata) Bryde's whale NA--No stock for NL NC (Balaenoptera edeni) CA/OR/WA Sei whale 126 (83)--Eastern EN D (Balaenoptera North Pacific borealis) stock Fin whale 3,051 (2,598)-- EN D (Balaenoptera CA/OR/WA stock physalus) Blue whale 1,647 (1,551)-- EN D (Balaenoptera Eastern North musculus) Pacific stock Sperm whale 971 (751)-- EN D (Physeter CA/OR/WA stock macrocephalus) Pygmy sperm whale 579 (271)-- NL NC (Kogia breviceps) CA/OR/WA stock Dwarf sperm whale NA--CA/OR/WA stock NL NC (Kogia sima) Baird's beaked whale 847 (466)-- NL NC (Berardius bairdii) CA/OR/WA stock Cuvier's beaked 6,590 (4,481)-- NL NC whale (Ziphius CA/OR/WA stock cavirostris) Blainville's beaked 694 (389)-- NL NC whale (Mesoplodon Mesoplodon spp. densirostris) CA/OR/WA stock Perrin's beaked 694 (389)-- NL NC whale (Mesoplodon Mesoplodon spp. perrini) CA/OR/WA stock Lesser beaked whale 694 (389)-- NL NC (Mesoplodon Mesoplodon spp. peruvianis) CA/OR/WA stock Stejneger's beaked 694 (389)-- NL NC whale (Mesoplodon Mesoplodon spp. stejnegeri) CA/OR/WA stock Ginkgo-toothed 694 (389)-- NL NC beaked whale Mesoplodon spp. (Mesoplodon CA/OR/WA stock ginkgodens) Hubbs' beaked 694 (389)-- NL NC (Mesoplodon Mesoplodon spp. carlhubbsi) CA/OR/WA stock Killer whale 240 (162)--Eastern NL NC (Orcinus orca) North Pacific Offshore stock 346 (346)--Eastern North Pacific Transient stock 354 (354)--West Coast Transient stock False killer whale NA--No stock for NL NC (Pseudorca CA/OR/WA crassidens) Short-finned pilot 760 (465)-- NL NC whale (Globicephala CA/OR/WA stock macrorhynchus) Bottlenose dolphin 1,006 (684)-- NL NC (Tursiops truncatus) CA/OR/WA Offshore stock 323 (290)-- California Coastal stock Striped dolphin 10,908 (8,231)-- NL NC (Stenella CA/OR/WA stock coeruleoalba) Short-beaked common 411,211 NL NC dolphin (Delphinus (343,990)-- delphis) CA/OR/WA stock Long-beaked common 107,016 (76,224)-- NL NC dolphin (Delphinus California stock capensis) Pacific white-sided 26,930 (21,406)-- NL NC dolphin CA/OR/WA, Northern (Lagenorhynchus and Southern stock obliquidens) Northern right whale 8,334 (6,019)-- NL NC dolphin CA/OR/WA stock (Lissodelphis borealis) Risso's dolphin 6,272 (4,913)-- NL NC (Grampus griseus) CA/OR/WA stock Dall's porpoise 42,000 (32,106)-- NL NC (Phocoenoides dalli) CA/OR/WA stock Harbor porpoise NA NL NC (Phocoena phocoena) California sea lion 296,750 NL NC (Zalophus (153,337)--U.S. californianus) stock Steller sea lion 49,685 (45,916)-- EN--Western stock D (Eumetopias jubatus) Western stock DL--Eastern stock 58,334 to 72,223 (52,847)--Eastern stock Pacific harbor seal 30,196 (26,667)-- NL NC (Phoca vitulina California stock richardii) Northern elephant 124,000 (74,913)-- NL NC seal (Mirounga California angustirostris) breeding stock Northern fur seal 12,844 (6,722)-- NL NC (Callorhinus California stock ursinus) Guadalupe fur seal 7,408 (3,028)-- T D (Arctocephalus Mexico to townsendi) California stock Southern sea otter 2,826 (2,723)-- T D (Enhydra lutris California stock nereis) NA = Not available or not assessed. *1 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports. *2 U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, and NL = Not listed. *3 U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, and NC = Not Classified.
Further detailed information regarding the biology, distribution, seasonality, life history, and occurrence of these marine mammal species in the planned project area can be found in sections 3 and 4 of
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., impact hammer pipe-driving) have been observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not consider to revise to the level of take (for example, with acoustics), we may include a discussion of studies that showed animals not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting barely measureable avoidance). This section is intended as a background of potential effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which this activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will be implemented, and how either of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The "Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment" section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The "Negligible Impact Analysis" section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section, the "Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment" section, the "Mitigation" section, and the "Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat" section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, Southall et al. (2007) designate "functional hearing groups" for marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
* Low-frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz;
* Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
* High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, six species of river dolphins, Kogia spp., the franciscana (Pontoporia blainvillei), and four species of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
* Phocid pinnipeds in water: functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz;
* Otariid pinnipeds in water: functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, 32 marine mammal species managed under NMFS jurisdiction (28 cetacean and 4 pinniped species) are likely to occur in the action area. Of the 28 cetacean species likely to occur in
Current NMFS practice, regarding exposure of marine mammals to high-level underwater sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds exposed to impulsive sounds at or above 180 and 190 dB (rms), respectively, have the potential to be injured (i.e., Level A harassment). NMFS considers the potential for Level B (behavioral) harassment to occur when marine mammals are exposed to sounds below injury thresholds but at or above the 160 dB (rms) threshold for impulse sounds (e.g., impact pile-driving) and the 120 dB (rms) threshold for continuous noise (e.g., vibratory pile-driving). No vibratory pile-driving is planned for
Acoustic stimuli generated by the conductor pipe installation activities, which introduce sound into the marine environment and in-air, may have the potential to cause Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area. The effects of sounds from impact hammer pile-driving activities might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (
The notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat, Fish, and Invertebrates
NMFS included a detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat, including anticipated effects on potential prey and anticipated effects on potential foraging habitat in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Mitigation
In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
ExxonMobil incorporated a suite of appropriate mitigation measures into its project description (see Section 11 of the IHA application). NMFS re-evaluated these mitigation measures after receiving public comments on the notice of the proposed IHA.
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the proposed activities,
(1) Buffer and exclusion zones around the sound source;
(2) Hours of operation;
(3) Shut-down procedures;
(4) Ramp-up procedures; and
Special procedures for situations or species of concern.
Exclusion Zones --
Table 5--Modeled Maximum Distances To Which In-Water Sound Levels >/=190, 180 and 160 d B re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) and In-Air Sound Levels >/=90 (For Harbor Seals) and 100 d B re 20 [mu]Pa (rms) (For All Other Pinnipeds) Could Be Received During the Impact Hammer Pile-Driving Activities (Based on Maximum Hammer Energy of 90 kJ) in the Santa Barbara Channel Off the Coast ofCalifornia Source Water Predicted RMS radii distances Modeled RMS radii depth (m) for in-water distances (m) for (m) pile-driving in-air pile-driving 160 dB 180 dB 90 dB 190 dB 100 dB 90 kJ Impact 366 325 10 3.5 123 (403.5 41 (134.5 Hammer Pile- (1,066.3 (32.8 ft) (11.5 ft) ft) ft) Driver ft)
Based on the modeling, exclusion zones (for triggering a shut-down) for Level A harassment will be established for cetaceans and pinnipeds at 3.5 m (11.5 ft) and 10 m (32.8 ft) from the conductor pipe sound source, respectively. These shut-down zones will be monitored by a dedicated PSO. If the PSO detects a marine mammal(s) within or about to enter the appropriate exclusion zone, the pile-driving activities will be shut-down immediately. If marine mammals are present within the shut-down zone before impact pile-driving activities begin, start of operations will be delayed until the exclusion zones are clear for at least 30 minutes. If marine mammals appear in the shut-down zone during pile-driving activities, the PSO will instruct the hammer operator to halt all operations in a safe, but immediate manner. Pile-driving activities will only resume once the exclusion zone has been cleared for at least 30 minutes. In the unlikely event that the marine mammal enters the exclusion zone during pile-driving activities, the exposure and behaviors will be documented and reported by the PSO and NMFS will be contacted within 24 hours. A non-PSO safety spotter will also be assigned to the lower deck observation area. All personnel operating at the lower observation levels will be required to wear appropriate personal protective equipment.
Hours of Operation --The planned activities will be conducted on a continual 24-hour basis; therefore, some of the 2.5 to 3.3 hours of active impact pile-driving periods will be expected to occur during non-daylight hours. To facilitate visual monitoring during non-daylight hours, the exclusion zones will be illuminated to allow more effective viewing by the PSO. Lighting will not be expected to attract marine mammals. The areas where the exclusion zones occur fall within the jacket structure of the platform, and therefore could be easily illuminated by lights and monitored during non-daylight hours. For the buffer zone, which will extend out to 325 m (1,066.3 ft) from the conductor pipe, PSOs will be stationed on an upper deck of the Harmony Platform to monitor for marine mammals during the pile-driving activities. During non-daylight hours, PSOs will utilize night-vision devices and other appropriate equipment to monitor marine mammals. If nighttime visual aids are insufficient,
Shut-down Procedures --
Following a shut-down,
* A PSO has visually observed the animal leave the exclusion zone, or
* A PSO has not sighted the animal within the exclusion zone for 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations (i.e., small odontocetes and pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species with longer dive durations (i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy and dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked whales).
All visual monitoring will be conducted by qualified PSOs. Visual monitoring will be conducted continuously during active pile-driving activities. PSOs will not have any tasks other than visual monitoring and will conduct monitoring from the best vantage point(s) practicable (e.g., on the Harmony Platform or other suitable location) that provides 360 [degrees] visibility of the Level A harassment exclusion zones and Level B harassment buffer zone, as far as possible. The PSO will be in radio communication with the hammer operator during pile-driving activities, and will call for a shut-down in the event a pinniped or cetacean appears to be headed toward its respective exclusion zone for cetaceans and pinnipeds.
Ramp-up Procedures --Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as a "soft-start") of the impact hammer provides a gradual increase in sound levels until the full sound level is achieved. The purpose of a ramp-up is to "warn" marine mammals in the vicinity of the impact hammer and to provide the time for them to leave the area avoiding any potential injury or impairment of their hearing abilities. A ramp-up consists of an initial set of three strikes from the impact hammer at 40% energy, followed by a 30-second waiting period, then two subsequent three strike sets.
The buffer zone will be monitored by PSOs beginning 30 minutes before pile-driving activities, during pile-driving, and for 30 minutes after pile-driving stops. During ramp-up, the PSOs will monitor the exclusion zone, and if marine mammals are sighted, a shut-down will be implemented.
If the complete exclusion zone has not been visible for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime,
Special Procedures for Situations of Species of Concern --It is unlikely that a North Pacific right whale will be encountered during the conductor pipe installation activities, but if so, the pipe-driving activities will be shut-down immediately if one is visually sighted at any distance from the Harmony Platform because of its rarity and conservation status. The pipe-driving activities shall not resume (with ramp-up) until 30 minutes after the last documented North Pacific right whale visual sighting. Concentrations of humpback, sei, fin, blue and/or sperm whales shall be avoided if possible (i.e., exposing concentrations of animals to 160 dB), and the sound source shall be shut-down if necessary. For purposes of this planned conductor pipe installation activities, a concentration or group of whales will consist of three or more individuals visually sighted that do not appear to be traveling (e.g., feeding, socializing, etc.).
Oil Spill Plan --
Mitigation Conclusions
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and has considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. NMFS's evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals;
(2) The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
(3) The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation, including consideration of personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the activity.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of hammer pile-driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
(3) A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals will be exposed to received levels of hammer pile-driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of hammer pile-driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
(5) Avoidance of minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on NMFS's evaluation of the applicant's measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an ITA 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 ITAs 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.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:
(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of sound from impact hammer pile-driving activities that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS or PTS;
(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
* Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
* Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict receive level, distance from the source, and other pertinent information);
* Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
Monitoring
ExxonMobil will conduct to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during the conductor pipe installation activities, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the anticipated monitoring requirements of the IHA.
Acoustic Monitoring
Acoustic monitoring using hydrophones and microphones will be conducted to obtain and validate modeled in-water and in-air sound levels during the pipe-driving activities. Each hydrophone (in-water) and microphone (in-air) will be calibrated following the manufacturer's recommendations prior to the start of the planned project and checked for accuracy and precision at the end of the data collection for each conductor pipe or as practical during conductor pipe installation activities. Environmental data will be collected to supplement the acoustic monitoring and include: wind speed and direction, air temperature, humidity, near-surface water temperature, weather conditions, and other appropriate factors that could contribute to influencing either in-air or in-water sound transmission levels. Prior to deploying monitoring equipment, the acoustics specialist will be provided with the hammer model and size, hammer energy settings, and projected blows per minute for the conductor pipe segments requiring hammer pipe-driving. Background in-air and in-water sound levels will be measured at Harmony Platform in the absence of pipe-driving activities to obtain an ambient noise level, and recorded over a frequency range of 10 Hz to 20 kHz. Ambient noise level measurements will be conducted before, during, and after the project. The measured in-air and in-water sound data will be used to recalibrate and refine the sound propagation model used to determine the buffer and exclusion zones. Also, sound pressure levels associated with ramp-up techniques will be measured.
In-Water Monitoring --Acoustic monitoring will be performed at a minimum of two fixed stations located at 14 to 30 m (45.9 to 98.4 ft) and approximately 325 to 500 m (+/-33 m 10%, 1,066.3 to 1,640.4 ft) depending on the conductor pipe sound source location to the monitoring location. These distances represent the 180 dB and 160 dB (rms) modeled sound levels. The following general approach will be used to measure in-water sound levels:
* Acoustic monitoring will be conducted over the entire conductor pipe installation period for each conductor pipe, starting approximately 1 hour prior to conductor pipe installation through 1 hour after impact hammering has stopped. Pre- and post-hammer conductor pipe installation data will be used to determine ambient/background noise levels.
* A stationary hydrophone system with the ability to measure and record sound pressure levels will be deployed at a minimum of two monitoring locations (stations). SPLs will be recorded in voltage, converted to microPascals ([mu]Pa), and post-processed to decibels (dB [re 1 [mu]Pa]). For the first conductor pipe installation, hydrophones are placed at 14 to 30 m (+/-1 m) and at 325 to 500 (+/-33 m) depending on the conductor pipe sound source location to the monitoring location at depths ranging from 10 to 30 m (32.8 to 98.4 ft) below the water surface to avoid potential inferences for surface water energy, and to target the depth range of maximum occurrence of marine mammals most likely in the area during the operations. The equipment will obtain data for the most likely depth range of marine mammal occurrence. Horizontal displacement of +/-10% may be expected for instrument movement due to the water depth and forces from tides, currents, and storms. Additional hydrophone mooring systems may be deployed at additional distances and/or depths. Following each successive conductor pipe installation, the water depth and geographical orientation of the hydrophone may be changed to validate modeled SPLs at varying water depths and direction.
* At a minimum, the following sound data will be analyzed (post-processed) from recorded sound levels: Absolute peak overpressure and under pressure levels for each conductor pipe; average, minimum, and maximum sound pressure levels (rms), integrated from 3 Hz to 20 kHz; average duration of each hammer strike (blow), and total number of strikes per continuous impact hammer conductor pipe installation period for each conductor.
In the event that field measurements indicate different sound pressure levels (rms) values than those predicted by modeling for either the maximum distances of the buffer or exclusion zones from the conductor sound source, corresponding boundaries for the buffer and appropriate exclusion zones will be increased/decreased accordingly, following NMFS notification, concurrence, and authorization.
In-Air Monitoring --Reference measurements will be made at approximately 10 to 20 m (32.8 to 65.6 ft) from the initial hammer strike position using a stationary microphone. The microphone will be placed as far away from other large sound sources as practical. The in-air buffer zone predicted for pinnipeds (non-harbor seal, 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa) was estimated at 41 m (134.5 ft) from the hammer impact point on the conductor pipe. In-air sound levels will be recorded at several points around the base of the Harmony Platform at sea level to validate modeled sound levels. Distances closer to the sound source may be monitored for model validation purposes, but only if safety issues are not introduced. Recorded data will be recorded as dB (re 20 [mu]Pa, A-weighted and unweighted) for comparison to in-air noise thresholds for Level B harassment for pinnipeds.
Sound Source Verification--At the initiation of conductor pipe installation activities using the impact hammer (i.e., the installation of the first pipe), direct measurements will be taken in the near and far field of the received levels of underwater and in-air sound versus distance and direction from the sound source using calibrated hydrophones. The acoustic data from the sound source verification will be analyzed as quickly as reasonably practicable in the field and used to verify and adjust (based on the predicted distances) the buffer and exclusion zones distances. The field report will be made available to NMFS for review and approval and PSOs after completing the measurements and before beginning the installation of the remaining conductor pipes.
Platform-Based Visual Monitoring
ExxonMobil's PSOs will be based aboard the Harmony Platform and will watch for marine mammals near the platform during conductor pipe installation activities during daytime and nighttime pipe-driving activities. Visual monitoring for marine mammals will be performed at a minimum during periods of active hammer pipe-driving throughout the planned project following general procedures in Baker et al. (2013). Monitoring by PSOs will begin at least 30 minutes before the start of impact hammer pipe-driving, continue through an estimated 2.5 to 3.3 hours of pipe-driving, and conclude 30 minutes after pipe-driving stops (up to 4.3 hours of monitoring per a period of pipe-driving). Five to 7 periods of impact hammer pipe-driving will be required for each conductor pipe. When feasible, PSOs will conduct observations during periods when the impact hammer pipe-driving is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without operations and between pipe-driving periods. In addition to monitoring during pipe-driving activities, baseline monitoring of marine mammals will be performed up to one week before and one week after conductor pipe installation, as well as selected periods in between impact hammer pipe-driving activities.
The exclusion zone will be monitored to prevent injury to marine mammal species. Based on PSO observations, the impact hammer pipe-driving will be shut-down when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter the designated exclusion zone. The exclusion zone is a region in which a possibility exists of adverse effects on animal hearing or physical effects. A comprehensive monitoring plan will be developed to ensure compliance with the IHA for this project.
Methods --There will be a team of 3 PSOs based aboard Harmony Platform conducting monitoring during active hammer pipe-driving periods. Visual observations will take place during active hammering periods which includes both daylight and nighttime operations. This monitoring will occur for approximately 4.3 hours (3.3 hour monitoring plus 0.5 hour pre- and post-hammering) during a single hammering phase followed by approximately 6.3 hours of off-duty rest. A total of 5 to 7 observation periods corresponding to the driving of the pipe segments will be anticipated for each of the six conductors. It is possible that an impact hammer pipe-driving session will take less than 3.3 hours and that the "rest interval" for the visual monitors separating driving segments will be less than 6.3 hours. If driving and rest intervals are reduced and additional segments are added (e.g., seven instead of five), two alternating teams of three PSOs may be required. At the conclusion of impact hammer pipe-driving activities for a single conductor pipe, PSOs may be transferred to shore to await the next active pipe-driving phase.
PSOs will be placed at the best practicable vantage point(s) (e.g., lower platform level, upper platform level) to monitor the applicable buffer and exclusion zones for marine mammals. The PSOs will have authority to implement shut-down/delay ramp-up procedures, if applicable, by calling the hammer operator for a shut-down via radio communication. For the buffer zone, two PSOs will be stationed on an upper platform deck where they have a clear view of the monitoring area. They will be approximately 180 degrees apart and each will monitor approximately one-half of the corresponding buffer zone and beyond with binoculars and other appropriate equipment. For exclusion zone area, one PSO will concurrently monitor the applicable radii for pinnipeds and cetaceans, respectively, from a lower level observation post that provides a clear view of the sea surface around the actively driven conductor pipe. The lower observation area will be illuminated during nighttime observations. Visual aids may be used but will not be required, providing the PSO has a clear view of the sea surface with the naked eye. A non-PSO safety spotter will also be assigned to the lower deck observation area. The safety spotter will be available to deter errant
All personnel operating on the Harmony Platform will be required to receive required training and wear appropriate personal protective equipment. Personal protective equipment is specific to the task, location, and environmental conditions (e.g., weather, operations risks). It includes items such as floatation vests, hard hats, steel-toed shoes, gloves, fire-resistant clothing, gear, eye protection, and other protective equipment. Details on specific personal protective equipment items required for PSO and acoustic monitoring will be determined via the regular work risk assessment process, and will be presented in the associated monitoring plans for the project.
Equipment for monitoring will include hearing protection from where observations are made from high noise areas of the platform, marine radios with headsets, time keeping device (e.g., watch or cell phone), day and night range finding binoculars (7 x 50 or greater), notebooks with standardized recording forms, species identification guides, and a project-specific monitoring plan approved by NMFS (to be submitted separately).
PSO Qualifications --Monitoring will be conducted by qualified PSOs defined in Baker et al. (2013) and approved by NMFS. PSOs dedicated to the planned project will have no other activity-related tasks.
PSO Data and Documentation
PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially "taken" by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a shut-down of the impact hammer when a marine mammal is within or near the exclusion zone. Visual observations will also be made during pipe-driving activities as well as daytime periods from the Harmony Platform when the regular operations will be underway without pipe-driving activities to collect baseline biological data.
When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:
1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from platform, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the sound source (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), speed of travel, and duration of presence.
2. Date, time, location, heading, speed, activity of the conductor pipe installation activities, weather conditions, Beaufort sea state and wind force, visibility, and sun glare.
The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.
All observations, as well as information regarding ramp-ups or shut-downs will be recorded in a standardized format.
Results from the platform-based visual observations will provide the following information:
1. The basis for real-time mitigation (impact hammer shut-down).
2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.
3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the conductor pipe installation activities are conducted.
4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source platform at times with and without pipe-driving activities.
5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without pipe-driving activities.
Reporting
ExxonMobil will submit a comprehensive report to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the conductor pipe installation activities and the expiration of the IHA (if issued). The report would describe the pipe-driving activities that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report submitted to NMFS will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and location of impact hammer pipe-driving activities and all marine mammal sightings (i.e., dates, times, locations, activities, and associated seismic survey activities). The report will minimally include:
* Summaries of monitoring effort--total hours, total distances, and distribution of marine mammals through the activity period accounting for Beaufort sea state and other factors affecting visibility and detectability of marine mammals;
* Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing detectability of marine mammals including Beaufort sea state, number of PSOs, and fog/glare;
* Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of marine mammals sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/size/gender, and group sizes; and analyses of the effects of activities;
* Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and without impact hammer pipe-driving activities (and other variables that could affect detectability);
* Initial sighting distances versus operational activity state;
* Closest point of approach versus operational activity state;
* Observed behaviors and types of movements versus operational activity state;
* Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus operational activity state; and
* Distribution around the platform versus operational activity state.
The report will also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that could result in "takes" of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways (based on presence in the buffer and/or exclusion zones). After the report is considered final, it will be publicly available on the NMFS Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/.
Reporting Prohibited Take --In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement),
* Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
* Type of activity involved;
* Description of the circumstances during and leading up to the incident;
* Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
* Water depth;
* Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
* Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
* Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
* Fate of the animal(s); and
* Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with
Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal with an Unknown Cause of Death --In the event that
Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal Not Related to the Activities --In the event that
Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, 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]. GOES
Table 6--NMFS's Current Underwater and In-Air Acoustic Exposure Criteria Criterion Criterion definition Threshold Impulsive (Non-Explosive) Sound Level A harassment Permanent threshold 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (injury) shift (PTS) (Any level (root means square above that which is [rms]) (cetaceans). known to cause TTS) 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (rms) (pinnipeds). Level B harassment Behavioral disruption 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (for impulsive noise) (rms). Level B harassment Behavioral disruption 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (for continuous noise) (rms). In-Air Sound Level A harassment NA NA. Level B harassment Behavioral disruption 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (harbor seals). 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (all other pinniped species). NA (cetaceans).
Level B harassment is anticipated and authorized as a result of the conductor pipe installation activities at the Harmony Platform in the Santa Barbara Channel offshore of
The following sections describe
* Thresholds for marine mammals to in-water and in-air noise;
* Sound levels at the conductor pipe from hammer strike;
* Sound propagation (transmission/spreading loss) through the environment (i.e., air, water);
* Maximum distances from the sound sources to the corresponding impact zones (based on Level A and Level B harassment thresholds) for marine mammals;
* Density estimate for each species of marine mammals (calculated as stock abundance divided by 12,592 km2 [3,671.2 nmi2]area [except where noted]); and
* Number of takes for each species of marine mammals within a group (calculated as density multiplied by buffer/exclusion zone multiplied by days of activity).
Sound levels for impulsive (impact) pipe-driving by the hammer and propagation through water and in-air at the Harmony Platform were modeled by
Densities of marine mammal species likely to occur in the action area of the Santa Barbara Channel were taken directly from scientific literature or calculated using corresponding abundances in NMFS Stock Assessment Reports. Density estimates for sperm and Baird's beaked whale, and short-beaked common, Pacific white-sided, Risso's, and northern right whale dolphin, and Dall's porpoise were determined using the Strategic Environmental and Development Program (SERDP)/
Table 7--Estimated Densities and Possible Number of Marine Mammal Species That Might Be Exposed toGreater Than or Equal to 160 d B (Pipe-Driving Activities) During Exxonmobil's Conductor Pipe Installation Activities in the Santa Barbara Channel Offshore ofCalifornia Species Density in Calculated Calculated Total action area take from take from authorized (#/km<2>) *1 pipe-driving pipe-driving Take *6 activities in- activities in- water (i.e., air (i.e., estimated estimated number of number of individuals individuals exposed to exposed to sound levels sound levels >/=160 dB re 1 >/=90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa) *4 [mu]Pa for harbor seals and 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa for all other pinnipeds) *5 North Pacific NA 0 0 0 right whale Eastern North 1.5188 3.063 0 10 Pacific Gray whale Humpback whale *3 0.0055 0.0332 0 2 Minke whale 0.04 0.2418 0 2 Bryde's whale NA 0 0 2 Sei whale 0.01 0.0605 0 2 Fin whale *3 0.0065 0.0392 0 2 Blue whale *2 0.006 0.00362 0 2 Sperm whale *2 0.0000542 0.000327 0 2 Pygmy sperm whale 0.05 0.302 0 1 Dwarf sperm whale NA 0 0 0 Baird's beaked *2 0.001224 0.0074 0 6 whale Cuvier's beaked 0.5233 3.1633 0 4 whale Mesoplodon beaked 0.0551 0.3331 0 2 whale Killer whale 0.07464 0.4512 0 10 False killer NA 0 0 50 whale Short-finned 0.06 0.3627 0 40 pilot whale Bottlenose 0.0799 0.4829 0 10 dolphin Striped dolphin *2 0.002711 0.0164 0 20 Short-beaked *2 0.946007 5.7186 0 450 common dolphin Long-beaked 8.5 51.3825 0 120 common dolphin Pacific white- *2 0.068630 0.4149 0 30 sided dolphin Northern right *2 0043996 0.2659 0 100 whale dolphin Risso's dolphin *2 0.053323 0.3223 0 10 Dall's porpoise 0.028931 0.1749 0 50 Harbor porpoise 0 0 0 0 California sea 23.6 142.662 17.997 143 + 18 = 161 lion Steller sea lion NA 0 0 0 Pacific harbor 2.4 14.508 5.491 15 + 6 = 21 seal Northern elephant 9.85 59.5433 7.512 60 + 8 = 68 seal Northern fur seal 0.79 4.7756 0.602 5 + 1 = 6 Guadalupe fur NA 0 0 0 seal
Table 7--Estimated Densities and Possible Number of Marine Mammal Species That Might Be Exposed toGreater Than or Equal to 160 d B (Pipe-Driving Activities) During Exxonmobil's Conductor Pipe Installation Activities in the Santa Barbara Channel Offshore ofCalifornia Species Abundance *7 Approximate Population percentage of trend *7 population/ stock estimate (for authorized take) *8 North Pacific NA (26)-- NA NA. right whale Eastern North Pacific stock Eastern North 19,126 0.05 Increasing Pacific Gray (18,107)-- over past whale Eastern North several Pacific stock decades-- 155 (142)-- Eastern North Western North Pacific stock. Pacific population Humpback whale 1,918 0.1 Increasing. (1,855)-- CA/OR/WA stock Minke whale 478 (202)-- 0.42 NA. CA/OR/WA stock Bryde's whale NA NA NA. Sei whale 126 (83)-- 1.58 NA. Eastern North Pacific stock Fin whale 3,051 0.07 Increasing. (2,598)-- CA/OR/WA stock Blue whale 1,647 0.12 NA. (1,551)-- Eastern North Pacific stock Sperm whale 971 (751)-- 0.21 NA. CA/OR/WA stock Pygmy sperm whale 579 (271)-- 0.17 NA. CA/OR/WA stock Dwarf sperm whale NA--CA/OR/WA NA NA. stock Baird's beaked 847 (466)-- 0.71 NA. whale CA/OR/WA stock Cuvier's beaked 6,590 0.06 Declining off whale (4,481)-- CA/OR/WA. CA/OR/WA stock Mesoplodon beaked 694 (389)-- 0.29 Declining off whale CA/OR/WA stock CA/OR/WA. Killer whale 240 (162)-- 4.17/2.89/2.82 NA--Eastern Eastern North North Pacific Pacific stock Offshore 346 (346)-- stock; NA-- Eastern North Eastern North Pacific Pacific Transient Transient stock 354 stock; (354)--West Increasing-- Coast West Coast Transient Transient stock stock. False killer NA NA NA. whale Short-finned 760 (465)-- 5.26 NA. pilot whale CA/OR/WA stock Bottlenose 1,006 (684)-- 0.99 NA--CA/OR/WA dolphin CA/OR/WA stock Offshore stock; NA--CA Coastal stock. Striped dolphin 10,908 0.18 NA. (8,231)-- CA/OR/WA stock Short-beaked 411,211 0.11 Varies with common dolphin (343,990)-- oceanographic CA/OR/WA stock conditions. Long-beaked 107,016 0.11 Increasing common dolphin (76,224)--CA over last 30 stock years. Pacific white- 26,930 0.11 NA. sided dolphin (21,406)-- CA/OR/WA stock Northern right 8,334 1.19 NA. whale dolphin (6,019)-- CA/OR/WA stock Risso's dolphin 6,272 0.16 NA. (4,913)-- CA/OR/WA stock Dall's porpoise 42,000 0.12 NA. (32,106)-- CA/OR/WA stock Harbor porpoise NA NA NA. California sea 296,750 0.05 Increasing. lion (153,337)-- U.S. stock Steller sea lion 49,685 NA Declining-- (42,366)-- Western stock; Western stock Increasing-- 58,334 Eastern stock; (72,223)-- Declining in Eastern stock CA. Pacific harbor 30,196 0.07 Increased 1981 seal (26,667)--CA to 2004. stock Northern elephant 124,000 0.05 Increasing seal (74,913)--CA through 2005. breeding stock Northern fur seal 12,844 0.05 Increasing. (6,722)-- California stock Guadalupe fur 7,408 NA Increasing. seal (3,028)-- Mexico to CA stock NA = Not available or not assessed. *1 Planned action area (12,593 km *2) in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast ofCalifornia . *2 OBIS-SEAMAP SERDP-SDSS NMFS SWFSC summer density data for the California Current ecosystem. *3 Redfern et al. (2013) *4 Calculated take is the estimated number of animals in the in-water ensonified buffer zone multiplied by the number of days (18.6). *5 Calculated take is the estimated number of animals in the in-air ensonified buffer zone multiplied by the number of days (18.6). *6 Authorized take includes calculated takes for animals in the ensonified in-water and in-air buffer zones. Authorized takes for cetaceans were increased to account for group size. *7 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (Caretta et al., 2013) *8 Total authorized (and calculated) takes expressed as percentages of the species or stock.
Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially disturbed are estimated based on the available data about marine mammal distribution and densities in the Santa Barbara Channel action area.
The number of different individuals potentially exposed to received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for in-water noise and 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms) (for harbor seals)/100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms) (for all other pinniped species) for in-air noise from impact hammer pipe-driving activities was calculated by multiplying:
(1) The expected species density (in number/km2), times
(2) The anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during conductor pipe installation (buffer zone = [pi] x [maximum distance]2), times
(3) The number of days of the conductor pipe installation activities.
NMFS notes that
Applying the approach described above, approximately 0.3318 km2 will be ensonified within the in-water 160 dB isopleth and approximately 0.0053 km2/0.0475 km2 will be ensonified within the in-air 90 dB (harbor seals)/100 dB (for all other pinniped species) isopleths for impact hammer pipe-driving activities (assuming omnidirectional spreading of sound from the conductor pipe) during the conductor pipe installation activities. The take calculations within the action area account for animals in the initial density snapshot and account for new (i.e., turnover) or previously exposed animals over an approximate 18.6 day period that approach and enter the area ensonified above or equal to the 160 dB isopleth for in-water noise and 90/100 dB isopleth for in-air noise from the impact hammer pipe-driving activities; however, studies suggest that many marine mammals will avoid exposing themselves to sounds at these levels, which suggests that there will not necessarily be a large number of new animals entering the action area once the conductor pipe installation activities started. Also, the approach assumes that no cetaceans or pinnipeds will move away or toward the Harmony Platform. The take estimates represent the number of individuals that are expected (in absence of conductor pipe installation activities) to occur over an approximate 18.6 day period of time in the waters that will be exposed to greater than or equal to 160 dB (rms) in-water and greater than or equal to 90/100 dB (rms) in-air for impact hammer pipe-driving activities.
ExxonMobil's estimates of exposures to various sound levels assume that the planned activities will be carried out in full. The estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to 160 dB (rms) for in-water noise and 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms) (for harbor seals)/100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa (rms) (for all other pinniped species) for in-air noise received levels are precautionary and probably overestimate the actual numbers of marine mammals that could be involved. These estimates include standard contingencies for weather, equipment, or mitigation delays in the time planned for the planned activities. The authorized takes were increased for certain marine mammal species (i.e., gray, humpback, minke, sei, fin, blue, sperm, Baird's beaked, Cuvier's beaked, Mesoplodont beaked, killer, and short-finned pilot whales and bottlenose, striped, short-beaked common, long-beaked common, Pacific white-sided, northern right whale, and Risso's dolphins and Dall's porpoise) to account for group behavior. Based on recommendations from the CCC received during the 30-day public comment period on the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 36743,
Table 7 shows the estimates of the number of different individual marine mammals anticipated to be exposed to greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for the conductor pipe installation activities if no animals moved away from the Harmony Platform. No takes by Level A harassment have been authorized. The total take authorization is given in the fifth column of Table 7.
Encouraging and Coordinating Research
ExxonMobil will coordinate the planned marine mammal monitoring program associated with the conductor pipe installation activities with researchers and other parties that express interest in this activity, area, and anthropogenic sound effects on marine mammals.
ExxonMobil supports research on marine mammals and sound in the environment through academic, industry, and private sector collaborations.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for Subsistence Uses
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA also requires NMFS to determine that the authorization will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Analysis and Determinations
Negligible Impact
Negligible impact is "an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival" (50 CFR 216.103). 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 Level B harassment takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be "taken" through behavioral harassment, NMFS must consider other factors such as the likely nature of any responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS evaluated factors such as:
(1) The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;
(2) The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment (all relatively limited); and
(3) The context in which the takes occur (i.e., impacts to areas of significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to baseline data);
(4) The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative to the size of the population);
(5) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
(6) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures.
As described above and based on the following factors, the specified activities associated with the conductor pipe installation activities are not likely to cause PTS, or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death. The factors include:
(1) The likelihood that marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
(2) The potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is relatively low and will likely be avoided through the implementation of the required monitoring and mitigation (i.e., shut-down) measures;
(3) The fact that cetaceans and pinnipeds will have to be closer than 10 m and 3.5 m, respectively, during impact hammer pipe-driving activities to be exposed to levels of underwater sound believed to have a minimal chance of causing a permanent threshold shift (PTS; i.e., Level A harassment); and
(4) The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained PSOs is high at close proximity to the platform.
No injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities are anticipated to occur as a result of
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that 32 species of marine mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by Level B harassment over the course of the IHA. The population estimates for the marine mammal species that may be taken by Level B harassment were provided in Table 4 and 7 of this document. Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) harassment anticipated and described (see "Potential Effects on Marine Mammals" section above) in this notice, the planned activity is not expected to impact rates of annual recruitment or survival for any affected species or stock, particularly given NMFS's and the applicant's requirement to implement mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures to minimize impacts to marine mammals. Additionally, the conductor pipe installation activities will not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.
For the marine mammal species that may occur within the action area, there are no known designated or important feeding and/or reproductive areas. Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hr cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Potential impacts are not likely to be significant from the pipe-driving activities as the use of the impact hammer will occur over 30 intermittent intervals of 2.5 to 3.3 hours each interspersed with period of downtime, for a cumulative total of about 18.6 days of potential exposure spread out over a 91-day period. Additionally, the conductor pipe installation activities will be increasing sound levels in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the Harmony Platform (compared to the range of the animals), and some animals may only be exposed to and harassed by sound for less than a day.
Of the 37 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that may or are known to likely to occur in the action area, seven are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA: North Pacific right, western North Pacific gray whale, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whale and
NMFS has determined, provided that the aforementioned mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented, the impact of conducting pipe-driving activities in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of
Changes in diving/surfacing patterns, habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic environment, and cessation of feeding or social interaction are some of the significant behavioral modifications that could potentially occur as a result of the conductor pipe installation activities. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the impact hammer pipe-driving activities, may be made by these marine mammal species to avoid the resultant acoustic disturbance, the availability of alternate areas within these areas for species and the short and sporadic duration of the conductor pipe installation activities have led NMFS to determine that the taking by Level B harassment from the specified activity will have a negligible impact on the affected species in the specified geographic region. NMFS believes that the length of the conductor pipe installation activities (approximately 18.6 days total), the requirement to implement mitigation measures (e.g., shut-down of impact hammer pipe-driving activities), and the inclusion of the monitoring and reporting measures, will reduce the amount and severity of the potential impacts from the activity to the degree that it will have a negligible impact on the species or stocks in the action area. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from
Small Numbers
The estimate of the number of individual cetaceans and pinnipeds that could be exposed to pipe-driving sounds with received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for all marine mammals for in-water sound levels and at or above 90 dB re 20 [mu]Pa for harbor seals and at or above 100 dB re 20 [mu]Pa for all other pinniped species for in-air sound levels during the conductor pipe installation activities is in Table 7 of this document.
In total, 10 gray, 2 humpback, 2 minke, 2 Bryde's, 2 sei, 2 fin, 2 blue, and 2 sperm whale could be taken by Level B harassment during the conductor pipe installation activities, which will represent 0.05, 0.05, 0.2, unknown, 0.8, 0.03, 0.06, and 0.21% of the stock populations, respectively. Some of the cetaceans potentially taken by Level B harassment are delphinids and porpoises with estimates of 1 pygmy sperm, 6 Baird's beaked, 4 Cuvier's beaked, 2 Mesoplodon spp. beaked, 10 killer, 50 false killer, and 40 short-finned pilot whale, 10 bottlenose, 20 striped, 450 short-beaked common, 120 long-beaked common, 20 Pacific white-sided, 100 northern right whale, and 10 Risso's dolphin as well as 50 Dall's porpoise, which will represent 0.17, 0.71, 0.06, 0.29, 4.17/2.89/2.82, unknown, 5.26, 0.99, 0.18, 0.11, 0.11, 0.11, 1.19, 0.16, and 0.12% of the affected stock populations, respectively. The pinnipeds that could potentially be taken by Level B harassment are the
NMFS has determined that the authorized take estimates represent small numbers relative to the affected species or stocks sizes (i.e., all are less than 6%). 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 mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks. See Table 7 for the authorized take numbers of marine mammals.
No known current regional population or stock abundance estimates for the northeast
These two species did not have density model outputs within the SERDP/
Endangered Species Act
Of the species of marine mammals that may occur in the action area, several are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, including the North Pacific right, western North Pacific gray, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whale and
National Environmental Policy Act
To meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requirements published by the
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to
Dated:
Deputy Director,
[FR Doc. 2014-22758 Filed 9-29-14;
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Copyright: | (c) 2014 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Wordcount: | 32513 |
Privacy Act of 1974; New and Revised Systems of Records
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News