40186 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 

have not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude this 

categorical exclusion. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally 

whenever we propose to authorize take 

for endangered or threatened species, in 

this case with the Alaska Regional 

Office (AKRO). 

NMFS is authorizing take of Mexico 

DPS humpback whales which are listed 

under the ESA. The Permit and 

Conservation Division completed a 

Section 7 consultation with the AKRO 

for the issuance of this IHA and a 

biological opinion was issued on July 

23, 2021. The AKRO’s biological 

opinion states that the action is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of Mexico DPS humpback 

whales. The July 23, 2021 biological 

opinion is still in effect. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

AKDOT&PF for in-water construction 

activities associated with the specified 

activity from July 1, 2022 through June 

30, 2023. All previously described 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements from the initial 2021 IHA 

are incorporated. 

Dated: June 28, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14191 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB760] 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Geophysical 

Surveys in the Southeastern Gulf of 

Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an IHA to Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography (Scripps) to 

incidentally harass marine mammals 

during marine geophysical surveys in 

the southeastern Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: This authorization is effective 

from June 29, 2022 through June 28, 

2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Fowler, 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 

proposed or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

incidental harassment authorization is 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable adverse impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of the species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of the takings are set forth. 

The definitions of all applicable 

MMPA statutory terms cited above are 

included in the relevant sections below. 

Summary of Request 

On March 17, 2020, NMFS received a 

request from Scripps for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to lowenergy geophysical surveys in the 

southeastern Gulf of Mexico, initially 

planned to occur in summer 2020. The 

application was deemed adequate and 

complete on May 26, 2020. On June 9, 

2020, Scripps notified NMFS that the 

proposed survey had been postponed 

and tentatively rescheduled for summer 

2021. On April 8, 2021, Scripps notified 

NMFS that the survey had been further 

postponed and is now expected to occur 

in July-August 2022. NMFS reviewed 

recent draft Stock Assessment Reports 

(SARs) and other scientific literature, 

and determined that neither this nor any 

other new information affects which 

species or stocks have the potential to 

be affected, the potential effects to 

marine mammals and their habitat as 

described in the IHA application, or any 

other aspect of the analysis. Therefore, 

NMFS determined that Scripps’ IHA 

application remained adequate and 

complete. Scripps’ request is for take of 

20 species of marine mammals by Level 

B harassment only. Neither Scripps nor 

NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Activity 

Overview 

Scripps plans to support a research 

project that involves low-energy seismic 

surveys in the Gulf of Mexico during 

summer 2022. The study will be 

conducted on the R/V Justo Sierra, 

owned by Universidad Nacional 

Auto ́noma de Me ́xico (UNAM), using a 

portable multi-channel seismic (MCS) 

system operated by marine technicians 

from Scripps. The survey will use a pair 

of low-energy Generator-Injector (GI) 

airguns with a total discharge volume of 

90 cubic inches (in3). The surveys will 

take place within the Exclusive 

Economic Zones (EEZs) of Mexico and 

Cuba in the southeastern Gulf of 

Mexico. 

Dates and Duration 

The specific dates of the survey have 

not been determined but the cruise is 

expected to occur in July to August 

2022. The research cruise is expected to 

consist of 15 days at sea, including ∼12 

days of seismic operations (10 planned 

days and 2 contingency days) and ∼3 

days of transit. R/V Justo Sierra will 

depart from Tampamochaco, Mexico 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 40187 

and return to Progreso, Mexico after the 

program is completed. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The planned surveys take place in the 

Gulf of Mexico between ∼22°–25° N and 

83.8°–88° W (see Figure 1). Seismic 

acquisition will occur in two primary 

survey areas. The Yucata ́n Channel 

survey area is located in the deep-water 

channel between the Campeche and 

Florida escarpments, within the EEZ of 

Cuba in water depths ranging from 

∼1,500 to 3,600 meters (m; 4,921 to 

11,811 feet (ft)). The Campeche Bank 

survey area is located in the 

northeastern flank of the Campeche 

escarpment, within the EEZs of Cuba 

and Mexico in waters ranging in depth 

from ∼110 to 3,000 m (361 to 9,843 ft). 

A detailed description of the planned 

geophysical survey project is provided 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (86 FR 71427; December 

16, 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). 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of proposed IHA was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 16, 2021 (86 FR 71427). That 

notice described, in detail, Scripps’ 

activity, the marine mammal species 

that may be affected by the activity, and 

the anticipated effects on marine 

mammals. During the 30-day public 

comment period, NMFS did not receive 

any public comments. 

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’s 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’s 

website (https://

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

Table 1 lists all species or stocks for 

which take is expected and has been 

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 (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’s stock 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN06JY22.007</GPH>
40188 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises 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. Other species may use survey 

abundance estimates. 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 planned 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 may be part of those stocks. 

All managed stocks in this region are 

assessed in NMFS’s U.S. Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico SARs (e.g., Hayes 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 (Hayes et al., 2021) and draft 

2021 SARs (available online at: https:// 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

For the majority of species potentially 

present in the specified geographical 

region, NMFS has designated only a 

single generic stock (i.e., ‘‘Gulf of 

Mexico’’) for management purposes, 

although there is currently no 

information to differentiate the stock 

from the Atlantic Ocean stock of the 

same species, nor information on 

whether more than one stock may exist 

in the GOM (Hayes et al., 2017). 

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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual M/ 

SI 3

Gulf of 

Mexico 

population 

abundance 

(Roberts et 

al., 2016) 4

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

Sperm whale ............. Physeter macrocephalus Gulf of Mexico ........ E/D; Y 1,180 (0.22, 983, 2018) .. 2 ..................... 9.6 2,207 

Family Kogiidae: 

Pygmy sperm whale 6 Kogia breviceps .............. Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 336 (0.35, 253, 2018) ..... 2.5 .................. 31 4,373 

Dwarf sperm whale 6 Kogia sima.

Family Ziphiidae (beaked 

whales): 

Cuvier’s beaked 

whale 6.

Ziphius cavirstris ............. Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 18 (0.75, 10, 2018) ......... 0.1 .................. 5.2 3,768 

Blainville’s beaked 

whale 6.

Mesoplodon densirostris Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 98 (0.46, 68, 2018) ......... 0.7 .................. 5.2 

Gervais’ beaked 

whale 6.

Mesoplodon europaeus .. Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 20 (0.98, 10, 2018) ......... 0.1 .................. 5.2 

Family Delphinidae: 

Rough-toothed dolphin.Steno bredanensis .......... Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N unknown (n/a, unknown, 

2018).

undetermined 39 4,853 

Bottlenose dolphin ..... Tursiops truncatus .......... Gulf of Mexico Oceanic.-/-; N 7,462 (0.31, 5,769, 2018) 58 ................... 32 6 176,108 

Pantropical spotted 

dolphin.

Stenella attenuata ........... Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 37,195 (0.24, 30,377, 

2018).

304 ................. 241 102,361 

Atlantic spotted dolphin.Stenella frontalis ............. Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 21,506 (0.26, 17,339, 

2018).

166 ................. 36 74,785 

Spinner dolphin ......... Stenella longirostris ......... Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; Y 2,991 (0.54, 1,954, 2018) 20 ................... 113 25,114 

Clymene dolphin ........ Stenella clymene ............. Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; Y 513 (1.03, 250, 2018) ..... 2.5 .................. 8.4 11,895 

Striped dolphin .......... Stenella coeruleoalba ..... Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; Y 1,817 (0.56, 1,172, 2018) 12 ................... 13 5,229 

Fraser’s dolphin ......... Lagenodelphis hosei ....... Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 213 (1.03, 104, 2018) ..... 1 ..................... Unknown 1,665 

Risso’s dolphin .......... Grampus griseus ............. Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 1,974 (0.46, 1,368, 2018) 14 ................... 5.3 3,764 

Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra ... Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 1,749 (0.68, 1,039, 2018) 10 ................... 9.5 7,003 

Pygmy killer whale .... Feresa attenuata ............. Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 613 (1.15, 283, 2018) ..... 2.8 .................. 1.6 2,126 

False killer whale ....... Pseudorca crassidens ..... Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 494 (0.79, 276, 2018) ..... 2.8 .................. Unknown 3,204 

Killer whale ................ Orcinus orca .................... Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 267 (0.75, 152, 2018) ..... 1.5 .................. Unknown 185 

Short-finned pilot 

whale.

Globicephalus 

macrorhynchus.

Gulf of Mexico ........ -/-; N 1,321 (0.43, 934, 2018) .. 7.5 .................. 3.9 1,981 

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: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. 3These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual mortality/serious injury (M/SI) often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4This information represents species- or guild-specific best abundance estimate predicted by habitat-based cetacean density models (Roberts et al., 2016). These 

models provide the best available scientific information regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and we provide the corresponding abundance predictions as a point of reference. Total abundance estimates were produced by computing the mean density of all pixels in the modeled 

area and multiplying by its area. For those taxa where a density surface model predicting abundance by month was produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual abundance is available. For more information, see https://

seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/GOM/. 5Abundance estimates are in some cases reported for a guild or group of species when those species are difficult to differentiate at sea. Similarly, the habitatbased cetacean density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016) are based in part on available observational data which, in some cases, is limited to genus or guild 

in terms of taxonomic definition. NMFS’s SARs present pooled abundance estimates for Kogia spp. and Mesoplodon spp., while Roberts et al. (2016) produced density models to genus level for Kogia spp. and as a guild for beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon spp.). Finally, Roberts et al. (2016) produced a density model for bottlenose dolphins that does not differentiate between oceanic, shelf, and coastal stocks. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 40189 

In Table 1 above, we report two sets 

of abundance estimates: those from 

NMFS SARs and those predicted by 

Roberts et al. (2016). Please see the table 

footnotes for more detail. As discussed 

in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 

71427; December 16, 2021), we expect 

that the Roberts et al. (2016) estimates 

are generally more realistic and, for 

these purposes, represent the best 

available information. For purposes of 

assessing estimated exposures relative 

to abundance—used in this case to 

understand the scale of the predicted 

takes compared to the population—we 

generally believe that the Roberts et al. 

(2016) abundance predictions are most 

appropriate because they were used to 

generate the exposure estimates and 

therefore provide the most relevant 

comparison (see Estimated Take). 

Roberts et al. (2016) represents the best 

available scientific information 

regarding marine mammal occurrence 

and distribution in the Gulf of Mexico. 

As the planned survey lines are 

outside of the U.S. EEZ, they do not 

directly overlap with the defined stock 

ranges within the Gulf of Mexico (Hayes 

et al., 2021). However, some of the 

survey lines occur near the U.S. EEZ, 

and the distribution and abundance of 

species in U.S. EEZ waters are assumed 

representative of those in the survey 

area. As indicated above, all 20 species 

(with 20 representative stocks in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico) in Table 1 

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 planned survey 

areas are included in Table 2 of the IHA 

application. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by the geophysical 

surveys, 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 Scripps’ IHA 

application and summarized in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (86 FR 71427; December 16, 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 and the IHA 

application for these descriptions. 

Please also refer to NMFS’ website 

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

mammals/) for generalized species 

accounts. 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibel 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine 

mammal hearing groups and their 

associated hearing ranges are provided 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS

[NMFS, 2018] 

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

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

australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2018) for a review of 

available information. Twenty species of 

cetacean have the reasonable potential 

to co-occur with the planned survey 

activities. No pinnipeds are expected to 

be present or taken. Of the cetacean 

species that may be present, 18 are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species 

and the sperm whale) and two are 

classified as high-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., Kogia spp.). No low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., baleen whales) are 

expected to be present or taken. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

Scripps’ geophysical survey activities 

have the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the survey area. The notice 

of proposed IHA (86 FR 71427; 

December 16, 2021) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and the potential effects of 

underwater noise from Scripps’ 

geophysical survey activities on marine 

mammals and their habitat. That 

information and analysis is incorporated 

by reference into this final IHA 

determination and is not repeated here; 

please refer to the notice of proposed 

IHA (86 FR 71427; December 16, 2021). 

The referenced information includes a 

summary and discussion of the ways 

that the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. 

Consistent with the analysis in our prior 

Federal Register notices for similar 

Scripps surveys and after independently 

evaluating the analysis in Scripps’ 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
40190 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 

application, we determine that the 

survey is likely to result in the takes 

described in the Estimated Take section 

of this document and that other forms 

of take are not expected to occur. 

The Estimated Take section later in 

this document 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 

content of this section, 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. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which 

informs both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes are by Level B 

harassment only, as use of the acoustic 

sources (i.e., seismic airgun) has the 

potential to result in disruption of 

behavioral patterns for individual 

marine mammals. Based on the nature 

of the activity and the anticipated 

effectiveness of the mitigation measures 

(i.e., marine mammal exclusion zones) 

discussed in detail below in 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) 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 estimated and authorized 

take. 

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 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), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on 

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 dB re 1 

microPascal (mPa) root mean square 

(rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. 

Scripps’ activity includes the use of 

impulsive seismic sources, and 

therefore the 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) is 

applicable. 

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). Scripps’ activity includes 

the use of impulsive seismic sources. 

These thresholds are provided in the 

table below. The references, analysis, 

and methodology used in the 

development of the thresholds are 

described in NMFS 2018 Technical 

Guidance, which may be accessed at 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (PTS) 

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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 40191 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds, which include source levels 

and transmission loss coefficient. 

The survey entails the use of a 2- 

airgun array with a total discharge of 90 

in3 at a tow depth of 2–4 m. LamontDoherty Earth Observatory (L–DEO) 

model results are used to determine the 

160 dBrms radius for the 2-airgun array 

in deep water (> 1,000 m) down to a 

maximum water depth of 2,000 m. 

Received sound levels were predicted 

by L–DEO’s model (Diebold et al., 2010) 

as a function of distance from the 

airguns, for the two 45 in3 airguns. This 

modeling approach uses ray tracing for 

the direct wave traveling from the array 

to the receiver and its associated source 

ghost (reflection at the air-water 

interface in the vicinity of the array), in 

a constant-velocity half-space (infinite 

homogenous ocean layer, unbounded by 

a seafloor). In addition, propagation 

measurements of pulses from a 36- 

airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have 

been reported in deep water (∼1,600 m), 

intermediate water depth on the slope 

(∼600–1,100 m), and shallow water (∼50 

m) in the Gulf of Mexico in 2007–2008 

(Tolstoy et al., 2009; Diebold et al., 

2010). 

For deep and intermediate water 

cases, the field measurements cannot be 

used readily to derive the Level A and 

Level B harassment isopleths, as at 

those sites the calibration hydrophone 

was located at a roughly constant depth 

of 350–550 m, which may not intersect 

all the sound pressure level (SPL) 

isopleths at their widest point from the 

sea surface down to the maximum 

relevant water depth (∼2,000 m) for 

marine mammals. At short ranges, 

where the direct arrivals dominate and 

the effects of seafloor interactions are 

minimal, the data at the deep sites are 

suitable for comparison with modeled 

levels at the depth of the calibration 

hydrophone. At longer ranges, the 

comparison with the model— 

constructed from the maximum SPL 

through the entire water column at 

varying distances from the airgun 

array—is the most relevant. 

In deep and intermediate water 

depths, comparisons at short ranges 

between sound levels for direct arrivals 

recorded by the calibration hydrophone 

and model results for the same array 

tow depth are in good agreement (see 

Figures 12 and 14 in Appendix H of 

NSF–USGS 2011). Consequently, 

isopleths falling within this domain can 

be predicted reliably by the L–DEO 

model, although they may be 

imperfectly sampled by measurements 

recorded at a single depth. At greater 

distances, the calibration data show that 

seafloor-reflected and sub-seafloorrefracted arrivals dominate, whereas the 

direct arrivals become weak and/or 

incoherent. Aside from local topography 

effects, the region around the critical 

distance is where the observed levels 

rise closest to the model curve. 

However, the observed sound levels are 

found to fall almost entirely below the 

model curve. Thus, analysis of the Gulf 

of Mexico calibration measurements 

demonstrates that although simple, the 

L–DEO model is a robust tool for 

conservatively estimating isopleths. 

The planned surveys will acquire data 

with two 45-in3 guns at a tow depth of 

2–4 m. For deep water (≤1000 m), we 

use the deep-water radii obtained from 

L–DEO model results down to a 

maximum water depth of 2,000 m for 

the airgun array with 2-m airgun 

separation. 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, 

such that observed levels at very near 

offsets fall below the corrected 

mitigation curve (see Figure 16 in 

Appendix H of NSF–USGS 2011). No 

survey effort is planned to occur in 

shallow water (<100 m). 

L–DEO’s modeling methodology is 

described in greater detail in SIO’s IHA 

application. The estimated distances to 

the Level B harassment isopleths for the 

planned airgun configuration in each 

water depth category are shown in Table 

4. 

TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V JUSTO SIERRA SEISMIC SOURCE TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO

LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Airgun configuration Water depth 

(m) 

Predicted 

distances (m) 

to 160 dB rms 

SPL received 

sound level 

Two 45 in3 guns, 2-m separation, 4-m tow depth ................................................................................................... >1,000 

100–1,000 

a 539 

b 809 

a Distance based on L–DEO model results. 

b Distance based on L–DEO model results with a 1.5 × correction factor between deep and intermediate water depths. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal hearing groups, 

were calculated based on modeling 

performed by L–DEO using the 

NUCLEUS software program and the 

NMFS User Spreadsheet. The updated 

acoustic thresholds for onset of hearing 

impacts from impulsive sounds (e.g., 

airguns) contained in the Technical 

Guidance were presented as dual metric 

acoustic thresholds using both 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) and peak sound pressure 

metrics (NMFS 2016a). 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
40192 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 

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 SELcum for the 2–GI airgun array 

is derived from calculating the modified 

far-field signature. The far-field 

signature is often used as a theoretical 

representation of the source level. To 

compute the far-field 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, it has been recognized that the 

source level from the theoretical farfield signature is never physically 

achieved at the source when the source 

is an array of multiple airguns separated 

in space (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 far-field signature. 

The pulses from the different airguns 

spread out in time such that the source 

levels observed or modeled are the 

result of the summation of pulses from 

a few airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy 

et al., 2009). At larger distances, away 

from the source array center, sound 

pressure of all the airguns in the array 

stack coherently, but not within one 

time sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels (a few dB) than the source level 

derived from the far-field signature. 

Because the far-field signature does not 

take into account the interactions of the 

two airguns that occur near the source 

center and is calculated as a point 

source (single airgun), the modified farfield signature is a more appropriate 

measure of the sound source level for 

large arrays. For this smaller array, the 

modified far-field changes will be 

correspondingly smaller as well, but we 

use this method for consistency across 

all array sizes. 

Scripps used the same acoustic 

modeling as for Level B harassment 

with a small grid step in both the inline 

and depth directions to estimate the 

SELcum and peak SPL. The propagation 

modeling takes into account all airgun 

interactions at short distances from the 

source including interactions between 

subarrays using the NUCLEUS software 

to estimate the notional signature and 

the MATLAB software to calculate the 

pressure signal at each mesh point of a 

grid. For a more complete explanation 

of this modeling approach, please see 

‘‘Appendix A: Determination of 

Mitigation Zones’’ in Scripps’ IHA 

application. 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data for the airgun array 

(modeled in 1 Hertz (Hz) bands) was 

used to make adjustments (dB) to the 

unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (mPa) in order to 

integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

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

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation and source 

velocities and shot intervals provided in 

Scripps’ IHA application, potential 

radial distances to auditory injury zones 

were calculated for PTS thresholds. 

Calculated Level A harassment zones for 

all cetacean hearing groups are 

presented in Table 5 below (no 

pinnipeds are expected to occur in the 

survey area). 

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

Functional hearing group 

Level A 

harassment zone 

(m) 

Low-frequency cetaceans 1 ........ 9.9 

Mid-frequency cetaceans ........... 1.0 

High-frequency cetaceans .......... 34.6 

1 Low-frequency cetaceans are not expected 

to be encountered or taken by Level A or 

Level B harassment during the survey. 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree, which 

will ultimately result in some degree of 

overestimate of the potential for take by 

Level A harassment. However, these 

tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as the planned 

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 any functional hearing group given 

the very small modeled zones of injury 

(all estimated zones less than 35 meters 

(m)), and we therefore expect the 

potential for Level A harassment 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. 

Additionally, the method of estimating 

take as described below (see Take 

Calculation and Estimation) yielded 

only two species/guilds with calculated 

takes by Level A harassment, and the 

highest calculated take of those two 

groups was only two takes by Level A 

harassment (Table 9). We do not believe 

that Level A harassment is a likely 

outcome for any hearing group and have 

not authorized take by Level A 

harassment for any species. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

For the planned survey area in the 

southeast Gulf of Mexico, Scripps 

determined that the best source of 

density data for marine mammal species 

that might be encountered in the project 

area was habitat-based density modeling 

conducted by Roberts et al. (2016). The 

Roberts et al. (2016) data provide 

abundance estimates for species or 

species guilds within 10 km x 10 km 

grid cells (100 square kilometer (km2)) 

within the U.S. EEZ in the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic Ocean on a 

monthly or annual basis, depending on 

the species and location. In the Gulf of 

Mexico, marine mammals do not 

migrate seasonally, so a single estimate 

for each grid cell is provided and 

represents the predicted abundance of 

that species in that 100 km2 location at 

any time of year. 

As the planned survey lines are 

outside of the U.S. EEZ, they do not 

directly overlap the available spatial 

density data. However, some of the 

survey lines occur near the U.S. EEZ, 

and the distribution and abundance of 

species in U.S. EEZ waters are assumed 

representative of those in the nearby 

survey area. To select a representative 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 40193 

sample of grid cells for the calculation 

of densities in three different water 

depth categories (≤100 m, 100–1,000 m, 

and >1,000 m), a 200-km perimeter 

around the survey lines was created in 

GIS. The areas within this perimeter 

within the three depth categories was 

then used to select grid cells containing 

the estimates for each species in the 

Roberts et al. (2016) data (i.e., <100 m, 

n = 157 grid cells; 100–1,000, n = 169 

grid cells; >1,000 m, n = 410 grid cells). 

The average abundance for each species 

in each water depth category was 

calculated as the mean value of the grid 

cells within each category and then 

converted to density (individuals/1 

km2) by dividing by 100 km2. Estimated 

densities for marine mammal species 

that could occur in the project area are 

shown in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES IN THE SURVEY AREA

Species 

Estimated density (#/km2) 

Intermediate 

water 

100–1,000 m 

Deep water 

>1,000 m 

Sperm whale ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.00384 0.00579 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................................................................................................... 0.07022 0.00001 

Beaked whale guild a ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00498 0.00882 

Common bottlenose dolphin .................................................................................................................................... 0.18043 0.00566 

Clymene dolphin ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.00325 0.00403 

False killer whale ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00744 0.00748 

Frasers dolphin ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.00386 0.00389 

Killer whale .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.00007 0.00082 

Melon-headed whale ............................................................................................................................................... 0.00624 0.01186 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ..................................................................................................................................... 0.14764 0.31353 

Short-finned pilot whales ......................................................................................................................................... 0.00636 0.00128 

Pygmy killer whale ................................................................................................................................................... 0.00201 0.00648 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.02315 0.00748 

Rough-toothed dolphin ............................................................................................................................................ 0.00890 0.00768 

Spinner dolphin ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.15723 0.00412 

Striped dolphin ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.00212 0.01268 

Kogia spp.b .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.01052 0.00490 

a Includes Cuvier’s beaked whale, Blainville’s beaked whale, and Gervais’ beaked whale. 

bPygmy sperm whales and dwarf sperm whales. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

The area expected to be ensonified 

was determined by entering the planned 

survey lines into ArcGIS and then using 

GIS to identify the relevant ensonified 

areas by ‘‘drawing’’ the 160-dB 

threshold buffer around each seismic 

line according to the depth category in 

which the lines occurred. The total 

ensonified area within each depth 

category was then divided by the total 

number of survey days to provide the 

proportional daily ensonified area 

within each depth category. The total 

ensonified area in each depth class was 

multiplied by 1.25 to add an additional 

25 percent contingency to allow for 

additional airgun operations such as 

testing of the source or re-surveying 

lines with poor data quality. Due to 

uncertainties with respect to permitting 

for surveys in Cuban waters, ensonified 

areas were calculated separately for 

transect lines in Mexican and Cuban 

EEZs, for which 4.2 and 5.5 survey days 

were estimated, respectively (Table 7). If 

Scripps is unable to operate within the 

Cuban EEZ, they will conduct the entire 

survey within the Mexican EEZ, with 

the same estimated daily proportions of 

survey activity in each depth strata 

occurring over a total of 9.7 survey days. 

This scenario yields a total ensonified 

area of 3,595.6 km2, with 1,848.6 km2 in 

intermediate waters (100–1,000 m) and 

1,747.0 km2 in deep waters (>1,000 m). 

TABLE 7—AREAS (km2) IN MEXICAN AND CUBAN EEZS TO BE ENSONIFIED ABOVE LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Water depth category 

Relevant 

isopleth 

(m) 

Ensonified 

area in 

Mexican EEZ 

(km2) 

Ensonified 

area in 

Cuban EEZ 

(km2) 

Total 

ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Total area 

with 25% 

increase 

(km2) 

Intermediate (100–1000 m) ................................................. 809 640.35 0 640.35 800.44 

Deep (>1000) ....................................................................... 539 605.14 1298.09 1903.23 2379.04 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ 1245.49 1298.09 2543.58 3179.48 

To estimate the total number of 

possible exposures, the total ensonified 

area within each depth category is 

multiplied by the densities in each 

depth category. Scripps does not expect 

to know whether surveying within 

Cuban waters will be permitted until 

immediately before the research cruise, 

therefore NMFS has authorized the 

highest calculated take number for each 

species across the two survey scenarios 

(Table 8). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
40194 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 

TABLE 8—CALCULATED AND AUTHORIZED TAKES BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION EXPOSED

Species 

Mexico and 

Cuba lines 

calculated 

level B 

Mexico and 

Cuba lines 

calculated 

level A 

Mexico only 

calculated 

level B 

Mexico only 

calculated 

level A 

Authorized 

level B 

Authorized 

level A 

Population 

size a

Percent of 

population 

Sperm whale ..................... 17 0 17 0 17 0 2,207 0.78 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ..... 56 0 130 0 130 0 74,785 0.17 

Beaked whale guild c ......... 25 0 25 0 25 0 3,768 0.66 

Common bottlenose dolphin ................................ 158 0 343 0 343 0 176,108 0.20 

Clymene dolphin ............... b 90 0 b 90 0 b 90 0 11,895 0.76 

False killer whale .............. b 28 0 b 28 0 b 28 0 3,204 0.87 

Frasers dolphin ................. b 65 0 b 65 0 b 65 0 1,665 3.90 

Killer whale ........................ b 7 0 b 7 0 b 7 0 267 2.62 

Melon-headed whale ......... b 100 0 b 100 0 b 100 0 7,003 1.43 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 862 2 820 1 864 0 102,361 0.84 

Pygmy killer whale ............ b 19 0 b 19 0 b 19 0 2,126 0.89 

Risso’s dolphin .................. 36 0 56 0 56 0 3,764 1.48 

Rough-toothed dolphin ...... b 56 0 b 56 0 b 56 0 4,853 1.15 

Short-finned pilot whales ... b 25 0 b 25 0 b 25 0 1,981 1.26 

Spinner dolphin ................. 136 0 298 0 298 0 25,114 1.19 

Striped dolphin .................. b 46 0 b 46 0 b 46 0 5,229 0.88 

Kogia spp .......................... 19 1 27 1 28 0 4,373 0.64 

aBest abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take estimates is considered here to be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where a density surface model predicting abundance by month was produced, the maximum mean seasonal 

abundance was used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual abundance is available. For the killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used. b Calculated and authorized take increased to mean group size as presented by Maze-Foley and Mullin (2006). 

c Cuvier’s, Blainville’s, and Gervais’ beaked whales. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to the activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and on 

the availability of the species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(latter not applicable for this action). 

NMFS regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting the activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned), the 

likelihood of effective implementation 

(probability implemented as planned); 

and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

Scripps indicated that it reviewed 

mitigation measures employed during 

seismic research surveys authorized by 

NMFS under previous incidental 

harassment authorizations, as well as 

recommended best practices in 

Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. 

(1998), Weir and Dolman (2007), 

Nowacek et al. (2013), Wright (2014), 

and Wright and Cosentino (2015), and 

has incorporated a suite of mitigation 

measures into their project description 

based on the above sources. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, Scripps 

will implement mitigation measures for 

marine mammals. Mitigation measures 

that must be adopted during the 

planned surveys include: (1) Vesselbased visual mitigation monitoring; (2) 

Establishment of a marine mammal 

exclusion zone (EZ) and buffer zone; (3) 

shutdown procedures; (4) ramp-up 

procedures; and (4) vessel strike 

avoidance measures. 

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 

visually for the presence of marine 

mammals. PSO observations must take 

place during all daytime airgun 

operations and nighttime start ups (if 

applicable) of the airguns. If airguns are 

operating throughout the night, 

observations must begin 30 minutes 

prior to sunrise. If airguns are operating 

after sunset, observations must continue 

until 30 minutes following sunset. 

Following a shutdown for any reason, 

observations must occur for at least 30 

minutes prior to the planned start of 

airgun operations. Observations must 

also occur for 30 minutes after airgun 

operations cease for any reason. 

Observations must also be made during 

daytime periods when the R/V Justo 

Sierra is underway without seismic 

operations, such as during transits, to 

allow for comparison of sighting rates 

and behavior with and without airgun 

operations and between acquisition 

periods. Airgun operations must be 

suspended when marine mammals are 

observed within, or about to enter, the 

designated exclusion zone (EZ) (as 

described below). 

During seismic operations, two visual 

PSOs must be on duty and conduct 

visual observations at all times during 

daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes 

prior to sunrise through 30 minutes 

following sunset). PSO(s) must be on 

duty in shifts of duration no longer than 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 40195 

4 hours. Other vessel crew must also be 

instructed to assist in detecting marine 

mammals and in implementing 

mitigation requirements (if practical). 

Before the start of the seismic survey, 

the crew must be given additional 

instruction in detecting marine 

mammals and implementing mitigation 

requirements. 

The R/V Justo Sierra is a suitable 

platform from which PSOs would watch 

for marine mammals. Standard 

equipment for marine mammal 

observers must be 7 x 50 reticule 

binoculars and optical range finders. At 

night, night-vision equipment must be 

available. The observers must be in 

communication with ship’s officers on 

the bridge and scientists in the vessel’s 

operations laboratory, so they can 

advise promptly of the need for vessel 

strike avoidance measures (see Vessel 

Strike Avoidance Measures below) or 

seismic source shutdown. 

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 must be 

provided to NMFS for approval. At least 

one PSO must have a minimum of 90 

days prior at-sea experience working as 

a PSO during a seismic survey. One 

‘‘experienced’’ visual PSO will be 

designated as the lead for the entire 

protected species observation team. The 

lead will serve as primary point of 

contact for the vessel operator. 

Exclusion Zone (EZ) and Buffer Zone 

An EZ is a defined area within which 

occurrence of a marine mammal triggers 

mitigation action intended to reduce the 

potential for certain outcomes, e.g., 

auditory injury, disruption of critical 

behaviors. The PSOs must establish a 

minimum EZ with a 100 m radius for 

the airgun array. The 100-m EZ must be 

based on radial distance from any 

element of the airgun array (rather than 

being based around the vessel itself). 

With certain exceptions (described 

below), if a marine mammal appears 

within, enters, or appears on a course to 

enter this zone, the acoustic source must 

be shut down (see Shutdown Procedures 

below). 

The 100-m radial distance of the 

standard EZ is precautionary in the 

sense that it would be expected to 

contain sound exceeding injury criteria 

for all marine mammal hearing groups 

(Table 5) while also providing a 

consistent, reasonably observable zone 

within which PSOs would typically be 

able to conduct effective observational 

effort. In the 2011 Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

marine scientific research funded by the 

National Science Foundation or the U.S. 

Geological Survey (NSF–USGS 2011), 

Alternative B (the Preferred Alternative) 

conservatively applied a 100-m EZ for 

all low-energy acoustic sources in water 

depths >100 m, with low-energy 

acoustic sources defined as any towed 

acoustic source with a single or a pair 

of clustered airguns with individual 

volumes of ≤250 in3. Thus the 100-m EZ 

required for this survey is consistent 

with the PEIS. 

Our intent in prescribing a standard 

EZ distance is to (1) encompass zones 

within which auditory injury could 

occur on the basis of instantaneous 

exposure; (2) provide additional 

protection from the potential for more 

severe behavioral reactions (e.g., panic, 

antipredator response) for marine 

mammals at relatively close range to the 

acoustic source; (3) provide consistency 

for PSOs, who need to monitor and 

implement the EZ; and (4) define a 

distance within which detection 

probabilities are reasonably high for 

most species under typical conditions. 

PSOs must also establish and monitor 

a 100-m buffer zone beyond the EZ (for 

a total of 200 m). During use of the 

acoustic source, occurrence of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone (but 

outside the EZ) must be communicated 

to the operator to prepare for potential 

shutdown of the acoustic source. The 

buffer zone is discussed further under 

Ramp-Up Procedures below. 

An extended EZ of 500 m must be 

established for all beaked whales and 

Kogia species as well as for aggregations 

of six or more large whales (i.e., sperm 

whale) or a large whale with a calf (calf 

defined as an animal less than twothirds the body size of an adult observed 

to be in close association with an adult). 

Ramp-Up Procedures 

Ramp-up of an acoustic source is 

intended to provide a gradual increase 

in sound levels following a shutdown, 

enabling animals to move away from the 

source if the signal is sufficiently 

aversive prior to its reaching full 

intensity. Ramp-up is required after the 

array is shut down for any reason for 

longer than 15 minutes. Ramp-up must 

begin with the activation of one 45 in3

airgun, with the second 45 in3 airgun 

activated after 5 minutes. 

Two PSOs are required to monitor 

during ramp-up. During ramp up, the 

PSOs must monitor the EZ, and if 

marine mammals were observed within 

the EZ or buffer zone, a shutdown must 

be implemented as though the full array 

were operational. If airguns have been 

shut down due to PSO detection of a 

marine mammal within or approaching 

the EZ, ramp-up must not be initiated 

until all marine mammals have cleared 

the EZ, during the day or night. Criteria 

for clearing the EZ would be as 

described above. 

Thirty minutes of pre-start clearance 

observation are required prior to rampup for any shutdown of longer than 30 

minutes (i.e., when the array is shut 

down during transit from one line to 

another). This 30-minute pre-start 

clearance period may occur during any 

vessel activity (i.e., transit). If a marine 

mammal is observed within or 

approaching the 200-m buffer or 500-m 

extended EZ during this pre-start 

clearance period, ramp-up must not be 

initiated until all marine mammals 

cleared the relevant area. Criteria for 

clearing the EZ would be as described 

above. If the airgun array has been shut 

down for reasons other than mitigation 

(e.g., mechanical difficulty) for a period 

of less than 30 minutes, it may be 

activated again without ramp-up if PSOs 

have maintained constant visual 

observation and no detections of any 

marine mammal have occurred within 

the EZ or buffer zone. Ramp-up must be 

planned to occur during periods of good 

visibility when possible. However, 

ramp-up is allowed at night and during 

poor visibility if the 100 m EZ and 200 

m buffer zone have been monitored by 

visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to 

ramp-up. 

The operator is required to notify a 

designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time must not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up. A designated PSO 

must be notified again immediately 

prior to initiating ramp-up procedures 

and the operator must receive 

confirmation from the PSO to proceed. 

The operator must provide information 

to PSOs documenting that appropriate 

procedures were followed. Following 

deactivation of the array for reasons 

other than mitigation, the operator is 

required to communicate the near-term 

operational plan to the lead PSO with 

justification for any planned nighttime 

ramp-up. 

Shutdown Procedures 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the EZ but is likely to enter the 

EZ, the airguns must be shut down 

before the animal is within the EZ. 

Likewise, if a marine mammal is already 

within the EZ when first detected, the 

airguns must be shut down 

immediately. 

Following a shutdown, airgun activity 

must not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the EZ. The animal 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
40196 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 

is considered to have cleared the EZ if 

the following conditions have been met: 

• it is visually observed to have 

departed the EZ; 

• it has not been seen within the EZ 

for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes; or 

• it has not been seen within the EZ 

for 30 min in the case of large 

odontocetes, including sperm and 

beaked whales. 

This shutdown requirement is in 

place for all marine mammals, with the 

exception of small delphinids under 

certain circumstances. As defined here, 

the small delphinid group is intended to 

encompass those members of the Family 

Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily 

approach the source vessel for purposes 

of interacting with the vessel and/or 

airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This 

exception to the shutdown requirement 

would apply solely to specific genera of 

small dolphins—Lagenodelphis, 

Stenella, Steno, and Tursiops. 

We include this small delphinid 

exception because shutdown 

requirements for small delphinids under 

all circumstances represent 

practicability concerns without likely 

commensurate benefits for the animals 

in question. Small delphinids are 

generally the most commonly observed 

marine mammals in the specific 

geographic region and would typically 

be the only marine mammals likely to 

intentionally approach the vessel. As 

described above, auditory injury is 

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

as this group is relatively insensitive to 

sound produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

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

permanent threshold shift). 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small delphinids 

commonly approach vessels and/or 

towed arrays during active sound 

production for purposes of bow riding, 

with no apparent effect observed in 

those delphinids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 

2012, 2018). The potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure would require the R/V Justo 

Sierra to revisit the missed track line to 

reacquire data, resulting in an overall 

increase in the total sound energy input 

to the marine environment and an 

increase in the total duration over 

which the survey is active in a given 

area. Although other mid-frequency 

hearing specialists (e.g., large 

delphinids) are no more likely to incur 

auditory injury than are small 

delphinids, they are much less likely to 

approach vessels. Therefore, retaining a 

shutdown requirement for large 

delphinids would not have similar 

impacts in terms of either practicability 

for the applicant or corollary increase in 

sound energy output and time on the 

water. We do anticipate some benefit for 

a shutdown requirement for large 

delphinids in that it simplifies 

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

potential for physiological effects other 

than to the auditory system as well as 

some more severe behavioral reactions 

for any such animals in close proximity 

to the source vessel. 

Visual PSOs must use best 

professional judgment in making the 

decision to call for a shutdown if there 

is uncertainty regarding identification 

(i.e., whether the observed marine 

mammal(s) belongs to one of the 

delphinid genera for which shutdown is 

waived or one of the species with a 

larger EZ). 

Shutdown of the acoustic source is 

also required upon observation of a 

species for which authorization has not 

been granted (e.g., baleen whales), or a 

species for which authorization has 

been granted but the authorized number 

of takes are met, observed approaching 

or within the Level B harassment zones. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures 

Vessel strike avoidance measures are 

intended to minimize the potential for 

collisions with marine mammals. 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. 

The required measures include the 

following: Vessel operator and crew 

must maintain a vigilant watch for all 

marine mammals and slow down or 

stop the vessel or alter course to avoid 

striking any marine mammal. A visual 

observer aboard the vessel must monitor 

a vessel strike avoidance zone around 

the vessel according to the parameters 

stated below. Visual observers 

monitoring the vessel strike avoidance 

zone may be either third-party observers 

or crew members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to 

distinguish marine mammals from other 

phenomena. Vessel strike avoidance 

measures must be followed during 

surveys and while in transit. 

The vessel must maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 100 m from large 

whales (i.e., baleen whales and sperm 

whales). If a large whale is within 100 

m of the vessel, the vessel must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral, 

and must not engage the engines until 

the whale has moved outside of the 

vessel’s path and the minimum 

separation distance has been 

established. If the vessel is stationary, 

the vessel must not engage engines until 

the whale(s) has moved out of the 

vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. The 

vessel must maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 50 m from all 

other marine mammals, to the extent 

practicable. If an animal is encountered 

during transit, the vessel must attempt 

to remain parallel to the animal’s 

course, avoiding excessive speed or 

abrupt changes in course. Vessel speeds 

must be reduced to 10 knots or less 

when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 

assemblages of cetaceans are observed 

near the vessel. 

We have carefully evaluated the suite 

of mitigation measures described here 

and considered a range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

we prescribe the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Based on our 

evaluation of the required measures, 

NMFS has determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the means 

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. 

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 planned survey 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 40197 

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. 

Monitoring that is designed 

specifically to facilitate mitigation 

measures, such as monitoring of the EZ 

to inform potential shutdowns of the 

airgun array, are described above and 

are not repeated here. The required 

monitoring and reporting includes the 

following: 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

must take place during daytime airgun 

operations and nighttime start-ups (if 

applicable) of the airguns. During 

seismic operations, visual PSOs must be 

based aboard the R/V Justo Sierra. PSOs 

must be appointed by Scripps with 

NMFS approval. The PSOs must have 

successfully completed relevant 

training, including completion of all 

required coursework and passing a 

written and/or oral examination 

developed for the training program, and 

must have successfully attained a 

bachelor’s degree from an accredited 

college or university with a major in one 

of the natural sciences and a minimum 

of 30 semester hours or equivalent in 

the biological sciences and at least one 

undergraduate course in math or 

statistics. The educational requirements 

may be waived if the PSO has acquired 

the relevant skills through alternate 

training, including (1) secondary 

education and/or experience 

comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous 

work experience conducting academic, 

commercial, or government-sponsored 

marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous 

work experience as a PSO; the PSO 

must demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

During seismic operations in daylight 

hours (30 minutes before sunrise 

through 30 minutes after sunset), two 

PSOs must monitor for marine 

mammals around the seismic vessel. 

PSOs must be on duty in shifts of 

duration no longer than 4 hours. Other 

crew must also be instructed to assist in 

detecting marine mammals and in 

implementing mitigation requirements 

(if practical). During daytime, PSOs 

must scan the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7 x 50 Fujinon) and with the naked 

eye. At night, PSOs must be equipped 

with night-vision equipment. 

For data collection purposes, PSOs 

must use standardized data collection 

forms, whether hard copy or electronic. 

PSOs must 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 must 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 must 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 must be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report must describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report must provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
40198 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 

monitoring. The 90-day report must 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all marine 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). 

The draft report must also include 

geo-referenced time-stamped vessel 

tracklines for all time periods during 

which airguns were operating. 

Tracklines must 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 must be 

provided in ESRI shapefile format and 

include the UTC date and time, latitude 

in decimal degrees, and longitude in 

decimal degrees. All coordinates must 

be referenced to the WGS84 geographic 

coordinate system. In addition to the 

report, all raw observational data must 

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, Scripps must 

report the incident to the Office of 

Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS and 

to the NMFS Southeast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator as soon as 

feasible. The report must include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• 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, Scripps must report the 

incident to OPR, NMFS and to the 

NMFS Southeast 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’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all species listed in Table 1, 

given that NMFS expects the anticipated 

effects of the planned geophysical 

survey to be similar in nature. Where 

there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks, or groups of 

species, in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impact of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified 

species-specific factors to inform the 

analysis. 

NMFS does not anticipate that injury, 

serious injury or mortality would occur 

as a result of Scripps’ planned survey, 

even in the absence of mitigation, and 

none is 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 take 

by Level A harassment has been 

authorized. These estimated zones are 

larger than what would realistically 

occur, as discussed in the Estimated 

Take section. 

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). 

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 (up to 12 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 40199 

are not expected to cause significant or 

long-term consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

No biologically important areas, 

designated critical habitat, or other 

habitat of known significance would be 

impacted by the planned activities. 

Negligible Impact Conclusions 

The planned survey would be of short 

duration (up to 12 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 required 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 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 Scripps’ planned survey would result 

in only short-term (temporary and short 

in duration) effects to individuals 

exposed, over relatively small areas of 

the affected animals’ ranges. Animals 

may temporarily avoid the immediate 

area, but are not expected to 

permanently abandon the area. Major 

shifts in habitat use, distribution, or 

foraging success are not expected. 

NMFS does not anticipate the 

authorized take to impact annual rates 

of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No Level A harassment, serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The planned activity is temporary 

and of relatively short duration (up to 

12 days); 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

planned activity on marine mammals 

would primarily be temporary 

behavioral changes in the form of 

avoidance of the area around the survey 

vessel; 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the planned 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 

planned survey would be temporary and 

spatially limited, and impacts to marine 

mammal foraging would be minimal; 

and 

• The required 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 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from Scripps’ 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

the MMPA for specified activities other 

than military readiness activities. The 

MMPA does not define small numbers 

and so, in practice, where estimated 

numbers are available, NMFS compares 

the number of individuals taken to the 

most appropriate estimation of 

abundance of the relevant species or 

stock in our determination of whether 

an authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. When the 

predicted number of individuals to be 

taken is fewer than one third of the 

species or stock abundance, the take is 

considered to be of small numbers. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The amount of take NMFS has 

authorized is below one third of the 

estimated population abundance of all 

species (Roberts et al., 2016). In fact, 

take of individuals is less than 4 percent 

of the abundance of the affected 

populations (see Table 8). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the required mitigation and monitoring 

measures) and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the population size 

of the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

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, in 

this case with the ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division. 

The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources Interagency Cooperation 

Division issued a Biological Opinion 

under section 7 of the ESA, on the 

issuance of an IHA to Scripps under 

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

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
40200 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 6, 2022 / Notices 

Permits and Conservation Division. The 

Biological Opinion concluded that the 

proposed action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any listed marine mammal species. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Scripps for 

conducting geophysical surveys in the 

southeast Gulf of Mexico in summer 

2022, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: June 30, 2022. 

Kimberly Damon-Randall, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14362 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Charter Renewal of Department of 

Defense Federal Advisory 

Committees—Defense Uniform 

Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Charter renewal of federal 

advisory committee. 

SUMMARY: The DoD is publishing this 

notice to announce that it is renewing 

the charter for the Uniform Formulary 

Beneficiary Advisory Panel (UFBAP). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Freeman, DoD Advisory Committee 

Management Officer, 703–692–5952. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

UFBAP’s charter is being renewed in 

accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1074g(c) and 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix) and 41 

CFR 102–3.50(a). The charter and 

contact information for the UFBAP’s 

Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are 

found at https://www.facadatabase.gov/ 

FACA/apex/FACAPublicAgency

Navigation. 

The UFBAP reports to the Secretary of 

Defense and Deputy Secretary of 

Defense (‘‘the DoD Appointing 

Authority’’), through the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness (USD(P&R), who shall 

consider the UFBAP’s advice and 

recommendations before implementing 

changes to the uniform formulary in 

accordance with DoD policy and 

procedures. 

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1074g(c)(2), the 

UFBAP is composed of no more than 15 

members and shall include members 

that represent: (a) Nongovernmental 

organizations and associations that 

represent the views and interests of a 

large number of eligible covered 

beneficiaries; (b) Contractors 

responsible for the TRICARE retail 

pharmacy program; (c) Contractors 

responsible for the national mail-order 

pharmacy program; and (d) TRICARE 

network providers. 

Authority to invite or appointment 

individuals to serve on the UFBAP rests 

solely with the DoD Appointing 

Authority for a term of service of oneto-four years, with annual renewals, in 

accordance with DoD policy and 

procedures. No member, unless 

approved by the DoD Appointing 

Authority, may serve more than two 

consecutive terms of service on the 

UFBAP or serve on more than two DoD 

Federal advisory committees at one 

time. The DoD Appointing Authority 

shall appoint the UFBAP’s leadership 

from among the membership previously 

approved to serve on the UFBAP in 

accordance with DoD policy and 

procedures for term of service of one-totwo years, with annual renewal, not to 

exceed the member’s approved 

appointment. 

UFBAP members who are not fulltime or permanent part-time Federal 

civilian officers or employees, or active 

duty members of the Uniformed 

Services, shall be appointed as experts 

or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 

to serve as special government 

employee members. UFBAP members 

who are full-time or permanent parttime Federal civilian officers or 

employees, or active duty members of 

the Uniformed Services, shall be 

appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102– 

3.130(a) to serve as regular government 

employee members. All members of the 

UFBAP are appointed to exercise their 

own best judgment on behalf of the 

DoD, without representing any 

particular points of view, and to discuss 

and deliberate in a manner that is free 

from conflicts of interest. With the 

exception of reimbursement of official 

UFBAP-related travel and per diem, 

UFBAP members serve without 

compensation. 

The public or interested organizations 

may submit written statements about 

the UFBAP’s mission and functions. 

Written statements may be submitted at 

any time or in response to the stated 

agenda of planned meeting of the 

UFBAP. All written statements shall be 

submitted to the DFO for the UFBAP, 

and this individual will ensure that the 

written statements are provided to the 

membership for their consideration. 

Dated: June 30, 2022. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14381 Filed 7–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Department of Defense Science and 

Technology Reinvention Laboratory 

Personnel Demonstration Project 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Research and Engineering 

(OUSD (R&E)), Department of Defense 

(DoD). 

ACTION: This notice documents an 

enhanced pay authority for all science 

and technology reinvention laboratory 

(STRL) personnel demonstration (demo) 

projects authorized pursuant to section 

4121 of title 10, United States Code 

(U.S.C.). 

SUMMARY: STRLs with published 

demonstration project plans may 

implement the enhanced pay authority 

for positions classified above the GS–15 

equivalent level, as described within 

this notice. 

DATES: Implementation will begin no 

earlier than July 6, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Department of Defense: 

• Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Research and Engineering), 

DoD Laboratories, FFRDCs & UARCs 

Office: Dr. Ben Petro, 571–286–6265, 

James.B.Petro.civ@mail.mil. 

Department of the Air Force: 

• Air Force Research Laboratory: Ms. 

Rosalyn Jones-Byrd, 937–656–9747, 

Rosalyn.Jones-Byrd@us.af.mil. 

• Joint Warfare Analysis Center: Ms. 

Amy Balmaz, 540–653–8598, 

Amy.T.Balmaz.civ@mail.mil. 

Department of the Army: 

• Army Futures Command: Ms. 

Marlow Richmond, 830–469–2057, 

Marlowe.Richmond.civ@army.mil. 

• Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences: Dr. 

Scott Shadrick, 254–288–3800, 

Scottie.B.Shadrick.civ@army.mil. 

• Combat Capabilities Development 

Command Armaments Center: Mr. Mike 

Nicotra, 973–724–7764, 

Michael.J.Nicotra.civ@mail.mil. 

• Combat Capabilities Development 

Command Army Research Laboratory: 

Mr. Christopher Tahaney, 410–278– 

9069, Christopher.S.Tahaney.civ@

army.mil. 

• Combat Capabilities Development 

Command Aviation and Missile Center: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1