Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46181 

1See Organic Soybean Meal from India: Initiation 

of Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation, 86 FR 22146 

(April 27, 2021) (Initiation Notice). 

2The petitioners are Organic Soybean Processors 

of America and the American Natural Processors, 

LLC, Organic Production Services, LLC, 

Professional Proteins, Ltd., Sheppard Grain 

Enterprises LLC, Simmons Grain Company, Super 

Soy, LLC, and Tri-State Crush LLC. 

3See Petitioners’ Letter, ‘‘Organic Soybean Meal 

from India: Petitioners’ Request to Postpone the 

Preliminary Determination,’’ dated August 9, 2021. 

4 Id. 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in 

Commerce’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Order 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.213(h). 

Dated: August 11, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

Appendix 

List of Topics Discussed in the Final 

Decision Memorandum 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Scope of the Order 

IV. Final Determination of No Shipments 

V. Margin for Companies Not Selected for 

Individual Examination 

VI. Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

VII. Discussion of Comments 

Comment 1: Whether Commerce Should 

Treat Section 232 Duties as United States 

Import Duties and Whether Commerce 

Made a Clerical Error When Deducting 

Section 232 Duties from U.S. Price 

Comment 2: Whether Commerce Made a 

Clerical Error Regarding the Treatment of 

Early Payment Discounts 

Comment 3: Whether Commerce Made a 

Clerical Error Regarding the Selection of 

Customer Code 

VIII. Recommendation 

[FR Doc. 2021–17650 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–901] 

Organic Soybean Meal From India: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Less-Than-FairValue Investigation 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Applicable August 18, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office VII, Enforcement and 

Compliance, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 

(202) 482–4261. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 20, 2021, the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) initiated a lessthan-fair-value (LTFV) investigation(s) 

of imports of organic soybean meal from 

India.1 Currently, the preliminary 

determination is due no later than 

September 7, 2021. 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination 

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 

Commerce to issue the preliminary 

determination in an LTFV investigation 

within 140 days after the date on which 

Commerce initiated the investigation. 

However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act 

permits Commerce to postpone the 

preliminary determination until no later 

than 190 days after the date on which 

Commerce initiated the investigation if: 

(A) The petitioner 2 makes a timely 

request for a postponement; or (B) 

Commerce concludes that the parties 

concerned are cooperating, that the 

investigation is extraordinarily 

complicated, and that additional time is 

necessary to make a preliminary 

determination. Under 19 CFR 

351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a 

request for postponement 25 days or 

more before the scheduled date of the 

preliminary determination and must 

state the reasons for the request. 

Commerce will grant the request unless 

it finds compelling reasons to deny the 

request. 

On August 9, 2021, the petitioners 

submitted a timely request that 

Commerce postpone the preliminary 

determinations in this LTFV 

investigation.3 The petitioners requested 

the postponement to permit Commerce 

to ‘‘fully develop the record in this 

investigation,’’ assess questionnaire 

responses, and issue supplemental 

questionnaires.4

For the reasons stated above and 

because there are no compelling reasons 

to deny the request, Commerce, in 

accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of 

the Act, is postponing the deadline for 

the preliminary determination by 50 

days (i.e., 190 days after the date on 

which this investigation was initiated). 

As a result, Commerce will issue its 

preliminary determination no later than 

October 27, 2021. In accordance with 

section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final 

determination of this investigation will 

continue to be 75 days after the date of 

the preliminary determination, unless 

postponed at a later date. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1). 

Dated: August 12, 2021. 

Christian Marsh, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement 

and Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17729 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB140] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical 

Survey in the Arctic Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46182 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

University of Alaska Geophysics 

Institute (UAGI) to incidentally harass, 

by Level B harassment, marine 

mammals during geophysical surveys in 

the Arctic Ocean. This project is funded 

by the National Science Foundation 

(NSF). 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

for one year, from August 11, 2021 

through August 10, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) 

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

direct the Secretary of Commerce (as 

delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of the takings. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On February 12, 2021, NMFS received 

a request from UAGI for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to a 

geophysical survey in the Arctic Ocean. 

The application was deemed adequate 

and complete on April 6, 2021. UAGI’s 

request is for take of 13 species of 

marine mammals, by Level B 

harassment only. No Level A 

harassment is anticipated. Neither UAGI 

nor NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity. 

Therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Researchers at UAGI, with funding 

from NSF, plan to conduct a seismic 

survey from the Research Vessel (R/V) 

Sikuliaq in the Arctic Ocean to 

document the structure and stratigraphy 

of the Chukchi Borderland and adjacent 

Canada basin (see Figure 1). The 

proposed activity is planned to take 

place in late summer 2021 (August/ 

September) with a total of 30 days of 

data acquisition. The survey will 

include both high-energy and lowenergy components. High-energy ocean 

bottom seismometer (OBS) refraction 

surveys will use a 6-airgun, 3,120 cubic 

inch (in3) array and consist of ∼12 

percent of total survey effort (henceforth 

referred to as high-energy survey). Lowenergy multi-channel seismic (MCS) 

reflection surveys will use a 2-airgun 

array with a total discharge volume of 

1040 in3 and consist of ∼88 percent of 

total survey effort (henceforth referred 

to as low-energy survey). 

Dates and Duration 

The activity will occur between 

August and September, 2021. The 

activity is planned to occur for 45 days 

total, with ∼30 days dedicated to 

seismic data acquisition (with 24-hours 

a day operations), ∼8 days devoted to 

transit and 7 days used for equipment 

deployment and recovery. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The surveys will occur within ∼73.5– 

81.0° N, ∼139.5–168° W (≥300 kilometer 

(km) north of Utqiag ̇vik). Representative 

survey track lines can be seen in Figure 

1. Some deviation in track lines, 

including the order of survey 

operations, could be necessary for 

reasons such as science drivers, poor 

data quality, inclement weather, or 

mechanical issues with the research 

vessel and/or equipment. Thus, the 

track lines could occur anywhere within 

the coordinates noted above and within 

the study area. Four percent of the 

surveys will occur within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with 

the remaining part of the survey 

occurring beyond the EEZ. The activity 

will take place in depths ranging from 

200–4,000 meters (m). The R/V Sikuliaq 

would likely leave from and return to 

Nome, AK. 

The low-energy survey activity will 

begin ∼300 km from the Alaska coastline 

(North of Utqiagvik) and extend ∼800 

km north from the initial survey site 

(i.e., the survey would occur ∼300–1,100 

km from the Alaska coastline). The 

high-energy survey activity will only 

occur ∼530 km from the coastline and 

occur only in the northeastern part of 

the survey area (See Figure 1). Eighty 

percent of the total survey will occur in 

deep waters (>1,000 m) with the 

remainder of the survey occurring in 

intermediate depth waters (100– 

1,000m); no surveying will occur in 

waters <100 m deep. All high-energy 

surveys (680 km total) will occur in 

deep waters, while 67 percent of lowenergy surveys will occur in deep 

waters (3,981 km). The remainder of 

low-energy surveys (1,189 km or 23 

percent) will occur in intermediate 

depth waters. 

A detailed description of the planned 

geophysical survey project is provided 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28, 

2021). Since that time, no changes have 

been made to the planned survey 

activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specified activity. 

Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

measures are described in detail later in 

this document (please see Mitigation 

and Monitoring and Reporting). 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46183 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of NMFS’ proposal to issue 

an IHA to UAGI was published in the 

Federal Register on May 28, 2021 (86 

FR 28787). That notice described, in 

detail, UAGI’s proposed activity, the 

marine mammal species that may be 

affected by the activity, and the 

anticipated effects on marine mammals. 

NMFS received a letter from the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), 

which was the only comment received 

for this project. The letter noted that 

AEWC does not oppose UAGI’s project 

but expressed concern regarding NMFS’ 

decision not to subject the associated 

monitoring plan to independent peer 

review prior to making a decision 

regarding the requested IHA. In noting 

its concern, AEWC asserted that NMFS 

does not have discretion regarding 

whether to subject monitoring plans to 

peer review, stating that NMFS’ 

discretion extends only to how it 

engages peer review. While NMFS 

agrees with AEWC’s statement in cases 

where the proposed activity may affect 

the availability of a species or stock of 

marine mammals for taking for 

subsistence purposes, NMFS’ 

determined the proposed activity will 

not affect the availability of any species 

or stock of marine mammals for taking 

for subsistence purposes. Therefore, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICESEN18AU21.169</GPH>

Figure 1. Location of the seismic surveys and OBS deployments in the Arctic Ocean 

and Endangered Species Act critical habitat in the U.S. 
46184 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

peer review of the monitoring plan is 

not required. 

NMFS’ conclusion that UAGI’s survey 

activity will not affect the availability of 

a species or stock of marine mammal for 

taking for subsistence purposes was 

based on the fact that the activity is a 

significant distance from shore and well 

beyond traditional hunting areas. The 

take UAGI requested will occur 

incidental to activities conducted well 

beyond 200 km from any hunting area 

or buffer. The survey will occur no 

closer than 300 km from the Alaska 

coastline, with the high-energy portion 

of the project occurring no closer than 

530 km from the coastline. The 

maximum estimated harassment zone 

for the survey is 2.4 km and 4.65 km for 

the low-energy and high-energy survey 

portions, respectively. Therefore, any 

take from these activities will not 

directly interfere with the hunt. 

Furthermore, there is no information 

supporting a conclusion that any 

behavioral disturbance of bowhead 

whales occurring at such great distance 

from traditional hunting areas (300–500 

km) would affect their subsequent 

behavior in a manner that would 

interfere with subsistence uses should 

those whales later interact with hunters. 

As stated above, based on the foregoing 

information, NMFS determined that the 

activity would not affect the availability 

of any species or stock for taking for 

subsistence purposes and, therefore, 

that peer review of the monitoring plan 

was not warranted. No changes have 

been made from the proposed IHA to 

the final IHA in response to comments. 

Changes From the Proposed IHA to 

Final IHA 

Following the public comment 

period, NMFS identified an error in the 

calculation of bowhead whale density. 

The density value for bowhead whales 

described in the notice of proposed IHA 

(86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) (0.0124) 

was itself correct, but represents the 

number of individuals per 100 km2

rather than individuals per 1 km2, as 

was assumed for the proposed IHA. 

NMFS has corrected this error and, as a 

result, the authorized Level B 

harassment take number is reduced 

from 339 to 3. 

Additionally, NMFS identified errors 

made when calculating the total take 

numbers proposed for authorization for 

all species due to use of incorrect 

estimated Level A harassment 

ensonified areas and double counting of 

estimated exposures within Level A 

harassment zones (i.e., estimated 

exposures were double counted as both 

Level B harassment takes and as 

independently estimated exposures 

within the Level A harassment zones, 

which were also tallied as takes by 

Level B harassment). These errors have 

been corrected, and the revised 

authorized take numbers are shown in 

Table 7. All revised take numbers are 

lower than those proposed for 

authorization (86 FR 28787; May 28, 

2021). Please refer to the Estimated Take 

section for further detail regarding this 

change. 

Lastly, we note a mistake in the 

proposed IHA that has since been 

corrected. One section of the proposed 

IHA (4(f)(iv)) described the shutdown 

mitigation measure for bowhead whales 

to be at any distance while the proposed 

FR notice and the rest of the proposed 

IHA stated this distance to be at 1,500 

m. This has since been corrected for the 

final IHA and the shutdown area and 

the exclusion zone will be at 1,500 m 

bowhead whales. Additionally, the 

requirement for bigeye binoculars has 

been removed as they are not available 

on board the R/V Sikuliaq. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Sections 3 and 4 of the application 

summarize available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SARs; https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). 

Additional information may be found in 

the Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine 

Mammals (ASAMM) reports, which are 

available online at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marinemammal-protection/aerial-surveysarctic-marine-mammals. 

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and authorized 

for this action, and summarizes 

information related to the population or 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy from 

the Society for Marine Mammalogy 

(2021). PBR is defined by the MMPA as 

the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR and annual 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprise that stock. For 

most species, stock abundance estimates 

are based on sightings within the U.S. 

EEZ; however, for some species, this 

geographic area may extend beyond U.S. 

waters. Survey abundance estimates 

may be used for other species. Survey 

abundance (as compared to stock or 

species abundance) is the total number 

of individuals estimated within the 

survey area, which may or may not align 

completely with a stock’s geographic 

range as defined in the SARs. These 

surveys may also extend beyond U.S. 

waters. In this case, the survey area 

outside of the U.S. EEZ does not 

necessarily overlap with the ranges for 

stocks managed by NMFS. However, we 

assume that individuals of these species 

that may be encountered during the 

survey would be part of those stocks. 

Additionally, six species listed in Table 

1 indicate Unknown abundance 

estimates. This may be due to outdated 

data and population estimates or data is 

not representative of the entire stock. 

All managed stocks in this region are 

assessed in NMFS’ U.S. Alaska and 

Pacific SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2021, 

Carretta et al., 2021). All values 

presented in Table 1 are the most recent 

available at the time of publication and 

are available in the 2020 SARs (Muto et 

al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021) (available 

online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports). 

In addition, the Pacific walrus 

(Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and the 

Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) may be 

found in the Arctic. However, Pacific 

walruses and Polar bears are managed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and are not considered further in this 

document. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46185 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS EXPECTED TO OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ....................... Eschrichtius robustus ............. Eastern N Pacific ................... -, -, N 26,960 (0.05, 25,849, 2016) .. 801 131 

Family Balaenidae: 

Bowhead whale ................ Balaena mysticetus ................ Western Arctic ........................ E, D, Y 16,820 ....................................

(0.052,16,100, 2011) ..............

161 56 

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Fin whale .......................... Balaenoptera physalus ........... Northeast Pacific 4 * ................ E, D, Y Unknown ................................ UND 0.6 

Humpback whale .............. Megaptera novaeangliae ........ Western N Pacific * ................ E, D, Y 1,107 (0.3, 865, 2006) ........... 3 2.8 

Minke whale ..................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata .... Alaska 4 * ................................ -, -, N Unknown ................................ UND 0 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Delphinidae: 

Beluga whale ................... Delphinapterus leucas ............ Beaufort Sea 4 ........................ -, -, N 39,258 (0.229, N/A. 1992) ..... UND 104 

Eastern Chukchi ..................... -, -, N 13,305 (0.51, 8,875, 2017) .... 178 55 

Killer whale ....................... Orcinus orca ........................... Alaska resident ....................... -, -, N 2,347 c (N/A, 2347, 2012) ..... 24 1 

Narwhal ............................ Monodon Monoceros ............. Unidentified 4 * ........................ -, -, N Unknown ................................ UND 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises): 

Harbor Porpoise ............... Phocoena phocoena .............. Bering Sea 4 * ......................... -, -, Y Unknown ................................ UND 0.4 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Bearded Seal ................... Erignathus barbatus ............... Beringia 4 * .............................. T, D, Y Unknown ................................ UND 6,709 

Ribbon Seal ..................... Histriophoca fasciata .............. Unidentified * .......................... -, -, N 184,687 (see SAR, 163,086, 

2013).

9,785 163 

Ringed Seal ..................... Pusa hispida ........................... Arctic ...................................... T, D, Y Unknown ................................ 5,100 6,459 

Spotted Seal .................... Phoca largha .......................... Bering ..................................... -, -, N 461,625 (see SAR, 423,237, 

2013).

25,394 5,254 

* Stocks marked with an asterisk are addressed in further detail in the text below. 

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

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

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

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For most stocks of killer whales, the abundance values represent direct counts of individually identifiable animals; 

therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the species’ (or similar species’) life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may represent actual counts of all animals ashore. 3These values, found in NMFS’ 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021), represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all 

sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). 4Abundance estimates for these stocks are not considered current. PBR is therefore considered undetermined for these stocks, as there is no current minimum 

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

this document. 

As indicated above, all 13 species 

(with 14 managed stocks) in Table 1 

could temporally and spatially co-occur 

with the activity to the degree that take 

is reasonably likely to occur, and we 

have authorized it. All species that 

could potentially occur in the survey 

areas are included in Table 4 of the IHA 

application. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the geophysical 

survey, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 

28787; May 28, 2021); since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species or stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/mammals/) for generalized 

species accounts. 

Unusual Mortality Events (UME) 

A UME is defined under the MMPA 

as ‘‘a stranding that is unexpected; 

involves a significant die-off of any 

marine mammal population; and 

demands immediate response.’’ For 

more information on UMEs, please visit: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

Currently recognized UMEs in Alaska 

involving species under NMFS’ 

jurisdiction include those affecting ice 

seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, 

and gray whales. Since June 1, 2018, 

elevated strandings for bearded, ringed 

and spotted seals have occurred in the 

Bering and Chukchi seas in Alaska, with 

causes undetermined. As of August 5, 

2021, there have been 357 recorded seal 

strandings. For more information, please 

visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/ 

marine-life-distress/2018-2020-ice-sealunusual-mortality-event-alaska. 

Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray 

whale strandings have occurred along 

the west coast of North America from 

Mexico through Alaska. As of August 5, 

2021, there have been a total of 487 

whales reported in the event, with 

approximately 225 dead whales in 

Mexico, 244 whales in the United States 

(including 108 in Alaska), and 18 

whales in British Columbia, Canada. For 

the United States, the historical 18-year 

5-month average (Jan–May) is 14.8 

whales for this same time-period. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES

I I I I 
46186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

Several dead whales have been 

emaciated with moderate to heavy 

whale lice (cyamid) loads. Necropsies 

have been conducted on a subset of 

whales with additional findings of 

vessel strike in three whales and 

entanglement in one whale. In Mexico, 

50–55 percent of the free-ranging whales 

observed in the lagoons in winter have 

been reported as ‘‘skinny’’ compared to 

the annual average of 10–12 percent 

‘‘skinny’’ whales normally seen. The 

cause of the UME is as yet 

undetermined. For more information, 

please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-life-distress/2019-2020- 

gray-whale-unusual-mortality-eventalong-west-coast-and. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al., (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS’ 2018 

Revision to its Technical Guidance for 

Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic 

Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing 

(Technical Guidance) (NMFS, 2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized 

hearing range * 

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Thirteen marine 

mammal species (nine cetacean and four 

pinniped (all phocid) species) have the 

reasonable potential to co-occur with 

the survey activities. Please refer to 

Table 1. Of the cetacean species that 

may be present, five are classified as 

low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all 

mysticete species), three are classified 

as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all 

delphinid species), and one is classified 

as high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor 

porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

Detailed descriptions of the potential 

effects of similar specified activities 

have been provided in other recent 

Federal Register notices, including for 

survey activities using the same 

methodology and over a similar amount 

of time, and affecting similar species 

(e.g., 83 FR 29212, June 22, 2018; 84 FR 

14200, April 9, 2019; 85 FR 19580, April 

7, 2020). Section VII of UAGI’s 

application provides a comprehensive 

discussion of the potential effects of the 

survey. We have reviewed UAGI’s 

application and believe it is accurate 

and complete. No significant new 

information is available. The effects of 

underwater noise from UAGI’s 

geophysical survey have the potential to 

result in behavioral harassment of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

action area. The Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 

28, 2021) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals, therefore that information is 

not repeated here; please to the 

aforementioned notice for that 

information. 

The Estimated Take section includes 

a quantitative analysis of the number of 

individuals that are expected to be taken 

by this activity. The Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination section 

considers the potential effects of the 

specified activity, the Estimated Take 

section, and the Mitigation section, to 

draw conclusions regarding the likely 

impacts of these activities on the 

reproductive success or survivorship of 

individuals and how those impacts on 

individuals are likely to impact marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Description of Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources 

The notice of proposed IHA provided 

a brief technical background on sound, 

on the characteristics of certain sound 

types, and on metrics used in this 

proposal inasmuch as the information is 

relevant to the specified activity and to 

a discussion of the potential effects of 

the specified activity on marine 

mammals found later in this document. 

Please see that document (86 FR 28787; 

May 28, 2021) for additional 

information. For general information on 

sound and its interaction with the 

marine environment, please see, e.g., Au 

and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. 

(1995); Urick (1983). 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46187 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes for 

authorization through this IHA, which 

informed both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes will be by Level B 

harassment, as use of seismic airguns 

may result, either directly or as a result 

of TTS, in disruption of behavioral 

patterns of marine mammals. The 

mitigation and related monitoring 

measures are expected to minimize the 

severity of such taking to the extent 

practicable. Moreover, based on the 

nature of the activity and the 

anticipated effectiveness of the 

mitigation measures (i.e., 

implementation of extended shutdown 

distances for certain species)— 

discussed in detail below in the 

Mitigation section—Level A harassment 

is neither anticipated nor authorized. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Generally speaking, we estimate take 

by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds 

above which NMFS believes the best 

available science indicates marine 

mammals will be behaviorally harassed 

or incur some degree of permanent 

hearing impairment; (2) the area or 

volume of water that will be ensonified 

above these levels in a day; (3) the 

density or occurrence of marine 

mammals within these ensonified areas; 

and, (4) and the number of days of 

activities. We note that while these 

basic factors can contribute to a basic 

calculation to provide an initial 

prediction of takes, additional 

information that can qualitatively 

inform take estimates is also sometimes 

available (e.g., previous monitoring 

results or average group size). Below, we 

describe the factors considered here in 

more detail and present the take 

estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS recommends the use of 

acoustic thresholds that identify the 

received level of underwater sound 

above which exposed marine mammals 

would be reasonably expected to be 

behaviorally harassed (equated to Level 

B harassment) or to incur Permanent 

Threshold Shift (PTS) of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context), and 

the distance between the sound source 

and the animal, and can be difficult to 

predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et 

al., 2012). NMFS uses a generalized 

acoustic threshold based on received 

level to estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals may be behaviorally harassed 

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

to underwater anthropogenic noise 

above received levels 160 dB re 1 mPa 

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

seismic airguns) evaluated here. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) 

(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies 

dual criteria to assess auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) to five different 

marine mammal groups (based on 

hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). UAGI’s seismic survey 

includes the use of impulsive sources 

(seismic airgun). 

These thresholds are provided in 

Table 3 below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) ................................

(Underwater) .................................................

Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ...................................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) ................................

(Underwater) .................................................

Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ...................................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

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

also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and acoustic propagation modeling. 

The acoustic propagation modeling 

methodologies are described in greater 

detail in Appendix A of UAGI’s IHA 

application. The survey will primarily 

acquire data using the 2-airgun array 

with a total discharge volume of 1,040 

in3 and an approximately 15-second 

shot interval. During approximately 12 

percent of the planned survey 

tracklines, the 6-airgun, 3,120 in3 array 

will be used with a 60-second shot 

interval. All tracklines will be surveyed 

with a maximum tow depth of 9 m. The 

modeling assumed an airgun firing 

pressure of 2,540 psi. Propagation 

modeling for UAGI’s application follows 

the approach used by the LamontDoherty Earth Observatory (L–DEO) for 

other, similar IHA applications. L–DEO 

uses ray tracing for the direct wave 

traveling from the array to the receiver 

and its associated source ghost 

(reflection at the air-water interface in 

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

homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded 

by a seafloor). To validate the model 

results, L–DEO measured propagation of 

pulses from a 36-airgun array at a tow 

depth of 6 m in the Gulf of Mexico, for 

deep water (∼1,600 m), intermediate 

water depth on the slope (∼600–1,100 

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

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

L–DEO collected a MCS data set from 

R/V Marcus G. Langseth (with the same 

36-airgun array referenced above) on an 

8 km streamer in 2012 on the shelf of 

the Cascadia Margin off of Washington 

in water up to 200 m deep that allowed 

Crone et al. (2014) to analyze the 

hydrophone streamer (>1,100 individual 

shots). These empirical data were then 

analyzed to determine in situ sound 

levels for shallow and upper 

intermediate water depths. These data 

suggest that modeled radii were 2–3 

times larger than the measured radii in 

shallow water. Similarly, data collected 

by Crone et al. (2017) during a survey 

off New Jersey in 2014 and 2015 

confirmed that in situ measurements 

collected by R/V Langseth hydrophone 

streamer were 2–3 times smaller than 

the predicted radii. 

L–DEO model results are used to 

determine the assumed radial distance 

to the 160-dB rms threshold for these 

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

to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m) 

(see Table 4). Water depths in the 

project area may be up to 4,000 m, but 

marine mammals in the region are 

generally not anticipated to dive below 

2,000 m (Costa and Williams, 1999). The 

radii for intermediate water depths 

(100–1,000 m) are derived from the 

deep-water ones by applying a 

correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5. 

No survey effort will occur in water 

depths <100 m. 

The area expected to be ensonified 

was determined by entering the planned 

survey lines into a GIS and then 

‘‘buffering’’ the lines by the applicable 

160-dB distance (see Appendix B in IHA 

application). The resulting ensonified 

areas were then increased by 25 percent 

to allow for any necessary additional 

operations, such as re-surveying 

segments where data quality was 

insufficient. This approach assumes that 

no marine mammals would move away 

or toward the trackline in response to 

increasing sound levels before the levels 

reach the threshold as R/V Sikuliaq 

approaches. 

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

Source and volume Tow depth 

(m) 

Water depth 

(m) 

Level B 

harassment zone 

(m) 

6 airgun array; 3,120 in3 ........................................................................................................ 9 >1,000 

100–1,000 

1 4,640 

3 6,960 

2 airgun array; 1,040 in3 ........................................................................................................ 9 >1,000 

100–1,000 

1 1,604 

2 2,406 

1 Distance based on L–DEO model results. 

2Based on L–DEO model results with 1.5x correction factor applied. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal hearing groups, 

were calculated based on L–DEO 

modeling performed using the 

NUCLEUS source modeling software 

program and the NMFS User 

Spreadsheet, described below. The 

acoustic thresholds for impulsive 

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

Technical Guidance were presented as 

dual metric acoustic thresholds using 

both the cumulative sound exposure 

level) SELcum and peak sound pressure 

metrics (NMFS 2018). As dual metrics, 

NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the two metrics is 

exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 

largest isopleth). The SELcum metric 

considers both level and duration of 

exposure, as well as auditory weighting 

functions by marine mammal hearing 

group. In recognition of the fact that the 

requirement to calculate Level A 

harassment ensonified areas could be 

more technically challenging to predict 

due to the duration component and the 

use of weighting functions in the new 

SELcum thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. 

The values for SELcum and peak 

Sound Pressure Level (SPL) were 

derived from calculating the modified 

far-field signature. The farfield signature 

is often used as a theoretical 

representation of the source level. To 

compute the farfield signature, the 

source level is estimated at a large 

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

and this level is back projected 

mathematically to a notional distance of 

1 m from the array’s geometrical center. 

However, when the source is an array of 

multiple airguns separated in space, the 

source level from the theoretical farfield 

signature is not necessarily the best 

measurement of the source level that is 

physically achieved at the source 

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

short ranges, distances <1 km), the 

pulses of sound pressure from each 

individual airgun in the source array do 

not stack constructively, as they do for 

the theoretical farfield signature. The 

pulses from the different airguns spread 

out in time such that the source levels 

observed or modeled are the result of 

the summation of pulses from a few 

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

2009). At larger distances, away from 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46189 

the source array center, sound pressure 

of all the airguns in the array stack 

coherently, but not within one time 

sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels (a few dB) than the source level 

derived from the farfield signature. 

Because the farfield signature does not 

take into account the large array effect 

near the source and is calculated as a 

point source, the modified farfield 

signature is a more appropriate measure 

of the sound source level for distributed 

sound sources, such as airgun arrays. 

The acoustic modeling methodology as 

used for estimating Level B harassment 

distances with a small grid step of 1 m 

in both the inline and depth directions. 

The propagation modeling takes into 

account all airgun interactions at short 

distances from the source, including 

interactions between subarrays, which 

are modeled using the NUCLEUS 

software to estimate the notional 

signature and MATLAB software to 

calculate the pressure signal at each 

mesh point of a grid. 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data (modeled in 1 Hz bands) 

were used to make adjustments (dB) to 

the unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (mPa) in order to 

integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

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

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation and source 

velocities and shot intervals specific to 

the planned survey, potential radial 

distances to auditory injury zones were 

then calculated for SELcum thresholds. 

For full detail of the modeling 

methodology used for estimating 

distance to Level A harassment peak 

pressure and cumulative SEL criteria, 

please see Appendix A of UAGI’s 

application. 

Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the 

form of estimated source levels are 

shown in Appendix A of UAGI’s 

application. User Spreadsheets used by 

UAGI to estimate distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the airgun 

arrays are also provided in Appendix A 

of the application. Outputs from the 

User Spreadsheets in the form of 

estimated distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the survey are 

shown in Table 5. As described above, 

NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the dual metrics (SELcum

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

metric resulting in the largest isopleth). 

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

Source 

(volume) Threshold 

Level A harassment zone 

(m) 

LF cetaceans MF cetaceans HF cetaceans Phocids 

6-airgun array (3,120 in3) ............................................................ SELcum .......

Peak ...........

51 

30 

0 

7 

0 

212 

0 

34 

2-airgun array (1,040 in3) ............................................................ SELcum .......

Peak ...........

17 

10 

0 

3 

0 

73 

0 

12 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used (e.g., stationary receiver with no 

vertical or horizontal movement in 

response to the acoustic source), 

isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree, which 

will ultimately result in some degree of 

overestimation of Level A harassment. 

However, these tools offer the best way 

to predict appropriate isopleths when 

more sophisticated modeling methods 

are not available. NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as this seismic 

survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts 

the closest distance at which a 

stationary animal would not incur PTS 

if the sound source traveled by the 

animal in a straight line at a constant 

speed. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur 

for mid-frequency and low-frequency 

cetaceans given very small modeled 

zones of injury for those species (all 

estimated zones less than 10 m for midfrequency cetaceans, up to a maximum 

of 51 m for low-frequency cetaceans and 

34 m for phocid pinnipeds), in context 

of distributed source dynamics. 

Similarly, for high-frequency cetaceans, 

the maximum modeled injury zone for 

the low-energy array (88 percent of 

survey effort) is 73 m and auditory 

injury would be unlikely to occur 

during use of that array. The source 

level of the array is a theoretical 

definition assuming a point source and 

measurement in the far-field of the 

source (MacGillivray, 2006). As 

described by Caldwell and Dragoset 

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

but one that spans a small area. In the 

far-field, individual elements in arrays 

will effectively work as one source 

because individual pressure peaks will 

have coalesced into one relatively broad 

pulse. The array can then be considered 

a ‘‘point source.’’ For distances within 

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

times the array dimensions, pressure 

peaks from individual elements do not 

arrive simultaneously because the 

observation point is not equidistant 

from each element. The effect is 

destructive interference of the outputs 

of each element, so that peak pressures 

in the near-field will be significantly 

lower than the output of the largest 

individual element. Here, the estimated 

Level A harassment isopleth distances 

would in all cases (other than for highfrequency cetaceans) be expected to be 

within the near-field of the array where 

the definition of source level breaks 

down. Therefore, actual locations 

within this distance of the array center 

where the sound level exceeds relevant 

harassment criteria would not 

necessarily exist. 

In consideration of the received sound 

levels in the near-field as described 

above, we expect the potential for Level 

A harassment of low- and midfrequency cetaceans and phocid 

pinnipeds to be de minimis, even before 

the likely moderating effects of aversion 

and/or other compensatory behaviors 

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

considered. A similar conclusion may 

be drawn for high-frequency cetaceans 

relative to use of the low-energy airgun 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46190 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

array. We do not believe that Level A 

harassment is a likely outcome for any 

low- or mid-frequency cetacean or 

phocid pinniped and are not 

authorizing any Level A harassment for 

these species. For high-frequency 

cetaceans, the larger estimated Level A 

harassment zone associated with the 

high-energy array will be present for 

only 12 percent of total survey effort, 

and given the expected rarity of 

occurrence for harbor porpoise, no 

incidents of Level A harassment are 

expected. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

Information about the presence, 

density, and group dynamics of marine 

mammals that informs the take 

calculations was provided in our notice 

of proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28, 

2021). Information that has remained 

unchanged is not reprinted here. 

Density values are shown in Table 6. 

The bowhead whale density value 

described in the notice of proposed IHA 

(86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) was 

correct; however, the incorrect units 

were used. The value reported in the 

notice of proposed IHA (0.0124 whales/ 

km2) would correctly be stated as 0.0124 

whales/100 km2, and the corrected 

density is used here. 

TABLE 6—DENSITY VALUES USED FOR

TAKE ANALYSIS, CALCULATED BY

UAGI 

Species Density 

(individuals/km2) 

Bowhead whale .......... 0.000124 

Gray whale ................. 0 

Fin whale .................... 0 

Humpback whale ........ 0 

Minke whale ................ 0 

Beluga whale .............. 0.0255 

Killer whale ................. Unknown 

Narwhal ....................... Unknown 

Harbor porpoise .......... Unknown 

Bearded seal .............. 0.0332 

Ribbon seal ................. 0.0677 

Ringed seal ................. 0.376 

Spotted seal ................ 0.0007 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. In 

order to estimate the number of marine 

mammals predicted to be exposed to 

sound levels that would result in Level 

A or Level B harassment, radial 

distances from the airgun array to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those radial distances 

are then used to calculate the area(s) 

around the airgun array predicted to be 

ensonified to sound levels that exceed 

the Level A and Level B harassment 

thresholds. The distance for the 160-dB 

threshold (based on L–DEO model 

results) was used to draw a buffer 

around every transect line in GIS to 

determine the total ensonified area in 

each depth category. Estimated 

incidents of exposure above Level A and 

Level B harassment criteria are 

presented in Table 7. As noted 

previously, UAGI has added 25 percent 

in the form of operational days, which 

is equivalent to adding 25 percent to the 

line-kilometers to be surveyed. This 

accounts for the possibility that 

additional operational days are 

required, and is included in the 

estimates of actual exposures. 

The number of individual marine 

mammals potentially exposed to airgun 

sounds with received levels ≥160 dB re 

1 mParms (Level B) was estimated 

following NSF’s take calculation 

method by multiplying the estimated 

densities by the total area expected to be 

ensonified above the Level threshold. 

The total ensonified area was multiplied 

by 25 percent to account for any 

necessary additional operations, such as 

re-surveying segments where data 

quality was insufficient. This approach 

assumes that no marine mammals 

would move away or toward the 

trackline in response to increasing 

sound levels before the levels reach the 

threshold as R/V Sikuliaq approaches. 

This value was then multiplied by the 

estimated densities for each species to 

produce estimated Level B takes. Given 

the location of the survey being far 

north in the Arctic, we expect that the 

density values, and thus estimated take 

numbers, are conservative estimates of 

what is likely to be encountered during 

the survey. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED TAKING BY LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

Species Stock 1

Estimated 

Level B 

harassment 

Estimated 

Level A 

harassment 

Authorized 

Level B 

harassment 

Authorized 

Level A 

harassment 

Total 

take 

Percent of 

stock 1

Bowhead whale .................... Western Arctic ...................... 3 0 3 0 3 0.02 

Humpback whale 2 ................ WN Pacific ............................ 0 0 2 0 2 0.01 

Fin whale 2 4 .......................... NE Pacific ............................. 0 0 2 0 2 0.18 

Gray whale 2 ......................... EN Pacific ............................. 0 0 2 0 2 0.01 

Minke whale 2 4 ..................... Alaska ................................... 0 0 2 0 2 0.01 

Beluga whale ........................ Beaufort Sea .........................

Eastern Chukchi ...................

696 

....................

1 

....................

697 

....................

0 

....................

697 

............

1.33 

....................

Killer whale 2 ......................... Alaska Resident .................... 0 0 6 0 6 0.20 

Narwhal 3 4 ............................ Unidentified ........................... 0 0 2 0 2 n/a 

Harbor porpoise 2 4 ................ Bering Sea ............................ 0 0 2 0 2 0.04 

Bearded seal 5 ...................... Beringia ................................. 900 6 907 0 907 0.73 

Ringed seal 5 ......................... Arctic ..................................... 10,198 70 10,269 0 10,269 5.99 

Spotted seal .......................... Bering ................................... 19 0 19 0 19 0.00 

Ribbon seal ........................... Unidentified ........................... 1,836 13 1,849 0 1,849 1.00 

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

being analyzed as if all authorized takes occurred within each stock. Where necessary, additional discussion is provided in the ‘‘Small Numbers 

Analysis’’ section. 2 UAGI requests authorization of gray whale, humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, killer whale, and harbor porpoise take equivalent to exposure of one group (Clarke et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2019). 3 UAGI requests authorization of two takes of narwhals. 

4As noted in Table 1, there is no estimate of abundance available for these species. See ‘‘Small Numbers Analysis’’ section for further discussion. 5 Due to rounding, the total estimated Level B harassment does not equal the sum of Level A harassment and Level B harassment. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46191 

Although gray whales, fin whales, 

humpback whales, minke whales, 

narwhals and harbor porpoises are not 

expected to occur this far north in the 

Arctic, we agree with NSF that there is 

possibility that this activity might 

encounter these species and thus a 

conservative number of takes has been 

authorized based on average group size 

from yearly Aerial Surveys of Arctic 

Marine Mammals (ASAMM) (Clark et 

al., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019). As 

described previously in the Changes 

from the Proposed IHA to Final IHA 

section, errors in take estimate 

calculations have been corrected from 

the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 

18787; May 28, 2021) as shown in Table 

7. These changes were made after 

identifying that the original estimated 

take numbers used the incorrect Level A 

harassment ensonified areas in addition 

to doubling the estimated exposures 

within the Level A harassment zone. 

These corrected, authorized take 

numbers presented here are either equal 

to or smaller than those proposed for 

authorization. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must 

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses. 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat, as well as 

subsistence uses. This considers the 

nature of the potential adverse impact 

being mitigated (likelihood, scope, 

range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned), 

and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

In order to satisfy the MMPA’s least 

practicable adverse impact standard, 

NMFS has evaluated a suite of basic 

mitigation protocols for seismic surveys 

that are required regardless of the status 

of a stock. Additional or enhanced 

protections may be required for species 

whose stocks are in particularly poor 

health and/or are subject to some 

significant additional stressor that 

lessens that stock’s ability to weather 

the effects of the specified activities 

without worsening its status. We 

reviewed seismic mitigation protocols 

required or recommended elsewhere 

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

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

DEWHA, 2008; BOEM, 2016; DFO, 

2008; GHFS, 2015; MMOA, 2016; 

Nowacek et al., 2013; Nowacek and 

Southall, 2016), recommendations 

received during public comment 

periods for previous actions, and the 

available scientific literature. We also 

considered recommendations given in a 

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

Dolman, 2007; Compton et al., 2008; 

Parsons et al., 2009; Wright and 

Cosentino, 2015; Stone, 2015b). This 

exhaustive review and consideration of 

public comments regarding previous, 

similar activities has led to development 

of the protocols included here. 

Due to the use of high- and lowenergy airgun arrays used within this 

survey, two separate mitigation 

protocols are required for use 

throughout the activity depending on 

which array is in use (Table 8). 

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation 

Monitoring 

Visual monitoring requires the use of 

trained observers (herein referred to as 

visual Protected Species Observers 

(PSOs)) to scan the ocean surface for the 

presence of marine mammals. The area 

to be scanned visually includes 

primarily the exclusion zone (EZ), 

within which observation of certain 

marine mammals requires shutdown of 

the acoustic source, but also a buffer 

zone. The buffer zone means an area 

beyond the EZ to be monitored for the 

presence of marine mammals that may 

enter the EZ. During pre-clearance 

monitoring (i.e., before ramp-up begins), 

the buffer zone also acts as an extension 

of the EZ in that observations of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone would 

also prevent airgun operations from 

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

EZ is 500 m from the edges of the airgun 

array for high-energy surveys and 100 m 

for low-energy surveys. For high-energy 

surveys, the buffer zone encompasses 

the area at and below the sea surface 

from the edge of the 0–500 m EZ, out 

to a radius of 1,000 m from the edges of 

the airgun array (500–1,000 m). For lowenergy surveys, the buffer zone 

encompasses the area at and below the 

sea surface from the edge of the 0–100 

m EZ, out to a radius of 200 m from the 

edges of the airgun array (100–200 m). 

Visual monitoring of the EZ and 

buffer zones is intended to establish 

and, when visual conditions allow, 

maintain zones around the sound source 

that are clear of marine mammals, 

thereby reducing or eliminating the 

potential for injury and minimizing the 

potential for more severe behavioral 

reactions for animals occurring closer to 

the vessel. Visual monitoring of the 

buffer zone is intended to (1) provide 

additional protection to naı ̈ve marine 

mammals that may be in the area during 

pre-clearance, and (2) during airgun use, 

aid in establishing and maintaining the 

EZ by alerting the visual observer and 

crew of marine mammals that are 

outside of, but may approach and enter, 

the EZ. 

UAGI must use dedicated, trained, 

NMFS-approved PSOs. The PSOs must 

have no tasks other than to conduct 

observational effort, record 

observational data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements. 

PSO resumes shall be provided to 

NMFS for approval. 

At least one of the visual PSOs aboard 

the vessel must have a minimum of 90 

days at-sea experience working in the 

roles, with no more than 18 months 

elapsed since the conclusion of the atsea experience. One visual PSO with 

such experience shall be designated as 

the lead for the entire protected species 

observation team. The lead PSO shall 

serve as primary point of contact for the 

vessel operator and ensure all PSO 

requirements per the IHA are met. To 

the maximum extent practicable, the 

experienced PSOs should be scheduled 

to be on duty with those PSOs with 

appropriate training but who have not 

yet gained relevant experience. 

During survey operations (e.g., any 

day on which use of the acoustic source 

is planned to occur, and whenever the 

acoustic source is in the water, whether 

activated or not), a minimum of two 

visual PSOs must be on duty and 

conducting visual observations at all 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46192 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

times during daylight hours (i.e., from 

30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 

minutes following sunset). Visual 

monitoring of the EZ and buffer zone 

must begin no less than 30 minutes 

prior to ramp-up and must continue 

until one hour after use of the acoustic 

source ceases or until 30 minutes past 

sunset. Visual PSOs shall coordinate to 

ensure 360° visual coverage around the 

vessel from the most appropriate 

observation posts, and shall conduct 

visual observations using binoculars 

and the naked eye while free from 

distractions and in a consistent, 

systematic, and diligent manner. 

PSOs shall establish and monitor the 

EZ and buffer zone. These zones shall 

be based upon the radial distance from 

the edges of the acoustic source (rather 

than being based on the center of the 

array or around the vessel itself). During 

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

airguns are active, including ramp-up), 

detections of marine mammals within 

the buffer zone (but outside the EZ) 

shall be communicated to the operator 

to prepare for the potential shutdown of 

the acoustic source. 

During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime 

the acoustic source is active, including 

ramp-up), detections of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone (but 

outside the EZ) should be 

communicated to the operator to 

prepare for the potential shutdown of 

the acoustic source. Visual PSOs will 

immediately communicate all 

observations to the on-duty acoustic 

PSO(s), including any determination by 

the PSO regarding species 

identification, distance, and bearing and 

the degree of confidence in the 

determination. Any observations of 

marine mammals by crew members 

shall be relayed to the PSO team. During 

good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; 

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

PSOs shall conduct observations when 

the acoustic source is not operating for 

comparison of sighting rates and 

behavior with and without use of the 

acoustic source and between acquisition 

periods, to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

Visual PSOs may be on watch for a 

maximum of four consecutive hours 

followed by a break of at least one hour 

between watches and may conduct a 

maximum of 12 hours of observation per 

24-hour period. Combined observational 

duties (visual and acoustic but not at 

same time) may not exceed 12 hours per 

24-hour period for any individual PSO. 

Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer 

Zones 

An EZ is a defined area within which 

occurrence of a marine mammal triggers 

mitigation action intended to reduce the 

potential for certain outcomes, e.g., 

auditory injury, disruption of behavioral 

patterns. The PSOs would establish a 

minimum EZ with a 500- or 100-m 

radius, during use of the high-energy 

and low-energy arrays, respectively, for 

all species except bowhead whales. The 

EZ would be based on radial distance 

from the edge of the airgun array (rather 

than being based on the center of the 

array or around the vessel itself). 

The EZs are intended to be 

precautionary in the sense that they 

would be expected to contain sound 

exceeding the injury criteria for all 

cetacean hearing groups, (based on the 

dual criteria of SELcum and peak SPL), 

while also providing a consistent, 

reasonably observable zone within 

which PSOs would typically be able to 

conduct effective observational effort. 

Additionally, the EZs are expected to 

minimize the likelihood that marine 

mammals will be exposed to levels 

likely to result in more severe 

behavioral responses. Although 

significantly greater distances may be 

observed from an elevated platform 

under good conditions, we believe that 

these distances are likely regularly 

attainable for PSOs using the naked eye 

during typical conditions. 

An extended EZ of 1,500/500 m must 

be implemented for all bowhead whales 

during high-energy and low-energy 

survey effort, respectively, because of 

their importance to subsistence hunters 

and protected status. No buffer of this 

extended EZ is required. 

Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up 

Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘soft start’’) means the gradual and 

systematic increase of emitted sound 

levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up 

begins by first activating a single airgun 

of the smallest volume, followed by 

doubling the number of active elements 

in stages until the full complement of an 

array’s airguns are active. Each stage 

should be approximately the same 

duration, and the total duration should 

not be less than approximately 20 

minutes for high-energy airgun arrays. 

Ramp-up for the low-energy array, 

which includes only two elements, may 

be shorter. The intent of pre-clearance 

observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no 

protected species are observed within 

the buffer zone prior to the beginning of 

ramp-up. During pre-clearance is the 

only time observations of protected 

species in the buffer zone would 

prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of 

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

warn protected species of pending 

seismic operations and to allow 

sufficient time for those animals to leave 

the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up 

procedure, involving a step-wise 

increase in the number of airguns firing 

and total array volume until all 

operational airguns are activated and 

the full volume is achieved, is required 

at all times as part of the activation of 

the acoustic source. All operators must 

adhere to the following pre-clearance 

and ramp-up requirements: 

• The operator must notify a 

designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time should not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up in order to allow the 

PSOs time to monitor the EZ and buffer 

zone for 30 minutes prior to the 

initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance); 

• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as 

to minimize the time spent with the 

source activated prior to reaching the 

designated run-in; 

• One of the PSOs conducting preclearance observations must be notified 

again immediately prior to initiating 

ramp-up procedures and the operator 

must receive confirmation from the PSO 

to proceed; 

• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any 

marine mammal is within the applicable 

EZ or buffer zone. If a marine mammal 

is observed within the applicable EZ or 

the buffer zone during the 30 minute 

pre-clearance period, ramp-up may not 

begin until the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting the zones or until an 

additional time period has elapsed with 

no further sightings (15 minutes for 

small odontocetes and pinnipeds, and 

30 minutes for all mysticetes and all 

other odontocetes, including large 

delphinids, such as beluga whales and 

killer whales); 

• Ramp-up shall begin by activating a 

single airgun of the smallest volume in 

the array and shall continue in stages by 

doubling the number of active elements 

at the commencement of each stage, 

with each stage of approximately the 

same duration. Duration shall not be 

less than 20 minutes for high-energy 

arrays. The operator must provide 

information to the PSO documenting 

that appropriate procedures were 

followed; 

• PSOs must monitor the relevant EZ 

and buffer zone during ramp-up, and 

ramp-up must cease and the source 

must be shut down upon detection of a 

marine mammal within the applicable 

EZ. Once ramp-up has begun, detections 

of marine mammals within the buffer 

zone do not require shutdown, but such 

observation shall be communicated to 

the operator to prepare for the potential 

shutdown; 

• Ramp-up may occur at times of 

poor visibility, including nighttime, if 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46193 

appropriate acoustic monitoring has 

occurred with no detections in the 30 

minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. 

Acoustic source activation may only 

occur at times of poor visibility where 

operational planning cannot reasonably 

avoid such circumstances; 

• If the acoustic source is shut down 

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

minutes) for reasons other than that 

described for shutdown (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty), it may be 

activated again without ramp-up if PSOs 

have maintained constant visual and/or 

acoustic observation and no visual or 

acoustic detections of marine mammals 

have occurred within the applicable EZ. 

For any longer shutdown, pre-clearance 

observation and ramp-up are required. 

For any shutdown at night or in periods 

of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), 

ramp-up is required, but if the 

shutdown period was brief and constant 

observation was maintained, preclearance watch of 30 minutes is not 

required; and 

• Testing of the acoustic source 

involving all elements requires rampup. Testing limited to individual source 

elements or strings does not require 

ramp-up but does require pre-clearance 

of 30 min. 

Shutdown 

The shutdown of an airgun array 

requires the immediate de-activation of 

all individual airgun elements of the 

array. Any PSO on duty will have the 

authority to delay the start of survey 

operations or to call for shutdown of the 

acoustic source if a marine mammal is 

detected within the applicable EZ. The 

operator must also establish and 

maintain clear lines of communication 

directly between PSOs on duty and 

crew controlling the acoustic source to 

ensure that shutdown commands are 

conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs 

to maintain watch. When the airgun 

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

airguns is active, including during 

ramp-up) and a marine mammal appears 

within or enters the applicable EZ, the 

acoustic source will be shut down. 

When shutdown is called for by a PSO, 

the acoustic source will be immediately 

deactivated and any dispute resolved 

only following deactivation. 

Following a shutdown, airgun activity 

would not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the EZ. The animal 

would be considered to have cleared the 

EZ if it is visually observed to have 

departed the EZ, or it has not been seen 

within the EZ for 15 min in the case of 

small odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 

min in the case of mysticetes and large 

odontocetes, including beluga whales 

and killer whales. 

Upon implementation of shutdown, 

the source may be reactivated after the 

marine mammal(s) has been observed 

exiting the applicable EZ (i.e., animal is 

not required to fully exit the buffer zone 

where applicable) or following 15 

minutes for small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for 

mysticetes and all other odontocetes, 

including beluga whales and killer 

whales, with no further observation of 

the marine mammal(s). 

UAGI must implement shutdown if a 

marine mammal species for which take 

was not authorized, or a species for 

which authorization was granted but the 

takes have been met, approaches the 

Level A or Level B harassment zones. 

UAGI must also implement shutdown if 

any of the following are observed at any 

distance: 

• Any large whale (defined as any 

mysticete species) with a calf (defined 

as an animal less than two-thirds the 

body size of an adult observed to be in 

close association with an adult); and/or 

• An aggregation of six or more large 

whales. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) 

NMFS will not require the use of 

PAM for this activity. PAM would only 

be applicable to the small portion of the 

survey (12 percent) using the highenergy array and UAGI has indicated 

that it would not be practicable to carry 

the additional monitoring personnel 

required for implementation of towed 

PAM. Additionally, species of greatest 

interest in prescribing use of towed 

PAM (e.g., sperm whales, beaked 

whales) are not present in the planned 

survey area. Further details of this 

decision are described in the notice of 

proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28, 

2021). 

TABLE 8—MITIGATION PROTOCOLS FOR HIGH- AND LOW-ENERGY ARRAYS

Mitigation protocols 

Sources ......................... High-energy (6-airgun array with 3120 in3 total discharge 

volume).

Low-energy (2-airgun array with 1040 in3 total discharge 

volume). 

Visual PSOs .................. Minimum of 2 NMFS-approved PSOs on duty during daylight hours (30 minutes before sunrise through 30 minutes after sunset); Limit of 2 consecutive hours on 

watch followed by a break of at least 1 hour; Maximum 

of 12 hours on watch per 24-hour period.

Minimum of 2 NMFS-approved PSOs on duty during daylight hours (30 minutes before sunrise through 30 minutes after sunset); Limit of 2 consecutive hours on 

watch followed by a break of at least 1 hour; Maximum 

of 12 hours on watch per 24-hour period. 

Passive acoustic monitoring.Not Required ....................................................................... Not required. 

Exclusion zones ............ • 500 m (all marine mammals) ..........................................

• 1,500 m (Bowhead whales) ............................................

• 100 m (all marine mammals). 

• 500 m (Bowhead whales). 

Pre-start clearance ....... Required; 30-minute clearance period of the following 

zones: 

• 1,000 m (all marine mammals) ................................

• 1,500 m (Bowhead whales) .....................................

Required; 30-minute clearance period of the following 

zones: 

• 200 m (all marine mammals). 

• 500 m (Bowhead whales). 

Following detection within zone, animal must be observed 

exiting or additional period of 15 or 30 minutes.

Following detection within zone, animal must be observed 

exiting or additional period of 15 or 30 minutes. 

Ramp-up ....................... Required; duration ≥20 minutes ......................................... Required; duration not more than 20 minutes. 

Shutdown ...................... Shutdown required for marine mammal detected within 

defined EZs; Re-start allowed following clearance period of 15 or 30 minutes.

Shutdown required for marine mammal detected within 

defined EZs; Re-start allowed following clearance period of 15 or 30 minutes. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

1. Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all 

protected species and slow down, stop 

their vessel, or alter course, as 

appropriate and regardless of vessel 

size, to avoid striking any protected 

species. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel must monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone around the vessel 

(distances stated below). Visual 

observers monitoring the vessel strike 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46194 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

avoidance zone may be third-party 

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

but crew members responsible for these 

duties must be provided sufficient 

training to (1) distinguish marine 

mammals from other phenomena, and 

(2) broadly identify a marine mammal as 

a bowhead whale, other whale (defined 

in this context as baleen whales other 

than bowhead whales), or other marine 

mammal. 

2. Vessel speeds must also be reduced 

to 10 knots or less when mother/calf 

pairs, pods, or large assemblages of 

cetaceans are observed near a vessel. 

3. All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 500 m 

from bowhead whales. If a whale is 

observed but cannot be confirmed as a 

species other than a bowhead whale, the 

vessel operator must assume that it is a 

bowhead whale and take appropriate 

action. 

4. All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from all other baleen whales. 

5. All vessels must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

understanding that at times this may not 

be possible (e.g., for animals that 

approach the vessel). 

6. When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

shall take action as necessary to avoid 

violating the relevant separation 

distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel 

to the animal’s course, avoid excessive 

speed or abrupt changes in direction 

until the animal has left the area). If 

protected species are sighted within the 

relevant separation distance, the vessel 

must reduce speed and shift the engine 

to neutral, not engaging the engines 

until animals are clear of the area. This 

does not apply to any vessel towing gear 

or any vessel that is navigationally 

constrained. 

7. These requirements do not apply in 

any case where compliance would 

create an imminent and serious threat to 

a person or vessel or to the extent that 

a vessel is restricted in its ability to 

maneuver and, because of the 

restriction, cannot comply. 

We did not identify any mitigation 

specifically appropriate for habitat. 

Marine mammal habitat may be 

impacted by elevated sound levels, but 

these impacts would be temporary. Prey 

species are mobile and are broadly 

distributed throughout the project area; 

therefore, marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. The specified 

activity is of relatively short duration 

(30 days) and the disturbance will be 

temporary in nature, similar habitat and 

resources are available in the 

surrounding area, the impacts to marine 

mammals and the food sources that they 

utilize are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. No Biologically Important 

Areas (BIAs), designated critical habitat, 

or other habitat of known significance 

would be impacted by the planned 

activities. 

We have carefully evaluated the suite 

of mitigation measures described here 

and considered a range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

we prescribe the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Based on our 

evaluation of the measures, as well as 

other measures considered by NMFS 

described above, NMFS has determined 

that the mitigation measures provide the 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of such species or stock 

for subsistence uses (see Unmitigable 

Adverse Impact Analysis and 

Determination). 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

would take place during daytime airgun 

operations. During seismic operations, 

at least five visual PSOs would be based 

aboard the R/V Sikuliaq. Two visual 

PSOs would be on duty at all time 

during daytime hours. Monitoring shall 

be conducted in accordance with the 

following requirements: 

• The operator will work with the 

selected third-party observer provider to 

ensure PSOs have all equipment 

(including backup equipment) needed 

to adequately perform necessary tasks, 

including accurate determination of 

distance and bearing to observed marine 

mammals. 

PSOs must have the following 

requirements and qualifications: 

• PSOs shall be independent, 

dedicated, trained visual and acoustic 

PSOs and must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider; 

• PSOs shall have no tasks other than 

to conduct observational effort, collect 

data, and communicate with and 

instruct relevant vessel crew with regard 

to the presence of protected species and 

mitigation requirements (including brief 

alerts regarding maritime hazards); 

• PSOs shall have successfully 

completed an approved PSO training 

course; 

• NMFS must review and approve 

PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant 

training course information packet that 

includes the name and qualifications 

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

educational background) of the 

instructor(s), the course outline or 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46195 

syllabus, and course reference material 

as well as a document stating successful 

completion of the course; 

• NMFS shall have one week to 

approve PSOs from the time that the 

necessary information is submitted, 

after which PSOs meeting the minimum 

requirements shall automatically be 

considered approved; 

• PSOs must successfully complete 

relevant training, including completion 

of all required coursework and passing 

(80 percent or greater) a written and/or 

oral examination developed for the 

training program; 

• PSOs must have successfully 

attained a bachelor’s degree from an 

accredited college or university with a 

major in one of the natural sciences, a 

minimum of 30 semester hours or 

equivalent in the biological sciences, 

and at least one undergraduate course in 

math or statistics; and 

• The educational requirements may 

be waived if the PSO has acquired the 

relevant skills through alternate 

experience. Requests for such a waiver 

shall be submitted to NMFS and must 

include written justification. Requests 

shall be granted or denied (with 

justification) by NMFS within one week 

of receipt of submitted information. 

Alternate experience that may be 

considered includes, but is not limited 

to (1) secondary education and/or 

experience comparable to PSO duties; 

(2) previous work experience 

conducting academic, commercial, or 

government-sponsored protected 

species surveys; or (3) previous work 

experience as a PSO; the PSO should 

demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. Traditional ecological 

knowledge is also a relevant 

consideration. 

For data collection purposes, PSOs 

shall use standardized data collection 

forms, whether hard copy or electronic. 

PSOs shall record detailed information 

about any implementation of mitigation 

requirements, including the distance of 

animals to the acoustic source and 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), 

any observed changes in behavior before 

and after implementation of mitigation, 

and if shutdown was implemented, the 

length of time before any subsequent 

ramp-up of the acoustic source. If 

required mitigation was not 

implemented, PSOs should record a 

description of the circumstances. At a 

minimum, the following information 

must be recorded: 

• Vessel names (source vessel and 

other vessels associated with survey) 

and call signs; 

• PSO names and affiliations; 

• Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name; 

• Date and participants of PSO 

briefings; 

• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort; 

• Vessel location (latitude/longitude) 

when survey effort began and ended and 

vessel location at beginning and end of 

visual PSO duty shifts; 

• Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change; 

• Environmental conditions while on 

visual survey (at beginning and end of 

PSO shift and whenever conditions 

changed significantly), including BSS 

and any other relevant weather 

conditions including cloud cover, fog, 

sun glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon; 

• Factors that may have contributed 

to impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions changed (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); 

and 

• Survey activity information, such as 

acoustic source power output while in 

operation, number and volume of 

airguns operating in the array, tow 

depth of the array, and any other notes 

of significance (i.e., pre-clearance, rampup, shutdown, testing, shooting, rampup completion, end of operations, 

streamers, etc.). 

The following information should be 

recorded upon visual observation of any 

protected species: 

• Watch status (sighting made by PSO 

on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

• PSO who sighted the animal; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Vessel location at time of sighting; 

• Water depth; 

• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); 

• Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

• Pace of the animal; 

• Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting; 

• Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified) and 

the composition of the group if there is 

a mix of species; 

• Estimated number of animals (high/ 

low/best); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

• Description (as many distinguishing 

features as possible of each individual 

seen, including length, shape, color, 

pattern, scars or markings, shape and 

size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and 

blow characteristics); 

• Detailed behavior observations (e.g., 

number of blows/breaths, number of 

surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, 

feeding, traveling; as explicit and 

detailed as possible; note any observed 

changes in behavior); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

(CPA) and/or closest distance from any 

element of the acoustic source; 

• Platform activity at time of sighting 

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

shooting, data acquisition, other); and 

• Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

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

time and location of the action. 

Reporting 

A report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report will provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The 90-day report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all marine 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). 

The draft report shall also include 

geo-referenced time-stamped vessel 

tracklines for all time periods during 

which airguns were operating. 

Tracklines should include points 

recording any change in airgun status 

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

when they were turned off, or when 

they changed from full array to single 

gun or vice versa). GIS files shall be 

provided in ESRI shapefile format and 

include the UTC date and time, latitude 

in decimal degrees, and longitude in 

decimal degrees. All coordinates shall 

be referenced to the WGS84 geographic 

coordinate system. In addition to the 

report, all raw observational data shall 

be made available to NMFS. The report 

must summarize the data collected as 

described above and in the IHA. A final 

report must be submitted within 30 days 

following resolution of any comments 

on the draft report. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

Discovery of injured or dead marine 

mammals—In the event that personnel 

involved in survey activities covered by 

the authorization discover an injured or 

dead marine mammal, the UAGI shall 

report the incident to the Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS, and 

the NMFS Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator as soon as feasible. The 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46196 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Vessel strike—In the event of a ship 

strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 

involved in the activities covered by the 

authorization, UAGI shall report the 

incident to OPR, NMFS and to the 

NMFS Alaska Regional Stranding 

Coordinator as soon as feasible. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

• Status of all sound sources in use; 

• Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measure were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Estimated size and length of the 

animal that was struck; 

• Description of the behavior of the 

animal immediately preceding and 

following the strike; 

• If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals present immediately 

preceding the strike; 

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

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

• To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all species listed in Table 1, 

given that NMFS expects the anticipated 

effects of the planned geophysical 

survey to be similar in nature. Where 

there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks, or groups of 

species, in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impact of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified 

species-specific factors to inform the 

analysis. 

NMFS does not anticipate that injury, 

serious injury or mortality will occur as 

a result of UAGI’s planned survey, even 

in the absence of mitigation, and none 

will be authorized. Similarly, nonauditory physical effects, stranding, and 

vessel strike are not expected to occur. 

Although a few incidents of Level A 

harassment were predicted through the 

quantitative exposure estimation 

process (see Estimated Take), NMFS has 

determined that this is not a realistic 

result due to the small estimated Level 

A harassment zones for the species (no 

greater than approximately 50 m) and 

the mitigation requirements, and no 

Level A harassment is authorized. These 

estimated zones are larger than what 

would realistically occur, as discussed 

in the Estimated Take section. Although 

no Level A harassment would be 

expected to occur even absent 

mitigation, the extended distance 

exclusion zones for bowhead whales 

further strengthen this conclusion. 

We expect that takes would be in the 

form of short-term Level B behavioral 

harassment in the form of temporary 

avoidance of the area or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were 

occurring), reactions that are considered 

to be of low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). The 

number of takes for bowhead whales is 

0.02 percent of the population. 

Marine mammal habitat may be 

impacted by elevated sound levels, but 

these impacts would be temporary. Prey 

species are mobile and are broadly 

distributed throughout the project area; 

therefore, marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

relatively short duration (30 days) and 

temporary nature of the disturbance, the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

No BIAs, designated critical habitat, or 

other habitat of known significance 

would be impacted by the planned 

activities. 

Negligible Impact Conclusions 

The survey would be of short duration 

(30 days of seismic operations), and the 

acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the survey would 

be small relative to the ranges of the 

marine mammals that would potentially 

be affected. Sound levels would 

increase in the marine environment in 

a relatively small area surrounding the 

vessel compared to the range of the 

marine mammals within the survey 

area. Short term exposures to survey 

operations are expected to only 

temporarily affect marine mammal 

behavior in the form of avoidance, and 

the potential for longer-term avoidance 

of important areas is limited. Short term 

exposures to survey operations are not 

likely to impact marine mammal 

behavior, and the potential for longerterm avoidance of important areas is 

limited. 

The mitigation measures are expected 

to reduce the number and/or severity of 

takes by allowing for detection of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

vessel by visual observers, and by 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46197 

minimizing the severity of any potential 

exposures via shutdowns of the airgun 

array. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to UAGI’s survey would result in only 

short-term (temporary and short in 

duration) effects to individuals exposed, 

over relatively small areas of the 

affected animals’ ranges. Animals may 

temporarily avoid the immediate area, 

but are not expected to permanently 

abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat 

use, distribution, or foraging success are 

not expected. NMFS does not anticipate 

the authorized take estimates to impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No Level A harassment, serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The activity is temporary and of 

relatively short duration (30 days); 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

activity on marine mammals would 

primarily be temporary behavioral 

changes in the form of avoidance of the 

area around the survey vessel; 

• Location of the survey is further 

north in the Arctic Ocean and away 

from areas where most of the species 

listed in Table 1 have been observed 

and is north of summer feeding areas 

and migratory routes. 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the survey to avoid 

exposure to sounds from the activity; 

• The potential adverse effects on fish 

or invertebrate species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

survey would be temporary and 

spatially limited, and impacts to marine 

mammal foraging would be minimal; 

and 

• The mitigation measures, including 

visual monitoring, shutdowns, ramp-up, 

and prescribed measures based on 

energy size are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

(both amount and severity). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the activity will have 

a negligible impact on all affected 

marine mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

the take is limited to small numbers of 

marine mammals. When the predicted 

number of individuals to be taken is 

fewer than one third of the species or 

stock abundance, the take is considered 

to be of small numbers (see 86 FR 5322, 

January 19, 2021). Additionally, other 

qualitative factors may be considered in 

the analysis, such as the temporal or 

spatial scale of the activities. 

There are several stocks for which 

there is no currently accepted stock 

abundance estimate. These include the 

fin whale Northeast Pacific stock, the 

minke whale Alaska stock, the narwhal 

Unidentified stock, the bearded seal 

Beringia stock, and the ringed seal 

Arctic stock. In those cases, qualitative 

factors are used to inform an assessment 

of whether the likely number of 

individual marine mammals taken is 

appropriately considered small. We 

discuss these in further detail below. 

For all other stocks (aside from those 

without accepted abundance estimates), 

the authorized take is less than 7 

percent of the best available stock 

abundance, well less than the one-third 

threshold for exceeding small numbers 

(and some of those takes may be repeats 

of the same individual, thus rendering 

the actual percentage even lower). We 

also acknowledge that, given the 

location of the planned survey activity 

high in the Arctic Ocean, the stock 

ranges referenced in the SARs do not 

always fully overlap the area of the 

planned survey activity. However, given 

the very small percentage of the best 

available stock abundance estimates for 

these species and the likelihood that the 

numbers of take authorized would be 

very small relative to any reasonable 

population abundance estimate, we 

conclude these numbers are small. 

The stock abundance estimates for fin 

whale, minke whale, narwhal, bearded 

seal and ringed seal stocks that occur in 

the surveys area are unknown, 

according to the latest 2020 SARs (Muto 

et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021). 

Therefore, we reviewed other scientific 

information in making our small 

numbers determinations for these 

animals. The abundance estimate of 

20,000 minke whales was taken from 

the Northwest Pacific and Okhotsk Sea 

(IWC 2021). In addition, as noted 

previously, partial abundance estimates 

of 1,233 and 2,020 minke whales are 

available for shelf and nearshore waters 

between the Kenai Peninsula and 

Amchitka Pass and for the eastern 

Bering Sea shelf, respectively. For the 

minke whale, these partial abundance 

estimates alone are sufficient to 

demonstrate that the authorized take 

number of 2 is of small numbers. The 

same surveys produced partial 

abundance estimates of 1,652 and 1,061 

fin whales, for the same areas, 

respectively, which are similarly 

sufficient to demonstrate that the 

authorized take number of 2 is small 

numbers. The bearded seal estimate of 

125,000 was estimated for the U.S. 

portion of the Bering Sea (Boveng et al., 

2017) and 155,000 bearded seals for the 

entire Alaska stock (Cameron et al., 

2010). These partial abundance 

estimates near the survey are sufficient 

to demonstrate that the authorized take 

number of 916 seals is small numbers. 

Similarly, the ringed seal abundance 

estimate of 171,418 ringed seals was 

based on a limited sub-sample from the 

Bering Sea (Conn et al., 2014 in Muto 

et al., 2020). This minimal abundance 

estimate for the Alaska region is enough 

to demonstrate that a take of 10,373 will 

be small numbers at 6.05 percent of the 

Bering Sea population. There is no 

abundance information available for 

narwhals. However, the take number is 

sufficiently small (2) that we assume 

that it is small relative to any reasonable 

assumption of likely population 

abundance for the narwhal. 

Additionally, the survey area 

encompasses a very small portion of the 

hypothesized range of the species. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must 

find that the specified activity will not 

have an ‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ 

on the subsistence uses of the affected 

marine mammal species or stocks by 

Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined 

‘‘unmitigable adverse impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity: (1) That is likely to 

reduce the availability of the species to 

a level insufficient for a harvest to meet 

subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
46198 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 

marine mammals to abandon or avoid 

hunting areas; (ii) Directly displacing 

subsistence users; or (iii) Placing 

physical barriers between the marine 

mammals and the subsistence hunters; 

and (2) That cannot be sufficiently 

mitigated by other measures to increase 

the availability of marine mammals to 

allow subsistence needs to be met. 

The coast and nearshore waters of 

Alaska are of cultural importance to 

indigenous peoples for fishing, hunting, 

gathering, and ceremonial purposes. 

Marine mammals are legally hunted in 

Alaskan waters by coastal Alaska 

Natives. There are seven communities 

in the North Slope Borough region of 

Alaska (northwestern and northern 

Alaska) that harvest seals, including 

from west to east Point Hope, Point Lay, 

Wainwright, Utqiag ̇vik, Atqusak, 

Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik (Ice Seal 

Committee 2019). Bearded seals are the 

preferred species to harvest as food and 

for skin boat coverings, but ringed seals 

are also commonly taken for food and 

their blubber (Ice Seal Committee 2019). 

Ringed seals are typically harvested 

during the summer and can extend up 

to 64 km from shore (Stephen R. Braund 

& Associates 2010). No ribbon seals 

have been harvested in any of the North 

Slope Borough communities since the 

1960s (Ice Seal Committee 2019). 

However, the number of seals harvested 

each year varies considerably. 

A subsistence harvest of bowheads 

and belugas is also practiced by Alaskan 

Natives, providing nutritional and 

cultural needs. In 2019, 36 bowhead 

whales were taken during the Alaskan 

subsistence hunt (Suydam et al., 2020). 

Whaling near Utqiag ̇vik occurs during 

spring (April and May) and autumn, and 

can continue into November, depending 

on the quota and conditions. 

Communities that harvested bowheads 

during 2019 include Utqiag ̇vik, Gamgell, 

Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point 

Lay, and Wainwright. Bowhead whales 

and gray whales are also taken in the 

aboriginal subsistence hunt in the 

Russian Federation (Zharikov et al., 

2020). During 2019, 135 gray whales 

and one bowhead whale were harvested 

at Chukotka. 

Beluga whales from the eastern 

Chukchi Sea stock are an important 

subsistence resource for residents of the 

village of Point Lay, adjacent to 

Kasegaluk Lagoon, and other villages in 

northwest Alaska. Each year, hunters 

from Point Lay drive belugas into the 

lagoon to a traditional hunting location. 

The beluga whales have been 

predictably sighted near the lagoon from 

late June through mid to late July 

(Suydam et al., 2001). The mean annual 

number of Beaufort Sea belugas landed 

by Alaska Native subsistence hunters in 

2011–2015 was 47, and an average of 92 

were taken in Canadian waters; the 

mean annual number of Eastern 

Chukchi Sea belugas landed by Alaska 

Native subsistence hunters in 2011– 

2015 was 67 (Muto et al., 2020). 

The survey by UAGI will occur within 

∼73.5–81.0° N, ∼139.5–168° W and over 

300 km from the Alaska coastline. Due 

to the location of the survey being far 

north in the Arctic and over 200 

kilometers from any hunting area or 

buffer (http://www.north-slope.org/ 

assets/images/uploads/bowhead%20

migration%20map%2021mar

03%20distribution.pdf), no impacts on 

the availability of marine mammals for 

subsistence uses are expected to occur. 

Specifically, based on the survey 

methods and location planned, there is 

no reason to believe that there will be 

any behavioral disturbance of bowhead 

whales that would also impact their 

behavior in a manner that would 

interfere with subsistence use later. 

Although fishing/hunting would not be 

precluded in the survey area, a safe 

distance would need to be kept from R/ 

V Sikuliaq and the towed seismic 

equipment. The principal investigator 

for the survey presented the action to 

the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 

(AEWC) at the July 2020, October 2020, 

and February 2021 Triannual Meetings. 

As specifically noted, during the 

meetings, daily email communications 

with interested community members 

would be made from the vessel. 

Communication may include notice of 

any unusual marine mammal 

observations during the survey. Any 

potential space use conflicts would be 

further avoided through direct 

communication with subsistence 

fishers/hunters during the surveys. 

Considering the limited time that the 

planned seismic surveys would take 

place and the far offshore location of the 

surveys, no direct interaction with 

subsistence fishers/hunters would be 

anticipated. However, UAGI will still be 

required to remain in constant 

communication with subsistence 

fishers/hunters during the surveys. 

Based on the description of the 

specified activity, the measures 

described to minimize adverse effects 

on the availability of marine mammals 

for subsistence purposes, and the 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS has determined that there will 

not be an unmitigable adverse impact on 

subsistence uses from UAGI’s activities. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

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

the regulations published by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), NSF prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) to 

consider the direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects to the human 

environment resulting from this marine 

geophysical survey in the Arctic. NSF’s 

EA was made available to the public for 

review and comment in relation to its 

suitability for adoption by NMFS in 

order to assess the impacts to the human 

environment of issuance of an IHA to 

UAGI. In compliance with NEPA and 

CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–2, NMFS has 

reviewed the NSF’s EA, determined it to 

be sufficient, and adopted that EA and 

signed a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI). NSF’s EA is available 

at www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/, and 

NMFS’ FONSI is available at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

incidental-take-authorization-lamontdoherty-earth-observatory-marinegeophysical-survey-2. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species. 

The NMFS OPR ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division issued a Biological 

Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on 

the issuance of an IHA to UAGI under 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the 

NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation 

Division and NSF’s funding of the 

survey. The Biological Opinion 

concluded that the action is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

ESA-listed bowhead whales, fin whales, 

the Western North Pacific population of 

gray whales, the Mexico DPS and 

Western North Pacific DPS of humpback 

whales, bearded seals and ribbon seals, 

and is not likely to destroy or adversely 

modify the proposed critical habitat for 

bearded seals and ringed seals. There is 

no designated critical habitat in the 

action area for the other ESA-listed 

species. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to UAGI for 

conducting marine geophysical surveys 

in the Arctic in August and September, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / Notices 46199 

2021, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: August 11, 2021. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17683 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Reopening of Solicitation of 

Nominations for the Marine Debris 

Foundation Board of Directors 

AGENCY: National Ocean Service (NOS), 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Reopening of solicitation of 

nominations. 

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration published 

a notice in the Federal Register on May 

19, 2021 seeking nominations of 

qualified candidates to be considered 

for appointment as a member of the 

Marine Debris Foundation Board of 

Directors (Board). This solicitation of 

nominations of qualified persons to the 

Board is hereby reopened. 

DATES: Nominations to the Board of 

Directors for the Marine Debris 

Foundation must be received in entirety 

no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 

27, 2021. Nomination packages received 

after this time will not be considered. 

ADDRESSES: All nominations should be 

emailed (recommended) to 

marinedebris.foundation@noaa.gov 

with the subject line ‘‘Marine Debris 

Foundation Nomination,’’ or mailed to 

Caitlin Wessel, Marine Debris 

Foundation Nomination, c/o NOAA 

Disaster Response Center, 7344 Ziegler 

Blvd., Mobile, AL 36608. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caitlin Wessel, Ph.D., Phone 251–222– 

0276; Email caitlin.wessel@noaa.gov or 

visit the NOAA Marine Debris Program 

website at https://

marinedebris.noaa.gov/who-we-are/ 

marine-debris-foundation. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Refer to 

the Federal Register Notice of May 19, 

2021 (86 FR 27070) and the NOAA 

Marine Debris Program website at 

https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/who-weare/marine-debris-foundation for the 

items that are required parts of the 

nomination package and additional 

information. 

(Authority: Pub. L. 116–224, 112, Dec. 18, 

2020, 134 Stat. 1072) 

Scott Lundgren, 

Director, Office of Response and Restoration, 

National Ocean Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–17738 Filed 8–17–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB163] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to the Palmer 

Station Pier Replacement Project, 

Antarctica 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments on proposed authorization 

and possible renewal. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from the National Science Foundation 

(NSF) for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to the Palmer 

Station Pier Replacement Project in 

Anvers Island, Antarctica. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS is 

also requesting comments on a possible 

one-time, one-year renewal that could 

be issued under certain circumstances 

and if all requirements are met, as 

described in Request for Public 

Comments at the end of this notice. 

NMFS will consider public comments 

prior to making any final decision on 

the issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorizations and agency responses 

will be summarized in the final notice 

of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than September 17, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Written 

comments should be submitted via 

email to ITP.Pauline@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Pauline, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act. In case 

of problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) 

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

direct the Secretary of Commerce (as 

delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon 

request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES