Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60811 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

major amendment to Permit No. 14330– 

01 has been issued to the Aleut 

Community of St. Paul Island, Tribal 

Government, Ecosystem Conservation 

Office, St. Paul Island, AK 99660. 

ADDRESSES: The permit amendment and 

related documents are available for 

review upon written request or by 

appointment in the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Room 13705, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910; telephone: (301) 

427–8401; fax: (301) 713–0376. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brendan Hurley or Amy Sloan; 

telephone: (301) 427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

17, 2013, notice was published in the 

Federal Register (78 FR 42756) that a 

request for an amendment to Permit No. 

14330–01 for research on northern fur 

seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and 

incidental disturbance to Steller sea 

lions (Eumetopias jubatus) and harbor 

seals (Phoca vitulina) had been 

submitted by the above-named 

applicant. The requested permit 

amendment has been issued under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations 

governing the taking and importing of 

marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

the regulations governing the taking, 

importing, and exporting of endangered 

and threatened species (50 CFR parts 

222–226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.). 

Permit No. 14330–02 authorizes the 

permit holder to conduct activities to 

fulfill their Biosampling, 

Disentanglement, and Island Sentinel 

program responsibilities as established 

under the co-management agreement 

between NMFS and the Aleut 

Communities. Activities include 

northern fur seal (1) disentanglement; 

(2) sample collection from dead animals 

and sample export; and (3) haulout and 

rookery observations, monitoring, and 

remote camera maintenance. The permit 

amendment authorizes additional takes 

of northern fur seals for new habitat use 

studies, incorporates incidental 

disturbance of Steller sea lions and 

harbor seals during other fur seal 

studies without increasing authorized 

takes, consolidates existing fur seal 

authorized takes of certain age and sex 

categories, consolidates existing fur seal 

authorized takes for studies with similar 

types of incidental disturbance, and 

extends the permit for one year. The 

permit amendment expires on August 

31, 2015. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), NMFS has 

determined that the activities proposed 

are consistent with the Preferred 

Alternative in the Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Steller Sea Lion and Northern Fur Seal 

Research (NMFS 2007), and that 

issuance of the permit would not have 

a significant adverse impact on the 

human environment. 

As required by the ESA, issuance of 

this permit was based on a finding that 

such permit: (1) Was applied for in good 

faith; (2) will not operate to the 

disadvantage of such endangered 

species; and (3) is consistent with the 

purposes and policies set forth in 

section 2 of the ESA. 

Dated: September 24, 2014. 

Julia Harrison, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23940 Filed 10–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD256 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Low-Energy 

Marine Geophysical Survey in the 

Scotia Sea and South Atlantic Ocean, 

September to October 2014 

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 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

Division of Polar Programs, and 

Antarctic Support Contract (ASC) on 

behalf of two research institutions, 

University of Texas at Austin and 

University of Memphis, to take marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment, 

incidental to conducting a low-energy 

marine geophysical (seismic) survey in 

the Scotia Sea and South Atlantic 

Ocean, September to October 2014. 

DATES: Effective September 20, 2014, to 

December 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the 

application are available by writing Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by 

telephone the contacts listed below (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

An electronic copy of the IHA 

application containing a list of the 

references used in this document may 

be obtained by writing to the address 

specified above, telephoning the contact 

listed here (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or visiting the 

Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/

pr/permits/incidental/. Documents cited 

in this notice, including the IHA 

application, may also be viewed by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

An ‘‘Environmental Assessment on 

the Issuance of an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization to the 

National Science Foundation and 

Antarctic Support Contract to Take 

Marine Mammals by Harassment 

Incidental to a Low-energy Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the Scotia Sea 

and South Atlantic Ocean, September to 

October 2014’’ was prepared by NMFS. 

NMFS also issued a Biological Opinion 

under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) to evaluate the effects 

of the low-energy seismic survey and 

IHA on marine species listed as 

threatened and endangered. The NMFS 

Biological Opinion is available online 

at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/

consultations/opinions.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

301–427–8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA, (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals by United 

States citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60812 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘. . . an 

impact resulting from the specified 

activity that cannot be reasonably 

expected to, and is not reasonably likely 

to, adversely affect the species or stock 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival.’’ 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On April 15, 2014, NMFS received an 

application from NSF and ASC 

requesting that NMFS issue an IHA for 

the take, by Level B harassment only, of 

small numbers of marine mammals 

incidental to conducting a low-energy 

marine seismic survey in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ) of the South 

Georgia and South Sandwich Islands 

and International Waters (i.e., high seas) 

in the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic 

Ocean during September to October 

2014. 

The research will be conducted by 

two research institutions: University of 

Texas at Austin and University of 

Memphis. NSF and ASC plan to use one 

source vessel, the RVIB Nathaniel B. 

Palmer (Palmer), and a seismic airgun 

array and hydrophone streamer to 

collect seismic data in the Scotia Sea 

and southern Atlantic Ocean. The vessel 

will be operated by ASC, which 

operates the United States Antarctic 

Program (USAP) under contract with 

NSF. In support of the USAP, NSF and 

ASC plan to use conventional lowenergy, seismic methodology to perform 

marine-based studies in the Scotia Sea, 

including evaluation of lithosphere 

adjacent to and beneath the Scotia Sea 

and southern Atlantic Ocean in two 

areas, the South Georgia microcontinent and the seafloor of the eastern 

portion of the central Scotia Sea (see 

Figures 1 and 2 of the IHA application). 

In addition to the planned operations of 

the seismic airgun array and 

hydrophone streamer, NSF and ASC 

intend to operate a single-beam 

echosounder, multi-beam echosounder, 

acoustic Doppler current profiler 

(ADCP), and sub-bottom profiler 

continuously throughout the survey. 

NMFS published a notice making 

preliminary determinations and 

proposing to issue an IHA on August 5, 

2014 (79 FR 45592). The notice initiated 

a 30-day public comment period. 

Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased 

underwater sound) generated during the 

operation of the seismic airgun array 

may have the potential to cause 

behavioral disturbance for marine 

mammals in the survey area. This is the 

principal means of marine mammal 

taking associated with these activities, 

and NSF and ASC have requested an 

authorization to take 26 species of 

marine mammals by Level B 

harassment. Take is not expected to 

result from the use of the single-beam 

echosounder, multi-beam echosounder, 

ADCP, and sub-bottom profiler, as the 

brief exposure of marine mammals to 

one pulse, or small numbers of signals, 

to be generated by these instruments in 

this particular case is not likely to result 

in the harassment of marine mammals. 

Also, NMFS does not expect take to 

result from collision with the source 

vessel because it is a single vessel 

moving at a relatively slow, constant 

cruise speed of 5 knots ([kts]; 9.3 

kilometers per hour [km/hr]; 5.8 miles 

per hour [mph]) during seismic 

acquisition within the survey, for a 

relatively short period of time 

(approximately 30 operational days). It 

is likely that any marine mammal will 

be able to avoid the vessel. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

NSF and ASC plans to use one source 

vessel, the Palmer, a two GI airgun array 

and one hydrophone streamer to 

conduct the conventional seismic 

survey as part of the NSF-funded 

research project ‘‘Role of Central Scotia 

Sea Floor and North Scotia Ridge in the 

Onset and Development of the Antarctic 

Circumpolar Current.’’ In addition to the 

airguns, NSF and ASC intend to 

conduct a bathymetric survey, dredge 

sampling, and geodetic measurements 

from the Palmer during the low-energy 

seismic survey. 

Dates and Duration 

The Palmer is expected to depart from 

Punta Arenas, Chile on approximately 

September 20, 2014 and arrive at Punta 

Arenas, Chile on approximately October 

20, 2014. Research operations will be 

conducted over a span of 30 days, 

including to and from port. Some minor 

deviation from this schedule is possible, 

depending on logistics and weather 

(e.g., the cruise may depart earlier or be 

extended due to poor weather; or there 

could be additional days of seismic 

operations if collected data are deemed 

to be of substandard quality). 

Specified Geographic Region 

The planned project and survey sites 

are located in selected regions of the 

Scotia Sea (located northeast of the 

Antarctic Peninsula) and the southern 

Atlantic Ocean and focus on two areas: 

(1) Between the central rise of the Scotia 

Sea and the East Scotia Sea, and (2) the 

far southern Atlantic Ocean 

immediately northeast of South Georgia 

towards the northeastern Georgia Rise 

(both encompassing the region between 

53 to 58° South, and between 33 to 40° 

West) (see Figure 2 of the IHA 

application). The majority of the 

planned seismic survey will be within 

the EEZ of the Government of the South 

Georgia and South Sandwich Islands 

(United Kingdom) and a limited portion 

of the seismic survey will be conducted 

in International Waters. Figure 3 of the 

IHA application illustrates the general 

bathymetry of the planned study area 

and the border of the existing South 

Georgia Maritime Zone. Water depths in 

the survey area exceed 1,000 m. There 

is limited information on the depths in 

the study area and therefore more 

detailed information on bathymetry is 

not available. The planned seismic 

survey will be within an area of 

approximately 3,953 km2 (1,152.5 

nmi2). This estimate is based on the 

maximum number of kilometers for the 

seismic survey (2,950 km) multiplied by 

the predicted rms radii (m) based on 

modeling and empirical measurements 

(assuming 100% use of the two 105 in3

GI airguns in greater than 1,000 m water 

depths), which was calculated to be 675 

m (2,214.6 ft). 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activity 

NSF and ASC plans to conduct a lowenergy seismic survey in the Scotia Sea 

and the southern Atlantic Ocean from 

September to October 2014. In addition 

to the low-energy seismic survey, 

scientific activities will include 

conducting a bathymetric profile survey 

of the seafloor using transducer-based 

instruments such as a multi-beam 

echosounder and sub-bottom profiler; 

collecting global positioning system 

(GPS) information through the 

temporary installation of three 

continuous Global Navigation Satellite 

Systems (cGNSS) on the South Georgia 

micro-continent; and collecting dredge 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60813 

sampling around the edges of seamounts 

or ocean floor with significant magnetic 

anomalies to determine the nature and 

age of bathymetric highs near the 

eastern edge of the central Scotia Sea. 

Water depths in the survey area are 

greater than 1,000 meters (m) (3,280.1 

feet [ft]). The seismic survey is 

scheduled to occur for a total of 

approximately 325 hours over the 

course of the entire cruise, which will 

be for approximately 30 operational 

days in September to October 2014. The 

planned seismic survey will be 

conducted during the day and night, 

and for up to 40 hours of continuous 

operations at a time. The operation 

hours and survey length will include 

equipment testing, ramp-up, line 

changes, and repeat coverage. The long 

transit time between port and the study 

site constrains how long the ship can be 

in the study area and effectively limits 

the maximum amount of time the 

airguns can operate. Some minor 

deviation from these dates will be 

possible, depending on logistics and 

weather. 

The low-energy seismic survey of the 

Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean 

will involve conducting single channel 

seismic reflection profiling across the 

northern central Scotia Sea along two 

lines that cross the seismically active 

and apparently compressive boundary 

between the South Georgia microcontinent and the Northeast Georgia 

Rise. The targeted seismic survey will 

occur in the unexplored zones of 

elevated crust in the eastern central 

Scotia Sea and is designed to address 

several critical questions with respect to 

the tectonic nature of the northern and 

southern boundaries of the South 

Georgia micro-continent. 

Opening of deep Southern Ocean 

gateways between Antarctica and South 

America and between Antarctica and 

Australia permitted complete circumAntarctic circulation. This Antarctic 

Circumpolar Current is not well 

understood. The Antarctic Circumpolar 

Current may have been critical in the 

transition from a warm Earth in the 

early Cenozoic to the subsequent much 

cooler conditions that persist to the 

present day. Opening of Drake Passage 

and the west Scotia Sea likely broke the 

final barrier formed by the Andes of 

Tierra del Fuego and the 

‘‘Antarctandes’’ of the Antarctic 

Peninsula. Once this deep gateway, 

usually referred to as the Drake Passage 

gateway, was created, the strong and 

persistent mid-latitude winds could 

generate one of the largest deep currents 

on Earth, at approximately 135 

Sverdrup (a Sverdrup [Sv] is a measure 

of average flow rate in million cubic 

meters of water per second). This event 

is widely believed to be closely 

associated in time with a major, abrupt 

drop in global temperatures and the 

rapid expansion of the Antarctic ice 

sheets at 33 to 34 Million Annus (Ma, 

i.e., million years from the present/

before the current date), the EoceneOligocene boundary. 

The events leading to the complete 

opening of the Drake Passage gateway 

are very poorly known. The uncertainty 

is due to the complex tectonic history of 

the Scotia Sea and its enclosing Scotia 

Ridge, the eastward-closing, locally 

emergent submarine ridge that joins the 

southernmost Andes to the Antarctic 

Peninsula and deflects the Antarctic 

Circumpolar Current through gaps in its 

northern limb. The critical keys to this 

problem are the enigmatic floor of the 

central Scotia Sea between the high 

relief South Georgia (approximately 

3,000 m [9,842.5 ft]) and the lower 

South Orkney islands (approximately 

1,200 m [3,937 ft]), emergent parts of 

micro-continental blocks on the North 

and South Scotia ridges respectively, 

and the North Scotia Ridge itself. 

In 2008, an International Polar Year 

research program was conducted using 

the RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer (Palmer) 

(Cruise NBP 0805) that was designed to 

elucidate the structure and history of 

this area to help provide the constraints 

necessary for understanding of the 

initiation of the critical Drake Passage— 

Scotia Sea gateway. Underway data and 

dredged samples produced unexpected 

results that led to a structurally different 

view of the central Scotia Sea and 

highlighted factors bearing on initiation 

of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current 

that had not been previously 

considered. 

The results of this study of the central 

Scotia Sea are fragmentary due to the 

limited time available during Cruise 

NBP 0805. Therefore, the extent, 

geometry, and physiography of a 

submerged volcanic arc that may have 

delayed formation of a complete 

Antarctic Circumpolar Current until 

after the initiation of Antarctic 

glaciation are poorly defined, with 

direct dating limited to a few sites. To 

remedy these deficiencies, thereby 

further elucidating the role of the 

central Scotia Sea in the onset and 

development of the Antarctic 

Circumpolar Current, the planned 

targeted surveying and dredging will 

determine likely arc constructs in the 

eastern central Scotia Sea. These will be 

combined with a survey of the margins 

of the South Georgia micro-continent 

and installation of three continuous GPS 

stations on South Georgia that will test 

the hypothesis regarding the evolution 

of the North Scotia Ridge, also an 

impediment to the present Antarctic 

Circumpolar Current. The Principal 

Investigators are Dr. Ian Dalziel and Dr. 

Lawrence Lawver of the University of 

Texas at Austin, and Dr. Robert Smalley 

of the University of Memphis. 

The procedures to be used for the 

survey will be similar to those used 

during previous low-energy seismic 

surveys by NSF and will use 

conventional seismic methodology. The 

planned survey will involve one source 

vessel, the Palmer. NSF and ASC will 

deploy a two Sercel Generator Injector 

(GI) airgun array (each with a discharge 

volume of 105 in3 [1,720 cm3], in one 

string, with a total volume of 210 in3

[3,441.3 cm3]) as an energy source, at a 

tow depth of up to 3 to 4 m (9.8 to 13.1 

ft) below the surface (more information 

on the airguns can be found in 

Appendix B of the IHA application). A 

third airgun will serve as a ‘‘hot spare’’ 

to be used as a back-up in the event that 

one of the two operating airguns 

malfunctions. The airguns in the array 

will be spaced approximately 3 m (9.8 

ft) apart and 15 to 40 m (49.2 to 131.2 

ft) astern of the vessel. The receiving 

system will consist of one or two 100 m 

(328.1 ft) long, 24-channel, solid-state 

hydrophone streamer(s) towed behind 

the vessel. Data acquisition is planned 

along a series of predetermined lines, all 

of which will be in water depths greater 

than 1,000 m. As the GI airguns are 

towed along the survey lines, the 

hydrophone streamer(s) will receive the 

returning acoustic signals and transfer 

the data to the onboard processing 

system. All planned seismic data 

acquisition activities will be conducted 

by technicians provided by NSF and 

ASC, with onboard assistance by the 

scientists who have planned the study. 

The vessel will be self-contained, and 

the crew will live aboard the vessel for 

the entire cruise. 

The weather and sea conditions will 

be closely monitored, including for 

conditions that could limit visibility. 

Pack ice is not anticipated to be 

encountered during the planned cruise; 

therefore, no icebreaking activities are 

expected. If situations are encountered 

which pose a risk to the equipment, 

impede data collection, or require the 

vessel to stop forward progress, the 

equipment will be shut-down and 

retrieved until conditions improve. In 

general, the airgun array and streamer(s) 

can be retrieved in less than 30 minutes. 

The planned seismic survey 

(including equipment testing, start-up, 

line changes, repeat coverage of any 

areas, and equipment recovery) will 

consist of approximately 2,950 

kilometers (km) (1,592.9 nautical miles 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60814 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

[nmi]) of transect lines (including turns) 

in the survey area in the Scotia Sea and 

southern Atlantic Ocean (see Figures 1, 

2, and 3 of the IHA application). In 

addition to the operation of the airgun 

array, a single-beam and multi-beam 

echosounder, ADCP, and a sub-bottom 

profiler will also likely be operated from 

the Palmer continuously throughout the 

cruise. There will be additional airgun 

operations associated with equipment 

testing, ramp-up, and possible line 

changes or repeat coverage of any areas 

where initial data quality is substandard. In NSF and ASC’s estimated 

take calculations, 25% has been added 

for those additional operations. 

TABLE 1—PLANNED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY ACTIVITIES IN THE SCOTIA SEA AND THE SOUTHERN ATLANTIC OCEAN

Survey length (km) Cumulative 

duration (hr) 1 Airgun array total volume Time between airgun shots (distance) 

Streamer length 

(m) 

2,950 (1,592.9 nmi) ....................... ≅325 2 × 105 in3 (2 × 1,720 cm3) 5 to 10 seconds (12.5 to 25 m or 

41 to 82 ft) 

100 (328.1 ft) 

1Airgun operations are planned for no more than 40 continuous hours at a time. 

NMFS outlined the purpose of the 

program in a previous notice for the 

proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 

2014). The activities to be conducted 

have not changed between the proposed 

IHA notice and this final notice 

announcing the issuance of the IHA. For 

a more detailed description of the 

authorized action, including vessel and 

acoustic source specifications, the 

reader should refer to the notice for the 

proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 

2014), the IHA application, EA, and 

associated documents referenced above 

this section. 

Comments and Responses 

A notice of preliminary 

determinations and proposed IHA for 

NSF and ASC’s low-energy seismic 

survey was published in the Federal 

Register on August 5, 2015 (79 FR 

45592). During the 30-day public 

comment period, NMFS received 

comments from one private citizen and 

the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission). The comments are 

posted online at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/. Following are the 

substantive comments and NMFS’s 

responses: 

Comment 1: The Commission 

questions why L–DEO did not use 4 m 

(ft) as the maximum tow depth, because 

that depth was specified in the IHA 

application and should yield greater 

radii than a tow depth of 3 m. To 

estimate the buffer and exclusion zones 

for the seismic survey in the Scotia Sea 

and South Atlantic Ocean, L–DEO used 

two G airguns as a proxy for two GI 

airguns within the Nucleus modeling 

software and assumed a maximum tow 

depth of 3 m. It is also unclear why L– 

DEO included in Appendix A of NSF 

and ASC’s IEE/EA the correction factors 

based on shallow-water measurements 

of 2 GI airguns in the Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM). The need for correction factors 

as large as 14.7 does substantiate the 

concerns continually expressed by the 

Commission regarding the inadequacies 

of the L–DEO model in environments 

other than a three dimensionally 

uniform and boundless sea. However, 

the discussion of such correction factors 

is irrelevant because the radii L–DEO 

proposed to use originated directly from 

its model, absent any correction factors. 

The Commission does not understand 

why L–DEO mentioned correction 

factors that apparently were not used. 

Response: In almost all previous NSF 

EAs using GI airgun arrays, a typical 

tow depth was 3 m; therefore, that was 

used for the modeling for the planned 

low-energy seismic survey. As noted in 

the IHA application, the model results 

are for G airguns, which have more 

energy than GI airguns of the same size; 

thus, those results overestimate (by 

approximately 10%) the distances for 

the 105 in3 GI airgun array. Although 

the distances were known to be 

overestimated, no distance adjustments 

were made to the radii distances to 

account for this overestimation. In this 

case, the difference between a 3 m and 

4 m tow depth are nominal, and would 

be approximately equivalent given this 

10% difference. Therefore, the proposed 

radii distances for the buffer and 

exclusion zones are still valid for 

monitoring and mitigation as well as 

take estimates. NMFS, NSF, ASC, and 

L–DEO agree that Appendix A of the 

IHA application included some 

superfluous information about 

correction factors not relevant to the 

discussion, given this was a seismic 

survey in deep water and only L–DEO 

model results were used. NMFS believes 

that the L–DEO model is adequate for 

establishing conservative radii for 

monitoring and mitigation. 

Comment 2: The Commission remains 

very concerned that the L–DEO model is 

not based on best available science and 

does not support its continued use. The 

Commission recommends that NMFS (1) 

require L–DEO to re-estimate the 

proposed exclusion and buffer zones 

and associated takes of marine 

mammals using site-specific (including 

sound speed profiles, bathymetry, and 

sediment characteristics at a minimum) 

and operational (including number/type 

of airguns, tow depth) parameters for 

the proposed IHA; and (2) impose the 

same requirement for all future IHAs 

submitted by NSF, ASC, L–DEO, USGS, 

SIO, or any other relevant entity. 

Response: At present, L–DEO cannot 

adjust its modeling methodology to add 

the environmental and site-specific 

parameters as requested by the 

Commission. NMFS is working with L– 

DEO, NSF, ASC, USGS, SIO, and any 

other relevant entity to explore ways to 

better consider site-specific information 

to inform the take estimates and 

development of mitigation measures for 

future seismic surveys with L–DEO and 

NSF, and NSF has been exploring 

different approaches in collaboration 

with L–DEO and other academic 

institutions with whom they 

collaborate. When available, NMFS will 

review and consider the final results 

from L–DEO’s expected publications 

(Crone et al., in prep), in which the 

results of a calibration off the coast of 

Washington will be reported, and how 

they reflect on L–DEO’s model. 

For this seismic survey, L–DEO 

developed the exclusion and buffer 

zones based on the conservative deepwater calibration results from Diebold et 

al. (2010). L–DEO’s current modeling 

approach represents the best available 

information to reach NMFS’s 

determinations for the IHA. The 

comparisons of L–DEO’s model results 

and the field data collected in the Gulf 

of Mexico illustrate a degree of 

conservativeness built into L–DEO’s 

model for deep water. 

NMFS acknowledges the 

Commission’s concerns about L–DEO’s 

current modeling approach for 

estimating exclusion and buffer zones 

and also acknowledge that L–DEO did 

not incorporate site-specific sound 

speed profiles, bathymetry, and 

sediment characteristics of the research 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60815 

area within the current approach to 

estimate those zones for this IHA. 

However, as described below, empirical 

data collected at two different sites and 

compared against model predictions 

indicate that other facets of the model 

(besides the site-specific factors cited 

above) do result in a conservative 

estimate of exposures in the cases 

tested. 

The NSF and ASC IHA application 

and IEE/EA describe the approach to 

establishing mitigation exclusion and 

buffer zones. In summary, L–DEO 

acquired field measurements for several 

array configurations at shallow- and 

deep-water depths during acoustic 

verification studies conducted in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico in 2003 

(Tolstoy et al., 2004) and in 2007 and 

2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Based on the 

empirical data from those studies, L– 

DEO developed a sound propagation 

modeling approach that conservatively 

predicts received sound levels as a 

function of distance from a particular 

airgun array configuration in deep 

water. In 2010, L–DEO assessed the 

accuracy of their modeling approach by 

comparing the sound levels of the field 

measurements in the Gulf of Mexico 

study to its model predictions (Diebold 

et al., 2010). L–DEO reported that the 

observed sound levels from the field 

measurements fell almost entirely below 

the predicted mitigation radii curve for 

deep water (Diebold et al., 2010). Based 

on this information, L–DEO has shown 

that its model can reliably estimate the 

mitigation radii in deep water. 

L–DEO’s model is most directly 

applicable to deep water. Reflected and 

refracted arrivals were considered in 

verifying L–DEO’s model. Given the 

planned seismic survey is entirely in 

deep water, and the model has been 

demonstrated to be conservative in deep 

water, NMFS concludes that the L–DEO 

model is an effective means to aid in 

determining potential impacts to marine 

mammals from the planned seismic 

survey and estimating take numbers, as 

well as establishing buffer and 

exclusion zones for mitigation. 

During a March 2013 meeting, L–DEO 

discussed the L–DEO model with the 

Commission, NMFS, and NSF. L–DEO 

compared the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) 

calibration measurements (Tolstoy et 

al., 2004; Tolstoy et al., 2009; Diebold 

et al., 2010) comparison with L–DEO 

model results. L–DEO showed that at 

the calibration sites the model 

overestimated the size of the exclusion 

zones and, therefore, is likely 

precautionary in most cases. Based on 

the best available information that the 

current model overestimates mitigation 

zones, we will not require L–DEO to reestimate the proposed buffer and 

exclusion zones and associated number 

of marine mammal takes using 

operational and site-specific 

environmental parameters for this IHA. 

However, we continue to work with 

the NSF, ASC, L–DEO, and other related 

entities on verifying the accuracy of 

their model. L–DEO is currently 

analyzing whether received levels can 

be measured in real-time using the 

ship’s hydrophone streamer to estimate 

the sound field around the ship and 

determine actual distances to the buffer 

and exclusion zones. Crone et al. (2013) 

are analyzing Langseth streamer data 

collected in 2012 off the Washington 

coast shelf and slope to measure 

received levels in situ up to 8 km (4.3 

nmi) away from the ship. While results 

confirm the role that bathymetry plays 

in propagation, it also confirmed that 

empirical measurements from the GOM 

survey used to inform buffer and 

exclusion zones in shallow water and 

model results adapted for intermediate 

water depths also over-estimated the 

size of the zones for the Washington 

survey. Preliminary results were 

presented in a poster session at the 

American Geophysical Union fall 

meeting in December 2013 (Crone et al., 

2013; available at: http://

berna.ldeo.columbia.edu/agu2013/

agu2013.pdf) and a peer-reviewed 

journal publication is anticipated in 

2014. When available, NMFS will 

review and consider the final results 

and how they reflect on the L–DEO 

model. 

L–DEO has conveyed to NMFS that 

additional modeling efforts to refine the 

process and conduct comparative 

analysis may be possible with the 

availability of research funds and other 

resources. Obtaining research funds is 

typically through a competitive process, 

including those conducted by federal 

agencies. The use of models for 

calculating buffer and exclusion zone 

radii and developing take estimates is 

not a requirement of the MMPA ITA 

process. Furthermore, NMFS does not 

provide specific guidance on model 

parameters nor prescribe a specific 

model for applicants as part of the 

MMPA ITA process. There is a level of 

variability not only with parameters in 

models, but the uncertainty associated 

with data used in models, and therefore 

the quality of the model results 

submitted by applicants. NMFS, 

however, takes all of this variability into 

consideration when evaluating 

applications. Applicants use models as 

a tool to evaluate potential impacts, to 

estimate the number of takes of marine 

mammals, and for mitigation purposes. 

NMFS takes into consideration the 

model used and its results in 

determining the potential impacts to 

marine mammals; however, it is just a 

component of NMFS’s analysis during 

the MMPA consultation process, as 

NMFS also takes into consideration 

other factors associated with the 

proposed action, such as geographic 

location, duration of activities, context, 

intensity, etc. Takes generated by 

modeling are used as estimates, not 

absolutes, and are factored into NMFS’s 

analysis accordingly. Of broader note, 

NMFS is currently pursuing methods 

that include site-specific components to 

allow us to better cross-check isopleth 

and propagation predictions submitted 

by applicants. Using this information, 

NMFS could potentially recommend 

modifications to take estimates and/or 

mitigation zones, as appropriate. 

Comment 3: The Commission states 

that in 2011, NSF and USGS modeled 

sound propagation under various 

environmental conditions in their PEIS. 

L–DEO and NSF (in cooperation with 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

[PG&E]) also used a similar modeling 

approach in the recent IHA application 

and associated EA for a seismic survey 

of Diablo Canyon in California (77 FR 

58256). These recent examples indicate 

that L–DEO, NSF, and related entities 

are able to implement the recommended 

approach, if required to do so by NMFS. 

The Commission understands the 

constraints imposed by the current 

budgetary environment, but notes that 

other agencies that contend with similar 

funding constraints incorporate 

modeling based on site-specific 

parameters. USGS, L–DEO, NSF, and 

related entities should be held to that 

same standard. NMFS recently 

indicated that it does not, and does not 

believe it is appropriate to, prescribe the 

use of any particular modeling package 

(79 FR 38499). The Commission agrees 

that NMFS should not instruct 

applicants to use specific contractors or 

modeling packages, but it should hold 

applicants to the same standard, 

primarily one in which site- and 

operation-specific environmental 

parameters are incorporated into the 

models. 

Response: PG&E submitted an IHA 

application to NMFS and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service for the Central 

Coastal California Seismic Imaging 

Project in 2012. The IHA application 

included a report of acoustic 

propagation modeling conducted by 

Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., sponsored 

by Padre Associates, Inc., to estimate 

received sound pressure level radii for 

airgun pulses operating off central 

California in the vicinity of the Diablo 

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. A waveVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Oct 07, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08OCN1.SGM 08OCN1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60816 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

theory model and precise waveguide 

parameters that describe sound 

reflections and refractions at the ocean 

surface, seafloor, and water column 

were used to accurately model sound 

transmission in the ocean. As the action 

proponent, PG&E funded the seismic 

survey and related environmental 

compliance documents (e.g., IHA 

application, Environmental Assessment, 

etc.). NSF, as the owner of the Langseth, 

served as the federal nexus for the ESA 

section 7 consultation and need for the 

preparation of the NEPA document. L– 

DEO is the operator of the Langseth and 

often applies for IHAs for NSF-funded 

seismic surveys conducted for scientific 

research purposes. 

There are many different modeling 

products and services commercially 

available that applicants could 

potentially use in developing their take 

estimates and analyses for MMPA ITAs. 

These different models range widely in 

cost, complexity, and the number of 

specific factors that can be considered 

in any particular modeling run. NMFS 

does not, and does not believe that it is 

appropriate to, prescribe the use of any 

particular modeling package. Rather, 

each applicant’s approach is evaluated 

independently in the context of its 

activity. In cases where simpler models 

are used and there is concern that a 

model might not capture the variability 

across a parameter(s) that is not 

represented in the model, conservative 

choices are often made at certain 

decision points in the model to help 

ensure that modeled estimates are 

buffered in a manner that would not 

result in the agency underestimating the 

number of takes or extent of effects. In 

this case, results have shown that L– 

DEO’s model reliably and 

conservatively estimates mitigation radii 

in deep water. The observed sound 

levels from the field measurements fell 

almost entirely below L–DEO’s 

estimated mitigation radii for deep 

water (Diebold et al., 2010). Based on 

these empirical data, which illustrate 

the model’s conservative exposure 

estimates across two sites, NMFS finds 

that L–DEO’s model effectively 

estimates sound exposures. 

NMFS encourages applicants to 

incorporate modeling based on sitespecific and operation-specific 

parameters in their IHA applications, 

whenever possible, but it is unrealistic 

to require all applicants to do so in IHA 

applications and/or NEPA documents 

(EAs and EISs) as activities may vary in 

their scope and level of anticipated 

impacts, and applicants may have 

varying funding and resource 

constraints. However, it is still 

incumbent upon NMFS to take the 

uncertainty that comes along with 

varying models into consideration in 

both the analysis of effects and the 

consideration of mitigation measures. In 

this case, as described elsewhere in this 

section, we have considered the 

uncertainty associated with the 

applicant’s model and have determined 

that it does not change either our 

findings regarding the anticipated level 

and severity of impacts on marine 

mammals or our conclusion that the 

mitigation measures required provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat. 

Of broader note, NMFS is currently 

pursuing methods (that include sitespecific components) to allow us to 

better cross-check isopleth and 

propagation predictions submitted by 

applicants. Using this information, we 

could potentially recommend 

modifications to take estimates and/or 

mitigation zones, as appropriate. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS either estimate 

the numbers of takes that could occur 

during the bathymetric survey, which 

includes the use of the multi-beam 

echosounder and sub-bottom profiler 

absent the airguns, based on the 120 dB 

(rms) threshold rather than the 160 dB 

(rms) threshold, or not include 

authorization for taking by the acoustic 

sources (echosounder, sub-bottom 

profiler, ADCP) in the final IHA. 

Response: NMFS disagrees with the 

Commission’s recommendation that 

NMFS require NSF and ASC to estimate 

the number of marine mammals taken 

when the single-beam and multi-beam 

echosounder, ADCP, and sub-bottom 

profiler are used in the absence of the 

airgun array based on the 120 dB (rms) 

threshold, for continuous sounds, rather 

than the 160 dB (rms) threshold, for 

impulsive sounds. 160 dB (rms) is the 

appropriate threshold for these sound 

sources. Continuous sounds are those 

whose sound pressure level remains 

above that of the ambient sound, with 

negligibly small fluctuations in level 

(NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005), while 

intermittent sounds are defined as 

sounds with interrupted levels of low or 

no sound (NIOSH, 1998). Echosounder 

signals are emitted as separate pulses 

separated by silence, and thus are not 

continuous sounds but rather 

intermittent sounds. Intermittent sounds 

can further be defined as either 

impulsive or non-impulsive. Impulsive 

sounds have been defined as sounds 

which are typically transient, brief (less 

than 1 second), broadband, and consist 

of a high peak pressure with rapid rise 

time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; 

NIOSH, 1998). Echosounder signals also 

have durations that are typically very 

brief (less than 1 second), with temporal 

characteristics that more closely 

resemble those of impulsive sounds 

than non-impulsive sounds, which 

typically have more gradual rise times 

and longer decays (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 

1998). With regard to behavioral 

thresholds, we therefore consider the 

temporal and spectral characteristics of 

echosounder signals to more closely 

resemble those of an impulsive sound 

than a continuous sound. 

The Commission suggests that, for 

certain sources considered here, the 

interval between pulses would not be 

discernible to the animal, thus 

rendering them effectively continuous. 

However, an echosounder’s ‘‘rapid 

staccato’’ of pulse trains is emitted in a 

similar fashion as odontocete 

echolocation click trains. Research 

indicates that marine mammals, in 

general, have extremely fine auditory 

temporal resolution and can detect each 

signal separately (e.g., Au et al., 1988; 

Dolphin et al., 1995; Supin and Popov, 

1995; Mooney et al., 2009), especially 

species with echolocation capabilities. 

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that 

marine mammals would perceive 

echosounder signals as being 

continuous. 

In conclusion, echosounder, ADCP, 

and sub-bottom profiler signals are 

intermittent rather than continuous 

signals, and the fine temporal resolution 

of the marine mammals auditory 

systems allows them to perceive these 

sounds as such. Further, the physical 

characteristics of these signals indicate 

a greater similarity to the way that 

intermittent, impulsive sounds are 

received. Therefore, the 160 dB 

threshold (typically associated with 

impulsive sources) is more appropriate 

than the 120 dB threshold (typically 

associated with continuous sources) for 

estimating takes by behavioral 

harassment incidental to use of such 

sources. 

Comment 5: The Commission believes 

that NMFS misinterpreted its 

implementing regulations, which 

require that applicants include ‘‘the 

suggested means of accomplishing the 

necessary monitoring and reporting that 

will result in increased knowledge of 

the species, the level of taking or 

impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present while conducting activities, and 

suggested means of minimizing burdens 

by coordinating such reporting 

requirements with other schemes 

already applicable to persons 

conducting such activity.’’ The 

Commission believes that monitoring 

and reporting requirements need to be 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60817 

sufficient to provide accurate 

information on the numbers of marine 

mammals being taken and the manner 

in which they are taken, not merely 

better information on the qualitative 

nature of the impacts. The Commission 

continues to believe that appropriate 

g(0) and f(0) values are essential for 

making accurate estimates of the 

numbers of marine mammals taken 

during surveys. The Commission 

recommends that NMFS consult with 

the funding agency (e.g., NSF) and 

individual applicants (e.g., ASC, L– 

DEO, USGS, SIO, and other related 

entities) to develop, validate, and 

implement a monitoring program that 

provides a scientifically sound, 

reasonably accurate assessment of the 

types of marine mammal takes and the 

actual numbers of marine mammals 

taken, accounting for applicable g(0) 

and f(0) values. 

Response: NMFS does not believe that 

we misinterpreted the MMPA 

implementing regulations in our 

previous response that the Commission 

references. With respect to levels of 

take, NMFS interprets the sentence 

quoted by the Commission to require 

the applicants include suggested 

monitoring and reporting that will result 

in ‘‘an increased knowledge of . . . the 

level of taking . . .’’ This is the most 

logical interpretation, because if we 

were to assume that the phrase 

‘‘increased knowledge of’’ does not 

modify ‘‘the level of taking,’’ then the 

sentence would read: ‘‘the suggested 

means of accomplishing the necessary 

monitoring and reporting that will result 

in . . . the level of taking . . . ,’’ which 

does not make sense. 

Even putting any potential 

grammatical questions aside, NMFS 

does not believe that the regulations 

suggests that the monitoring conducted 

by an authorized entity must be able to 

quantify the exact number of takes that 

occurred during the action, but rather 

that the monitoring increase 

understanding of the level and effects of 

the action. In fact, the Commission’s 

comment supports this interpretation. 

As noted by the Commission, section 

101(a)(5)(D)(iv) requires that NMFS 

‘‘modify, suspend, or revoke an 

authorization’’ if it finds, among other 

things, that the authorized taking is 

having more than a negligible impact or 

that more than small numbers of marine 

mammals are being taken. Both the 

negligible impact and small numbers 

findings may be made using qualitative, 

or relative (compared to the stock 

abundance) information. The sorts of 

qualitative, or relative information 

collected during the wide variety of 

monitoring that is conducted pursuant 

to MMPA authorizations can be used to 

provide broad support for the findings 

underlying the issuance of an IHA or 

can highlight red flags that might 

necessitate either a reconsideration of 

an issued IHA or a change in analyses 

in future authorizations. NMFS’s 

previous response is included below for 

reference. 

NMFS’s implementing regulations 

require that applicants include 

monitoring that will result in ‘‘an 

increased knowledge of the species, the 

level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present while conducting 

activities . . .’’ This increased 

knowledge of the level of taking could 

be qualitative or relative in nature, or it 

could be more directly quantitative. 

Scientists use g(0) and f(0) values in 

systematic marine mammal surveys to 

account for the undetected animals 

indicated above; however, these values 

are not simply established and the g(0) 

value varies across every observer based 

on their sighting acumen. While we 

want to be clear that NMFS does not 

generally believe that post-activity take 

estimates using f(0) and g(0) are 

required to meet the monitoring 

requirement of the MMPA, in the 

context of the NSF and L–DEO’s 

monitoring plan, NMFS agrees that 

developing and incorporating a way to 

better interpret the results of their 

monitoring (perhaps a simplified or 

generalized version of g(0) and f(0)) is a 

good idea. NMFS is continuing to 

examine this issue with NSF (and other 

entities) to develop ways to improve 

their post-survey take estimates. NMFS 

will consult with the Commission and 

NMFS scientists prior to finalizing these 

recommendations. 

NMFS notes that current monitoring 

measures for past and current IHAs for 

research seismic surveys require the 

collection of visual observation data by 

PSOs prior to, during, and after airgun 

operations. This data collection may 

contribute to baseline data on marine 

mammals (e.g., presence/absence) and 

provide some generalized support for 

estimated take numbers (as well as 

providing data regarding behavioral 

responses to seismic operation that are 

observable at the surface). However, it is 

unlikely that the information gathered 

from these cruises alone would result in 

any statistically robust conclusions for 

any particular species because of the 

small numbers of animals typically 

observed. 

Comment 6: One private citizen 

opposed the issuance of an IHA by 

NMFS and the conduct of the lowenergy seismic survey in the Scotia Sea 

and South Atlantic Ocean, September to 

October 2014 by NSF and ASC. The 

commenter stated that NMFS should 

protect marine life from harm. 

Response: As described in detail in 

the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 

45592, August 5, 2014), as well as in 

this document, NMFS does not believe 

NSF and ASC’s low-energy seismic 

survey would cause injury, serious 

injury, or mortality to marine mammals, 

and no take by injury, serious injury, or 

mortality is authorized. The required 

monitoring and mitigation measures 

that NSF and ASC will implement 

during the low-energy seismic survey 

will further reduce the potential impacts 

on marine mammals to the lowest level 

practicable. NMFS anticipates only 

behavioral disturbance to occur during 

the conduct of the low-energy seismic 

survey. 

Description of the Marine Mammals in 

the Specified Geographic Area of the 

Specified Activity 

Various national Antarctic research 

programs (e.g., British Antarctic Survey, 

Australian Antarctic Division, and 

NMFS National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory), academic institutions (e.g., 

Duke University, University of St. 

Andrews, and Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution), and other 

organizations (e.g., South Georgia 

Museum, Fundacion Cethus, Whale and 

Dolphin Conservation, and New 

England Aquarium) have conducted 

scientific cruises and/or examined data 

on marine mammal sightings along the 

coast of Antarctica, south Atlantic 

Ocean, Scotia Sea, and around South 

Georgia and South Sandwich islands, 

and these data were considered in 

evaluating potential marine mammals in 

the action area. Records from the 

International Whaling Commission’s 

International Decade of Cetacean 

Research (IDCR), Southern Ocean 

Collaboration Program (SOC), and 

Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem 

Research (IWC–SOWER) circumpolar 

cruises were also considered. 

The marine mammals that generally 

occur in the planned action area belong 

to three taxonomic groups: mysticetes 

(baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed 

whales), and pinnipeds (seals and sea 

lions). The marine mammal species that 

could potentially occur within the 

southern Atlantic Ocean in proximity to 

the action area in the Scotia Sea include 

32 species of cetaceans and 7 species of 

pinnipeds. 

The waters of the Scotia Sea and 

southern Atlantic Ocean, especially 

those near South Georgia Island, are 

characterized by high biomass and 

productivity of phytoplankton, 

zooplankton, and vertebrate predators, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

and may be a feeding ground for many 

of these marine mammals (Richardson, 

2012). In general, many of the species 

present in the sub-Antarctic study area 

may be present or migrating through the 

Scotia Sea during the planned lowenergy seismic survey. Many of the 

species that may be potentially present 

in the study area seasonally migrate to 

higher latitudes near Antarctica. In 

general, most large whale species 

(except for the killer whale) migrate 

north in the middle of the austral winter 

and return to Antarctica in the early 

austral summer. 

The six species of pinnipeds that are 

found in the southern Atlantic Ocean 

and Southern Ocean and may be present 

in the planned study area include the 

crabeater (Lebodon carcinophagus), 

leopard (Hydrurga leptonyx), Weddell 

(Leptonychotes weddellii), southern 

elephant (Mirounga leonina), Antarctic 

fur (Arctocephalus gazella), and 

Subantarctic fur (Arctocephalus 

tropicalis) seal. Many of these pinniped 

species breed on either the pack ice or 

subantarctic islands. The southern 

elephant seal and Antarctic fur seal 

have haul-outs and rookeries that are 

located on subantarctic islands and 

prefer beaches. The Ross seal 

(Ommatophoca rossii) is generally 

found in dense consolidated pack ice 

and on ice floes, but may migrate into 

open water to forage. This species’ 

preferred habitat is not in the planned 

study area, and thus it is not considered 

further in this document. 

Marine mammal species likely to be 

encountered in the planned study area 

that are listed as endangered under the 

U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), includes 

the southern right (Eubalaena australis), 

humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), 

sei (Balaenoptera borealis), fin 

(Balaenoptera physalus), blue 

(Balaenoptera musculus), and sperm 

(Physeter macrocephalus) whale. 

In addition to the 26 species known 

to occur in the Scotia Sea and the 

southern Atlantic Ocean, there are 14 

cetacean species with ranges that are 

known to potentially occur in the waters 

of the study area: pygmy right (Caperea 

marginata), Bryde’s (Balaenoptera 

brydei), dwarf minke (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata spp.), pygmy blue 

(Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda), 

pygmy sperm (Kogia breviceps), dwarf 

sperm (Kogia sima), Andrew’s beaked 

(Mesoplodon bowdoini), Blainville’s 

beaked (Mesoplodon densirostris), 

Hector’s beaked (Mesoplodon hectori), 

and spade-toothed beaked (Mesoplodon 

traversii) whale, and Commerson’s 

(Cephalorhynchus commersonii), Dusky 

(Lagenorhynchus obscurus), bottlenose 

(Tursiops truncatus), and Risso’s 

(Grampus griseus) dolphin. However, 

these species have not been sighted and 

are not expected to occur where the 

planned activities will take place. These 

species are not considered further in 

this document. Table 2 (below) presents 

information on the habitat, occurrence, 

distribution, abundance, population 

status, and conservation status of the 

species of marine mammals that may 

occur in the planned study area during 

September to October 2014. 

TABLE 2—THE HABITAT, OCCURRENCE, RANGE, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE SCOTIA SEA AND SOUTHERN

ATLANTIC OCEAN

[See text and Tables 6 and 7 in NSF and ASC’s IHA application for further details] 

Species Habitat Occurrence Range Population 

estimate ESA1 MMPA2

Mysticetes: 

Southern right whale 

(Eubalaena australis).

Coastal, pelagic ............ Common ...... Circumpolar 20 to 55° 

South.

8,000 3 to 15,000 4 ........ EN D 

Pygmy right whale 

(Caperea marginata).

Coastal, pelagic ............ Rare ............. 30 to 55° South ............ NA ................................ NL NC 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Pelagic, nearshore 

waters, and banks.

Common ...... Cosmopolitan ............... 35,000 to 40,000 3— 

Worldwide, 9,484 5— 

Scotia Sea and Antarctica Peninsula.

EN D 

Minke whale 

(Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata including 

dwarf sub-species).

Pelagic and coastal ...... Common ...... Circumpolar—Southern 

Hemisphere to 65° 

South.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Antarctic minke whale 

(Balaenoptera 

bonaerensis).

Pelagic, ice floes .......... Common ...... 7° South to ice edge 

(usually 20 to 65° 

South).

Several 100,000 3— 

Worldwide, 

18,125 5—Scotia Sea 

and Antarctica Peninsula.

NL NC 

Bryde’s whale 

(Balaenoptera brydei).

Pelagic and coastal ...... Rare ............. Circumglobal 40° North 

to 40° South.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis).

Primarily offshore, pelagic.Uncommon ... Migratory, Feeding 

Concentration 40 to 

50° South.

80,000 3—Worldwide .... EN D 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus).

Continental slope, pelagic.Common ...... Cosmopolitan, Migratory.140,000 3—Worldwide, 

4,672 5—Scotia Sea 

and Antarctica Peninsula.

EN D 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus; including 

pygmy blue whale 

[Balaenoptera 

musculus brevicauda]).

Pelagic, shelf, coastal .. Uncommon ... Migratory Pygmy blue 

whale—North of Antarctic Convergence 

55° South.

8,000 to 9,000 3— 

Worldwide, 1,700 6— 

Southern Ocean.

EN D 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

Pelagic, deep sea ........ Common ...... Cosmopolitan, Migratory.360,000 3—Worldwide, 

9,500 3—Antarctic.

EN D 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60819 

TABLE 2—THE HABITAT, OCCURRENCE, RANGE, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE SCOTIA SEA AND SOUTHERN

ATLANTIC OCEAN—Continued 

[See text and Tables 6 and 7 in NSF and ASC’s IHA application for further details] 

Species Habitat Occurrence Range Population 

estimate ESA1 MMPA2

Pygmy sperm whale 

(Kogia breviceps).

Pelagic, slope ............... Rare ............. Widely distributed in 

tropical and temperate zones.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Dwarf sperm whale 

(Kogia sima).

Pelagic, slope ............... Rare ............. Widely distributed in 

tropical and temperate zones.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Arnoux’s beaked whale 

(Berardius arnuxii).

Pelagic .......................... Common ...... Circumpolar in Southern Hemisphere, 24 

to 78° South.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris).

Pelagic .......................... Uncommon ... Cosmopolitan ............... NA ................................ NL NC 

Shepherd’s beaked whale 

(Tasmacetus 

shepherdi).

Pelagic .......................... Common ...... Circumpolar—south of 

30° South.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Southern bottlenose 

whale (Hyperoodon 

planifrons).

Pelagic .......................... Common ...... Circumpolar—30° South 

to ice edge.

500,000 3—South of 

Antarctic Convergence.

NL NC 

Andrew’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon bowdoini).

Pelagic .......................... Rare ............. 32 to 55° South ............ NA ................................ NL NC 

Blainville’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon 

densirostris).

Pelagic .......................... Rare ............. Temperate and tropical 

waters worldwide.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Gray’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon grayi).

Pelagic .......................... Common ...... 30° South to Antarctic 

waters.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Hector’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon hectori).

Pelagic .......................... Rare ............. Circumpolar—cool temperate waters of 

Southern Hemisphere.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Spade-toothed beaked 

whale (Mesoplodon 

traversii).

Pelagic .......................... Rare ............. Circumantarctic ............ NA ................................ NL NC 

Strap-toothed beaked 

whale (Mesoplodon 

layardii).

Pelagic .......................... Common ...... 30° South to Antarctic 

Convergence.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Killer whale (Orcinus 

orca).

Pelagic, shelf, coastal, 

pack ice.

Common ...... Cosmopolitan ............... 80,000 3—South of Antarctic Convergence, 

25,000 7—Southern 

Ocean.

NL NC 

Long-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas).

Pelagic, shelf, coastal .. Common ...... Circumpolar—19 to 68° 

South in Southern 

Hemisphere.

200,000 3 8—South of 

Antarctic Convergence.

NL NC 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

Shelf, slope, seamounts Rare ............. 60° North to 60° South NA ................................ NL NC 

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus).

Offshore, inshore, 

coastal, estuaries.

Rare ............. 45° North to 45° South >625,500 3—Worldwide NL NC 

Southern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis 

peronii).

Pelagic .......................... Uncommon ... 12 to 65° South ............ NA ................................ NL NC 

Peale’s dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

australis).

Coastal, continental 

shelf, islands.

Uncommon ... 33 to 60° South ............ NA, 200—southern 

Chile 3.

NL NC 

Commerson’s dolphin 

(Cephalorhynchus 

commersonii).

Coastal, continental 

shelf, islands.

Rare ............. South America, Falkland Islands, 

Kerguelen Islands.

3,200—Strait of Magellan 3.NL NC 

Dusky dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

obscurus).

Coastal, continental 

shelf and slope.

Rare ............. Widespread in Southern 

Hemisphere.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Hourglass dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

cruciger).

Pelagic, ice edge .......... Common ...... 33° South to pack ice ... 144,000 3—South of 

Antarctic Convergence.

NL NC 

Spectacled porpoise 

(Phocoena dioptrica).

Coastal, pelagic ............ Uncommon ... Circumpolar—Southern 

Hemisphere.

NA ................................ NL NC 

Pinnipeds: 

Crabeater seal (Lobodon 

carcinophaga).

Coastal, pack ice .......... Common ...... Circumpolar—Antarctic 5,000,000 to 

15,000,000 3 9.

NL NC 

Leopard seal (Hydrurga 

leptonyx).

Pack ice, sub-Antarctic 

islands.

Common ...... Sub-Antarctic islands to 

pack ice.

220,000 to 440,000 3 10 NL NC 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

TABLE 2—THE HABITAT, OCCURRENCE, RANGE, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE SCOTIA SEA AND SOUTHERN

ATLANTIC OCEAN—Continued 

[See text and Tables 6 and 7 in NSF and ASC’s IHA application for further details] 

Species Habitat Occurrence Range Population 

estimate ESA1 MMPA2

Ross seal (Ommatophoca 

rossii).

Pack ice, smooth ice 

floes, pelagic.

Rare ............. Circumpolar—Antarctic 130,000 3 20,000 to 

220,000 14.

NL NC 

Weddell seal 

(Leptonychotes 

weddellii).

Fast ice, pack ice, subAntarctic islands.Uncommon ... Circumpolar—Southern 

Hemisphere.

500,000 to 

1,000,000 3 11.

NL NC 

Southern elephant seal 

(Mirounga leonina).

Coastal, pelagic, subAntarctic waters.Common ...... Circumpolar—Antarctic 

Convergence to pack 

ice.

640,000 12 to 650,000 3, 

470,000—South 

Georgia Island 14.

NL NC 

Antarctic fur seal 

(Arctocephalus gazella).

Shelf, rocky habitats ..... Common ...... Sub-Antarctic islands to 

pack ice edge.

1,600,000 13 to 

3,000,000 3.

NL NC 

Subantarctic fur seal 

(Arctocephalus 

tropicalis).

Shelf, rocky habitats ..... Uncommon ... Subtropical front to subAntarctic islands and 

Antarctica.

Greater than 310,000 3 NL NC 

NA = Not available or not assessed. 

1 U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed. 

2 U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified. 

3 Jefferson et al., 2008. 4Kenney, 2009. 

5 Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) survey area (Reilly et al., 2004). 6Sears and Perrin, 2009. 

7Ford, 2009. 

8Olson, 2009. 

9Bengston, 2009. 

10 Rogers, 2009. 11Thomas and Terhune, 2009. 12 Hindell and Perrin, 2009. 13Arnould, 2009. 14Academic Press, 2009. 

Refer to sections 3 and 4 of NSF and 

ASC’s IHA application for detailed 

information regarding the abundance 

and distribution, population status, and 

life history and behavior of these other 

marine mammal species and their 

occurrence in the planned project area. 

The IHA application also presents how 

NSF and ASC calculated the estimated 

densities for the marine mammals in the 

study area. NMFS has reviewed these 

data and determined them to be the best 

available scientific information for the 

purposes of the IHA. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that the types of 

stressors associated with the specified 

activity (e.g., seismic airgun operation, 

vessel movement, gear deployment) 

have been observed to impact marine 

mammals. This discussion may also 

include reactions that we consider to 

rise to the level of a take and those that 

we do not consider to rise to the level 

of take (for example, with acoustics, we 

may include a discussion of studies that 

showed animals not reacting at all to 

sound or exhibiting barely measureable 

avoidance). This section is intended as 

a background of potential effects and 

does not consider either the specific 

manner in which this activity will be 

carried out or the mitigation that will be 

implemented, and how either of those 

would shape the anticipated impacts 

from this specific activity. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’ section will include the 

analysis of how this specific activity 

will impact marine mammals and will 

consider the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, the ‘‘Mitigation’’ 

section, and the ‘‘Anticipated Effects on 

Marine Mammal Habitat’’ section to 

draw conclusions regarding the likely 

impacts of this activity on the 

reproductive success or survivorship of 

individuals and from that on the 

affected marine mammal populations or 

stocks. 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Based on available 

behavioral data, audiograms have been 

derived using auditory evoked 

potentials, anatomical modeling, and 

other data, Southall et al. (2007) 

designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 

for marine mammals and estimate the 

lower and upper frequencies of 

functional hearing of the groups. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (though 

animals are less sensitive to sounds at 

the outer edge of their functional range 

and most sensitive to sounds of 

frequencies within a smaller range 

somewhere in the middle of their 

functional hearing range): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): Functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia spp., the 

franciscana [Pontoporia blainvillei], and 

four species of cephalorhynchids): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; and 

• Phocid pinnipeds in water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60821 

between approximately 75 Hz and 100 

kHz; 

• Otariid pinnipeds in water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 100 Hz and 40 

kHz. 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, 26 marine mammal species 

(20 cetacean and 6 pinniped species) are 

likely to occur in the seismic survey 

area. Of the 20 cetacean species likely 

to occur in NSF and ASC’s action area, 

7 are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (southern right, humpback, 

minke, Antarctic minke, sei, fin, and 

blue whale), 12 are classified as midfrequency cetaceans (sperm, Arnoux’s 

beaked, Cuvier’s beaked, Shepherd’s 

beaked, southern bottlenose, Gray’s 

beaked, strap-toothed beaked, killer, and 

long-finned pilot whale, and southern 

right whale, Peale’s, and hourglass 

dolphin), and 1 is classified as a highfrequency cetacean (spectacled 

porpoise) (Southall et al., 2007). Of the 

6 pinniped species likely to occur in 

NSF and ASC’s planned action area, 4 

are classified as phocid pinnipeds 

(crabeater, leopard, Weddell, and 

southern elephant seal), and 2 are 

classified as otariid pinnipeds 

(Antarctic and Subantarctic fur seal) 

(Southall et al., 2007). A species 

functional hearing group is a 

consideration when we analyze the 

effects of exposure to sound on marine 

mammals. 

Acoustic stimuli generated by the 

operation of the airguns, which 

introduce sound into the marine 

environment, may have the potential to 

cause Level B harassment of marine 

mammals in the survey area. The effects 

of sounds from airgun operations might 

include one or more of the following: 

Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, 

behavioral disturbance, temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment, or nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon 

et al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; 

Southall et al., 2007). Permanent 

hearing impairment, in the unlikely 

event that it occurred, would constitute 

injury, but temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) is not an injury (Southall et al., 

2007). Although the possibility cannot 

be entirely excluded, it is unlikely that 

the planned project will result in any 

cases of temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment, or any significant 

non-auditory physical or physiological 

effects. Based on the available data and 

studies described here, some behavioral 

disturbance is expected, but NMFS 

expects the disturbance to be localized 

and short-term. NMFS described the 

range of potential effects from the 

specified activity in the notice of the 

proposed IHA (79 FR 45592). A more 

comprehensive review of these issues 

can be found in the ‘‘Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement/

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement prepared for Marine Seismic 

Research that is funded by the National 

Science Foundation and conducted by 

the U.S. Geological Survey’’ (NSF/

USGS, 2011) and L–DEO’s ‘‘Draft 

Environmental Assessment of a Marine 

Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in the Atlantic Ocean off 

Cape Hatteras, September to October 

2014.’’ 

The notice of the proposed IHA (79 

FR 45592, August 5, 2014) included a 

discussion of the effects of sounds from 

airguns on mysticetes and odontocetes, 

including tolerance, masking, 

behavioral disturbance, hearing 

impairment, and other non-auditory 

physical effects. NMFS refers the 

readers to USGS’s IHA application and 

EA for additional information on the 

behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by 

all types of marine mammals to seismic 

vessels. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

NMFS included a detailed discussion 

of the potential effects of this action on 

marine mammal habitat, including 

physiological and behavioral effects on 

marine fish and invertebrates, in the 

notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 

45592, August 5, 2014). The seismic 

survey will not result in any permanent 

impacts on habitats used by the marine 

mammals in the study area, including 

the food sources they use (i.e., fish and 

invertebrates), and there will be no 

physical damage to any habitat. While 

NMFS anticipates that the specified 

activity may result in marine mammals 

avoiding certain areas due to temporary 

ensonification, this impact to habitat is 

temporary and reversible, which was 

considered in further detail in the notice 

of the proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, 

August 5, 2014), as behavioral 

modification. The main impact 

associated with the activity will be 

temporarily elevated noise levels and 

the associated direct effects on marine 

mammals. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an Incidental Take 

Authorization (ITA) under section 

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

set forth the permissible methods of 

taking pursuant to such activity, and 

other means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on such species or 

stock and its habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance, and 

the availability of such species or stock 

for taking for certain subsistence uses 

(where relevant). 

NSF and ASC reviewed the following 

source documents and have 

incorporated a suite of appropriate 

mitigation measures into their project 

description. 

(1) Protocols used during previous 

NSF and USGS-funded seismic research 

cruises as approved by NMFS and 

detailed in the ‘‘Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement/

Overseas Environmental Impact 

Statement for Marine Seismic Research 

Funded by the National Science 

Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey;’’ 

(2) Previous IHA applications and 

IHAs approved and authorized by 

NMFS; and 

(3) Recommended best practices in 

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

(1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007). 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the planned activities, 

NSF, ASC, and their designees shall 

implement the following mitigation 

measures for marine mammals: 

(1) Exclusion zones around the sound 

source; 

(2) Speed and course alterations; 

(3) Shut-down procedures; and 

(4) Ramp-up procedures. 

Exclusion Zones—During preplanning of the cruise, the smallest 

airgun array was identified that could be 

used and still meet the geophysical 

scientific objectives. NSF and ASC use 

radii to designate exclusion and buffer 

zones and to estimate take for marine 

mammals. Table 3 (see below) shows 

the distances at which one would 

expect to receive three sound levels 

(160, 180, and 190 dB) from the two GI 

airgun array. The 180 and 190 dB level 

shut-down criteria are applicable to 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, 

as specified by NMFS (2000). NSF and 

ASC used these levels to establish the 

exclusion and buffer zones. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

TABLE 3—PREDICTED AND MODELED (TWO 105 IN3 GI AIRGUN ARRAY) DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS ≥ 160, 

180, AND 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms) COULD BE RECEIVED IN DEEP WATER DURING THE LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY

IN THE SCOTIA SEA AND THE SOUTHERN ATLANTIC OCEAN, SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER 2014 

Source and total volume Tow depth 

(m) 

Water 

depth 

(m) 

Predicted RMS radii distances (m) for 2 GI airgun array 

160 dB 180 dB 190 dB 

Two GI Airguns (105 in3) 3 to 4 ............................ Deep 

>(1,000) 

670 ...............................

(2,198.2 ft) ....................

100 (328.1 ft) ............... 20 (65.6 ft) * 100 will be 

used for pinnipeds as 

well as cetaceans*. 

Received sound levels have been 

modeled by L–DEO for a number of 

airgun configurations, including two 45 

in3 Nucleus G airguns, in relation to 

distance and direction from the airguns 

(see Figure 2 of the IHA application). In 

addition, propagation measurements of 

pulses from two GI airguns have been 

reported for shallow water 

(approximately 30 m [98.4 ft] depth) in 

the GOM (Tolstoy et al., 2004). 

However, measurements were not made 

for the two GI airguns in deep water. 

The model does not allow for bottom 

interactions, and is most directly 

applicable to deep water. Based on the 

modeling, estimates of the maximum 

distances from the GI airguns where 

sound levels are predicted to be 190, 

180, and 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) in 

shallow, intermediate, and deep water 

were determined (see Table 3 above). 

Empirical data concerning the 190, 

180, and 160 dB (rms) distances were 

acquired for various airgun arrays based 

on measurements during the acoustic 

verification studies conducted by L– 

DEO in the northern GOM in 2003 

(Tolstoy et al., 2004) and 2007 to 2008 

(Tolstoy et al., 2009). Results of the 18 

and 36 airgun arrays are not relevant for 

the two GI airguns to be used in the 

planned survey because the airgun 

arrays are not the same size or volume. 

The empirical data for the 6, 10, 12, and 

20 airgun arrays indicate that, for deep 

water, the L–DEO model tends to 

overestimate the received sound levels 

at a given distance (Tolstoy et al., 2004). 

Measurements were not made for the 

two GI airgun array in deep water; 

however, NSF and ASC plan to use the 

safety radii predicted by L–DEO’s model 

for the planned GI airgun operations in 

deep water, although they are likely 

conservative given the empirical results 

for the other arrays. 

Based on the modeling data, the 

outputs from the pair of 105 in3 GI 

airguns planned to be used during the 

seismic survey are considered a lowenergy acoustic source in the NSF/

USGS PEIS (2011) for marine seismic 

research. A low-energy seismic source 

was defined in the NSF/USGS PEIS as 

an acoustic source whose received level 

at 100 m is less than 180 dB. The NSF/ 

USGS PEIS also established for these 

low-energy sources, a standard 

exclusion zone of 100 m for all lowenergy sources in water depths greater 

than 100 m. This standard 100 m 

exclusion zone will be used during the 

planned low-energy seismic survey. The 

180 and 190 dB (rms) radii are shutdown criteria applicable to cetaceans 

and pinnipeds, respectively, as 

specified by NMFS (2000); these levels 

were used to establish exclusion zones. 

Therefore, the assumed 180 and 190 dB 

radii are 100 m for intermediate and 

deep water. If the PSO detects a marine 

mammal within or about to enter the 

appropriate exclusion zone, the airguns 

will be shut-down immediately. 

Speed and Course Alterations—If a 

marine mammal is detected outside the 

exclusion zone and, based on its 

position and direction of travel (relative 

motion), is likely to enter the exclusion 

zone, changes of the vessel’s speed and/ 

or direct course will be considered if 

this does not compromise operational 

safety or damage the deployed 

equipment. This will be done if 

operationally practicable while 

minimizing the effect on the planned 

science objectives. For marine seismic 

surveys towing large streamer arrays, 

course alterations are not typically 

implemented due to the vessel’s limited 

maneuverability. However, the Palmer 

will be towing a relatively short 

hydrophone streamer, so its 

maneuverability during airgun 

operations with the hydrophone 

streamer will not be limited as vessels 

towing long streamers, thus increasing 

the potential to implement course 

alterations, if necessary. After any such 

speed and/or course alteration is begun, 

the marine mammal activities and 

movements relative to the seismic vessel 

will be closely monitored to ensure that 

the marine mammal does not approach 

within the exclusion zone. If the marine 

mammal appears likely to enter the 

exclusion zone, further mitigation 

actions will be taken, including further 

speed and/or course alterations, and/or 

shut-down of the airgun(s). Typically, 

during airgun operations, the source 

vessel is unable to change speed or 

course, and one or more alternative 

mitigation measures will need to be 

implemented. 

Shut-down Procedures—If a marine 

mammal is detected outside the 

exclusion zone for the airgun(s) and the 

vessel’s speed and/or course cannot be 

changed to avoid having the animal 

enter the exclusion zone, NSF and ASC 

will shut-down the operating airgun(s) 

before the animal is within the 

exclusion zone. Likewise, if a marine 

mammal is already within the exclusion 

zone when first detected, the seismic 

source will be shut-down immediately. 

Following a shut-down, NSF and ASC 

will not resume airgun activity until the 

marine mammal has cleared the 

exclusion zone. NSF and ASC will 

consider the animal to have cleared the 

exclusion zone if: 

• A PSO has visually observed the 

animal leave the exclusion zone, or 

• A PSO has not sighted the animal 

within the exclusion zone for 15 

minutes for species with shorter dive 

durations (i.e., small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species 

with longer dive durations (i.e., 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy and dwarf 

sperm, killer, and beaked whales). 

Although power-down procedures are 

often standard operating practice for 

seismic surveys, they will not be used 

during this planned seismic survey 

because powering-down from two 

airguns to one airgun would make only 

a small difference in the exclusion 

zone(s) that probably would not be 

enough to allow continued one-airgun 

operations if a marine mammal came 

within the exclusion zone for two 

airguns. 

Ramp-up Procedures—Ramp-up of an 

airgun array provides a gradual increase 

in sound levels, and involves a stepwise increase in the number and total 

volume of airguns firing until the full 

volume of the airgun array is achieved. 

The purpose of a ramp-up is to ‘‘warn’’ 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

airguns and to provide the time for them 

to leave the area, avoiding any potential 

injury or impairment of their hearing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60823 

abilities. NSF and ASC will follow a 

ramp-up procedure when the airgun 

array begins operating after a specified 

period without airgun operations or 

when a shut-down has exceeded that 

period. NSF and ASC proposed that, for 

the present cruise, this period would be 

approximately 15 minutes. SIO, L–DEO, 

and USGS have used similar periods 

(approximately 15 minutes) during 

previous low-energy seismic surveys. 

Ramp-up will begin with a single GI 

airgun (105 in3). The second GI airgun 

(105 in3) will be added after 5 minutes. 

During ramp-up, the PSOs will monitor 

the exclusion zone, and if marine 

mammals are sighted, a shut-down will 

be implemented as though both GI 

airguns were operational. 

If the complete exclusion zone has not 

been visible for at least 30 minutes prior 

to the start of operations in either 

daylight or nighttime, NSF and ASC 

will not commence the ramp-up. Given 

these provisions, it is likely that the 

airgun array will not be ramped-up from 

a complete shut-down at night or in 

thick fog, because the outer part of the 

exclusion zone for that array would not 

be visible during those conditions. If 

one airgun has operated, ramp-up to full 

power will be permissible at night or in 

poor visibility, on the assumption that 

marine mammals will be alerted to the 

approaching seismic vessel by the 

sounds from the single airgun and could 

move away if they choose. A ramp-up 

from a shut-down may occur at night, 

but only where the exclusion zone is 

small enough to be visible. NSF and 

ASC will not initiate a ramp-up of the 

airguns if a marine mammal is sighted 

within or near the applicable exclusion 

zones during the day or close to the 

vessel at night. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s mitigation measures and has 

considered a range of other measures in 

the context of ensuring that NMFS 

prescribes the means of effecting the 

least practicable impact on the affected 

marine mammal species and stocks and 

their habitat. NMFS’s evaluation of 

potential measures included 

consideration of the following factors in 

relation to one another: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

(2) The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

(3) The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation including 

consideration of personnel safety, 

practicality of implementation, and 

impact on the effectiveness of the 

activity. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed below: 

(1) Avoidance of minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

(2) A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to received levels 

of airguns, or other activities expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

(3) A reduction in the number of time 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to received levels of 

airguns, or other activities expected to 

result in the take of marine mammals 

(this goal may contribute to 1, above, or 

to reducing harassment takes only). 

(4) A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to received levels of airguns, 

or other activities, or other activities 

expected to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to a, 

above, or to reducing the severity of 

harassment takes only). 

(5) Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

(6) For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on NMFS’s evaluation of the 

applicant’s measures, as well as other 

measures considered by NMFS or 

recommended by the public, NMFS has 

determined that the mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

‘‘requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such 

taking.’’ The MMPA implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) 

indicate that requests for IHAs must 

include the suggested means of 

accomplishing the necessary monitoring 

and reporting that will result in 

increased knowledge of the species and 

of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the action 

area. NSF and ASC submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring plan as part of the 

IHA application. It can be found in 

Section 13 of the IHA application. The 

plan has not been modified or 

supplemented between the notice of the 

proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 

2014) and this final notice announcing 

the issuance of the IHA, as none of the 

comments or new information received 

from the public during the public 

comment period required a change to 

the plan. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

(1) An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the mitigation zone (thus allowing for 

more effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and in general to generate 

more data to contribute to the analyses 

mentioned below; 

(2) An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals are 

likely to be exposed to levels of sound 

(airguns) that we associate with specific 

adverse effects, such as behavioral 

harassment, TTS, or PTS; 

(3) An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

stimuli expected to result in take and 

how anticipated adverse effects on 

individuals (in different ways and to 

varying degrees) may impact the 

population, species, or stock 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

• Behavioral observations in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

• Physiological measurements in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(need to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); and 

• Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated stimuli versus times or 

areas without stimuli; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

(4) An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; and 

(5) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

Monitoring 

NSF and ASC will conduct marine 

mammal monitoring during the lowenergy seismic survey, in order to 

implement the mitigation measures that 

require real-time monitoring and to 

satisfy the anticipated monitoring 

requirements of the IHA. NSF and 

ASC’s ‘‘Monitoring Plan’’ is described 

below this section. NSF and ASC 

understand that this monitoring plan 

will be subject to continuing review by 

NMFS and that refinements may be 

required. The monitoring work 

described here has been planned as a 

self-contained project independent of 

any other related monitoring projects 

that may be occurring simultaneously in 

the same regions. NSF and ASC are 

prepared to discuss coordination of 

their monitoring program with any 

related work that might be done by 

other groups insofar as this is practical 

and desirable. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

NSF and ASC’s PSOs will be based 

aboard the seismic source vessel and 

will watch for marine mammals near the 

vessel during daytime airgun operations 

and during any ramp-ups of the airguns 

at night. PSOs will also watch for 

marine mammals near the seismic 

vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the 

start of airgun operations and after an 

extended shut-down (i.e., greater than 

approximately 15 minutes for this lowenergy seismic survey). When feasible, 

PSOs will conduct observations during 

daytime periods when the seismic 

system is not operating (such as during 

transits) for comparison of sighting rates 

and behavior with and without airgun 

operations and between acquisition 

periods. Based on PSO observations, the 

airguns will be shut-down when marine 

mammals are observed within or about 

to enter a designated exclusion zone. 

The exclusion zone is a region in which 

a possibility exists of adverse effects on 

animal hearing or other physical effects. 

During seismic operations in the 

Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean, 

at least three PSOs will be based aboard 

the Palmer. At least one PSO will stand 

watch at all times while the Palmer is 

operating airguns during the low-energy 

seismic survey; this procedure will also 

be followed when the vessel is in 

transit. NSF and ASC will appoint the 

PSOs with NMFS’s concurrence. The 

lead PSO will be experienced with 

marine mammal species in the Scotia 

Sea, southern Atlantic Ocean, and/or 

Southern Ocean, the second and third 

PSOs will receive additional specialized 

training from the lead PSO to ensure 

that they can identify marine mammal 

species commonly found in the Scotia 

Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean. 

Observations will take place during 

ongoing daytime operations and 

nighttime ramp-ups of the airguns. 

During the majority of seismic 

operations, at least one PSO will be on 

duty from observation platforms (i.e., 

the best available vantage point on the 

source vessel) to monitor marine 

mammals near the seismic vessel. 

PSO(s) will be on duty in shifts no 

longer than 4 hours in duration. Other 

crew will also be instructed to assist in 

detecting marine mammals and 

implementing mitigation requirements 

(if practical). Before the start of the lowenergy seismic survey, the crew will be 

given additional instruction on how to 

do so. 

The Palmer is a suitable platform for 

marine mammal observations and will 

serve as the platform from which PSOs 

will watch for marine mammals before 

and during seismic operations. Two 

locations are likely as observation 

stations onboard the Palmer. One 

observing station is located on the 

bridge level, with the PSO eye level at 

approximately 16.5 m (54.1 ft) above the 

waterline and the PSO will have a good 

view around the entire vessel. In 

addition, there is an aloft observation 

tower for the PSO approximately 24.4 m 

(80.1 ft) above the waterline that is 

protected from the weather, and affords 

PSOs an even greater view. The 

approximate view around the vessel 

from the bridge is 270° and from the 

aloft observation tower is 360°. 

Standard equipment for PSOs will be 

reticle binoculars. Night-vision 

equipment will not be available. The 

PSOs will 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 avoidance maneuvers or 

seismic source shut-down. During 

daytime, the PSO(s) will scan the area 

around the vessel systematically with 

reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 × 50 Fujinon 

FMTRC–SX) and the naked eye. These 

binoculars will have a built-in daylight 

compass. Estimating distances is done 

primarily with the reticles in the 

binoculars. The PSO(s) will be in direct 

(radio) wireless communication with 

ship’s officers on the bridge and 

scientists in the vessel’s operations 

laboratory during seismic operations, so 

they can advise the vessel operator, 

science support personnel, and the 

science party promptly of the need for 

avoidance maneuvers or a shut-down of 

the seismic source. 

When a marine mammal is detected 

within or about to enter the designated 

exclusion zone, the airguns will 

immediately be shut-down, unless the 

vessel’s speed and/or course can be 

changed to avoid having the animal 

enter the exclusion zone. The PSO(s) 

will continue to maintain watch to 

determine when the animal is outside 

the exclusion zone by visual 

confirmation. Airgun operations will 

not resume until the animal is 

confirmed to have left the exclusion 

zone, or is not observed after 15 minutes 

for species with shorter dive durations 

(small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 

minutes for species with longer dive 

durations (mysticetes and large 

odontocetes, including sperm, killer, 

and beaked whales). 

PSO Data and Documentation 

PSOs will record data to estimate the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

various received sound levels and to 

document apparent disturbance 

reactions or lack thereof. Data will be 

used to estimate numbers of animals 

potentially ‘‘taken’’ by harassment (as 

defined in the MMPA). They will also 

provide information needed to order a 

shut-down of the airguns when a marine 

mammal is within or near the exclusion 

zone. Observations will also be made 

during daytime periods when the 

Palmer is underway without seismic 

operations (i.e., transits to, from, and 

through the study area) to collect 

baseline biological data. 

When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

will be recorded: 

1. Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

seismic source or vessel (e.g., none, 

avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), 

and behavioral pace. 

2. Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, wind 

force, visibility, and sun glare. 

The data listed under (2) will also be 

recorded at the start and end of each 

observation watch, and during a watch 

whenever there is a change in one or 

more of the variables. 

All observations, as well as 

information regarding ramp-ups or shutdowns will be recorded in a 

standardized format. Data will be 

entered into an electronic database. The 

data accuracy will be verified by 

computerized data validity checks as 

the data are entered and by subsequent 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60825 

manual checking of the database by the 

PSOs at sea. These procedures will 

allow initial summaries of data to be 

prepared during and shortly after the 

field program, and will facilitate transfer 

of the data to statistical, graphical, and 

other programs for further processing 

and archiving. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide the following 

information: 

1. The basis for real-time mitigation 

(airgun shut-down). 

2. Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which must be 

reported to NMFS. 

3. Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted. 

4. Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals relative to the source vessel at 

times with and without seismic activity. 

5. Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 

Reporting 

NSF and ASC will submit a 

comprehensive report to NMFS within 

90 days after the end of the cruise. The 

report will describe the operations that 

were conducted and sightings of marine 

mammals near the operations. The 

report submitted to NMFS will provide 

full documentation of methods, results, 

and interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The 90-day report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations and all marine 

mammal sightings (i.e., dates, times, 

locations, activities, and associated 

seismic survey activities). The report 

will include, at a minimum: 

• Summaries of monitoring effort— 

total hours, total distances, and 

distribution of marine mammals 

through the study period accounting for 

Beaufort sea state and other factors 

affecting visibility and detectability of 

marine mammals; 

• Analyses of the effects of various 

factors influencing detectability of 

marine mammals including Beaufort sea 

state, number of PSOs, and fog/glare; 

• Species composition, occurrence, 

and distribution of marine mammals 

sightings including date, water depth, 

numbers, age/size/gender, and group 

sizes, and analyses of the effects of 

seismic operations; 

• Sighting rates of marine mammals 

during periods with and without airgun 

activities (and other variables that could 

affect detectability); 

• Initial sighting distances versus 

airgun activity state; 

• Closest point of approach versus 

airgun activity state; 

• Observed behaviors and types of 

movements versus airgun activity state; 

• Numbers of sightings/individuals 

seen versus airgun activity state; and 

• Distribution around the source 

vessel versus airgun activity state. 

The report will also include estimates 

of the number and nature of exposures 

that could result in ‘‘takes’’ of marine 

mammals by harassment or in other 

ways. NMFS will review the draft report 

and provide any comments it may have, 

and NSF and ASC will incorporate 

NMFS’s comments and prepare a final 

report. After the report is considered 

final, it will be publicly available on the 

NMFS Web site at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/. 

Reporting Prohibited Take—In the 

unanticipated event that the specified 

activity clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a manner prohibited 

by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury or mortality 

(e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 

entanglement), NSF and ASC would 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS at 301–427– 

8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@

noaa.gov and Howard.Goldstein@

noaa.gov. The report must include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS shall work with NSF and ASC to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. NSF and ASC may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

NMFS via letter or email, or telephone. 

Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammal with an Unknown Cause of 

Death—In the event that NSF and ASC 

discover an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead PSO determines 

that the cause of the injury or death is 

unknown and the death is relatively 

recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state 

of decomposition), NSF and ASC shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at 301–427–8401, and/or by 

email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov. The report 

must include the same information 

identified in the paragraph above. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS will work with NSF 

and ASC to determine whether 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammal Not Related to the Activities— 

In the event that NSF and ASC discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead PSO determines that the injury 

or death is not associated with or related 

to the activities authorized in the IHA 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate or advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

NSF and ASC will report the incident to 

the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401, and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

Howard.Goldstein@noaa.gov, within 24 

hours of discovery. NSF and ASC will 

provide photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

TABLE 4—NMFS’S CURRENT UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Impulsive (non-explosive) sound 

Criterion Criterion definition Threshold 

Level A harassment (injury) ... Permanent threshold shift (PTS) ....................................

(Any level above that which is known to cause TTS) 

180 dB re 1 μPa-m (root means square [rms]) 

(cetaceans). 

190 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms) (pinnipeds). 

Level B harassment ............... Behavioral disruption (for impulsive noise) .................... 160 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms). 

Level B harassment ............... Behavioral disruption (for continuous noise) .................. 120 dB re 1 μPa-m (rms). 

Level B harassment is anticipated and 

authorized as a result of the low-energy 

seismic survey in the Scotia Sea and 

southern Atlantic Ocean. Acoustic 

stimuli (i.e., increased underwater 

sound) generated during the operation 

of the seismic airgun array are expected 

to result in the behavioral disturbance of 

some marine mammals. There is no 

evidence that the planned activities for 

which NSF and ASC seek the IHA could 

result in injury, serious injury, or 

mortality. The required mitigation and 

monitoring measures will minimize any 

potential risk for injury, serious injury, 

or mortality. 

The following sections describe NSF 

and ASC’s methods to estimate take by 

incidental harassment and present the 

applicant’s estimates of the numbers of 

marine mammals that could be affected 

during the low-energy seismic survey in 

the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic 

Ocean. The estimates are based on a 

consideration of the number of marine 

mammals that could be harassed during 

the approximately 325 hours and 2,950 

km of seismic airgun operations with 

the two GI airgun array to be used. 

During simultaneous operations of the 

airgun array and the other sound 

sources, any marine mammals close 

enough to be affected by the single and 

multi-beam echosounders, ADCP, or 

sub-bottom profiler will already be 

affected by the airguns. During times 

when the airguns are not operating, it is 

unlikely that marine mammals will 

exhibit more than minor, short-term 

responses to the echosounders, ADCPs, 

and sub-bottom profiler given their 

characteristics (e.g., narrow, downwarddirected beam) and other considerations 

described previously in the notice of the 

proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 

2014). Such reactions are not considered 

to constitute ‘‘taking’’ (NMFS, 2001). 

Therefore, for this activity, take was not 

authorized specifically for these sound 

sources beyond that which is already 

planned to be authorized for airguns. 

There are no stock assessments and 

very limited population information 

available for marine mammals in the 

Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean. 

Published estimates of marine mammal 

densities are limited for the planned 

low-energy seismic survey’s action area. 

Available density estimates from the 

Naval Marine Species Density Database 

(NMSDD) (NAVFAC, 2012) were used 

for 5 mysticetes and eight odontocetes. 

Density of spectacled porpoise was 

based on the density reported in Santora 

et al. (2009; as reported in NOAA 

SWFSC, 2013). Densities for minke 

(including the dwarf sub-species) 

whales and Subantarctic fur seals were 

unavailable and the densities for 

Antarctic minke whales and Antarctic 

fur seals were used as proxies, 

respectively. 

For other mysticetes and odontocetes, 

reported sightings data from two 

previous research surveys in the Scotia 

Sea and vicinity were used to identify 

species that may be present in the 

planned action area and to estimate 

densities. While these surveys were not 

specifically designed to quantify marine 

mammal densities, there was sufficient 

information to develop density 

estimates. The data collected for the two 

studies were in terms of animals sighted 

per time unit, and the sighting data were 

then converted to an areal density 

(number of animals per square km) by 

multiplying the number of animals 

observed by the estimated area observed 

during the survey. 

Some marine mammals that were 

present in the area may not have been 

observed. Southwell et al. (2008) 

suggested a 20 to 40% sighting factor for 

pinnipeds, and the most conservative 

value from Southwell et al. (2008) was 

applied for cetaceans. Therefore, the 

estimated frequency of sightings data in 

the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 

45592, August 5, 2014) and this IHA for 

cetaceans incorporates a correction 

factor of 5, which assumes only 20% of 

the animals present were reported due 

to sea and other environmental 

conditions that may have hindered 

observation, and therefore, there were 5 

times more cetaceans actually present. 

The correction factor (20%) was 

intended to conservatively account for 

unobserved animals. 

Sighting data collected during the 

2003 RRS James Clark Ross Cruise JR82 

(British Antarctic Survey, undated) were 

used as the basis to estimate densities 

for four species: southern right whale, 

southern bottlenose whale, hourglass 

dolphin, and Peale’s dolphin. The 

cruise length was 4,143 km (2,237 nmi); 

however, lateral distance from the 

vessel where cetaceans were viewed 

was not identified in the report. 

Therefore, it was assumed that all 

species were sighted within 2.5 km (1.4 

nmi) of the vessel (5 km [2.7 nmi] 

width) because this was the assumed 

sighting distance (half strip width). This 

resulted in a survey area of 20,715 km2

(6,039 nmi2). Density of the straptoothed beaked whale was based on 

sighting data reported in Rossi-Santos et 

al. (2007). The survey length was 1,296 

km (699.8 nmi); however, lateral 

distance from the vessel where 

cetaceans were sighted was not 

identified in the report. Therefore, it 

was assumed that all species were 

sighted within 2.5 km of the vessel (5 

km width) because this was assumed as 

a conservative distance where cetaceans 

could be consistently observed. This 

width was needed to calculate densities 

from data sources where only cruise 

distance and animal numbers were 

available in the best available reports. 

This resulted in a survey area of 6,480 

km2 (1,889.3 nmi2) 

With respect to pinnipeds, one study 

(Santora et al., 2009 as reported in 

NOAA SWFSC, 2013) provided a 

density estimate for southern elephant 

seals. No other studies in the region of 

the Scotia Sea provided density 

estimates for pinnipeds. Therefore, 

reported sighting data from two 

previous research surveys in the Scotia 

Sea and vicinity were used to identify 

species that may be present and to 

estimate densities. Sighting data 

collected during the 2003 RRS James 

Clark Ross Cruise JR82 (British 

Antarctic Survey, undated) were used as 

the basis to estimate densities for four 

species: Antarctic fur seal, crabeater 

seal, leopard seal, and Weddell seal. 

The survey length was 4,143 km 

(1,207.9 nmi); however, lateral distance 

from the vessel where pinnipeds were 

viewed was not identified in the report. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60827 

Therefore, it was assumed that all 

species were sighted within 0.4 km (0.2 

nmi) of the vessel (0.8 km [0.4 nmi] 

width), based on Southwell et al. (2008). 

This resulted in a survey area of 3,315 

km2 (966.5 nmi2). 

Some pinnipeds that were present in 

the area during the British Antarctic 

Survey cruise may not have been 

observed. Therefore, a correction factor 

of 1.66 was applied to the pinniped 

density estimates, which assumes 66% 

more animals than observed were 

present and potentially may have been 

in the water. This conservative 

correction factor takes into 

consideration that pinnipeds are 

relatively difficult to observe in the 

water due to their small body size and 

surface behavior, and some pinnipeds 

may not have been observed due to poor 

visibility conditions. 

The pinnipeds that may be present in 

the study area during the planned action 

and are expected to be observed occur 

mostly near pack ice, coastal areas, and 

rocky habitats on the shelf, and are not 

prevalent in open sea areas where the 

low-energy seismic survey will be 

conducted. Because density estimates 

for pinnipeds in the sub-Antarctic and 

Antarctic regions typically represent 

individuals that have hauled-out of the 

water, those estimates are not 

necessarily representative of individuals 

that are in the water and could be 

potentially exposed to underwater 

sounds during the seismic airgun 

operations; therefore, the pinniped 

densities have been adjusted downward 

to account for this consideration. Take 

was not requested for Ross seals because 

preferred habitat for this species is not 

within the planned action area. 

Although there is some uncertainty 

about the representativeness of the data 

and the assumptions used in the 

calculations below, the approach used 

here is believed to be the best available 

approach, using the best available 

science. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED DENSITIES AND NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES THAT MIGHT BE EXPOSED TO GREATER

THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 dB (AIRGUN OPERATIONS) DURING NSF AND ASC’S LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY (APPROXIMATELY 2,950 km OF TRACKLINES/APPROXIMATELY 3,953 km2 [0.67 km × 2 × 2,950 km] ENSONIFIED AREA

FOR AIRGUN OPERATIONS) IN THE SCOTIA SEA AND SOUTHERN ATLANTIC OCEAN, SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER 2014 

Species 

Density (# 

of 

animals/

km2) 1

Calculated 

take from 

seismic 

airgun 

operations 

(i.e., 

estimated 

number of 

individuals 

exposed to 

sound 

levels 

≥160 dB 

re 1 μPa) 2

Authorized 

take Abundance 3

Approximate 

percentage 

of 

population 

estimate 

(authorized 

take) 4

Population trend 5

Mysticetes: 

Southern right whale ............. 0.0079652 31 31 8,000 to 15,000 ............................ 0.39 Increasing at 7 to 8% per year

Humpback whale .................. 0.0006610 3 3 35,000 to 40,000—Worldwide 

9,484—Scotia Sea and Antarctica Peninsula.

0.03 Increasing 

Antarctic minke whale ........... 0.1557920 616 616 Several 100,000—Worldwide 

18,125—Scotia Sea and Antarctica Peninsula.

3.4 Stable 

Minke whale (including dwarf 

minke whale sub-species).

0.1557920 616 616 NA ................................................ NA NA 

Sei whale .............................. 0.0063590 25 25 80,000—Worldwide ...................... 0.03 NA 

Fin whale ............................... 0.0182040 72 72 140,000—Worldwide 4,672—Scotia Sea and Antarctica Peninsula.1.54 NA 

Blue whale ............................ 0.0000510 1 1 8,000 to 9,000—Worldwide ......... 0.01 NA 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale ......................... 0.0020690 8 8 360,000—Worldwide 9,500—Antarctic.<0.01 NA 

Arnoux’s beaked whale ......... 0.0113790 45 45 NA ................................................ NA NA 

Cuvier’s beaked whale .......... 0.000548 3 3 NA ................................................ NA NA 

Gray’s beaked whale ............ 0.0018850 7 7 NA ................................................ NA NA 

Shepherd’s beaked whale .... 0.0092690 37 37 NA ................................................ NA NA 

Strap-toothed beaked whale 0.0007716 3 3 NA ................................................ NA NA 

Southern bottlenose whale ... 0.0089307 35 35 50,000—South of Antarctic Convergence.0.07 NA 

Killer whale ............................ 0.0153800 61 61 80,000—South of Antarctic Convergence.0.08 NA 

Long-finned pilot whale ......... 0.2145570 848 848 200,000—South of Antarctic Convergence.0.42 NA 

Peale’s dolphin ...................... 0.0026551 10 10 NA—Worldwide; 200—southern 

Chile3.

NA 5 NA 

Hourglass dolphin ................. 0.0154477 61 61 144,000 ........................................ 0.04 NA 

Southern right whale dolphin 0.0061610 24 24 NA ................................................ NA NA 

Spectacled porpoise ............. 0.0015000 6 6 NA ................................................ NA NA 

Pinnipeds: 

Crabeater seal ...................... 0.0185313 73 73 5,000,000 to 15,000,000 .............. <0.01 Increasing 

Leopard seal ......................... 0.0115194 46 46 220,000 to 440,000 ...................... 0.02 NA 

Weddell seal ......................... 0.005129 20 20 500,000 to 1,000,000 ................... <0.01 NA 

Southern elephant seal ......... 0.0003000 1 1 640,000 to 650,000—Worldwide; 

470,000—South Georgia Island.

<0.01 Increasing, decreasing, or stable 

depending on breeding population 

Antarctic fur seal ................... 0.5103608 2,017 2,017 1,600,000 to 3,000,000 ................ 0.13 Increasing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED DENSITIES AND NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES THAT MIGHT BE EXPOSED TO GREATER

THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 dB (AIRGUN OPERATIONS) DURING NSF AND ASC’S LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY (APPROXIMATELY 2,950 km OF TRACKLINES/APPROXIMATELY 3,953 km2 [0.67 km × 2 × 2,950 km] ENSONIFIED AREA

FOR AIRGUN OPERATIONS) IN THE SCOTIA SEA AND SOUTHERN ATLANTIC OCEAN, SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER 2014— 

Continued 

Species 

Density (# 

of 

animals/

km2) 1

Calculated 

take from 

seismic 

airgun 

operations 

(i.e., 

estimated 

number of 

individuals 

exposed to 

sound 

levels 

≥160 dB 

re 1 μPa) 2

Authorized 

take Abundance 3

Approximate 

percentage 

of 

population 

estimate 

(authorized 

take) 4

Population trend 5

Subantarctic fur seal ............. 0.5103608 2,017 2,017 >310,000 ...................................... 0.65 Increasing 

NA = Not available or not assessed. 

1Sightings from a 47 day (7,560 km) period on the RRS James Clark Ross JR82 survey during January to February 2003 and sightings from a 34 day (1,296 km) 

period on the Kotic II from January to March 2006. 2 Calculated take is estimated density (reported density times correction factor) multiplied by the area ensonified to 160 dB (rms) around the planned seismic lines, 

increased by 25% for contingency. 3See population estimates for marine mammal species in Table 4 (above). 

4Total authorized takes expressed as percentages of the species or regional populations. 

5 Jefferson et al. (2008). 

Note: Take was not requested for Ross seals because preferred habitat for these species is not within the planned action area. 

Numbers of marine mammals that 

might be present and potentially 

disturbed are estimated based on the 

available data about marine mammal 

distribution and densities in the 

planned Scotia Sea and southern 

Atlantic Ocean study area. NSF and 

ASC estimated the number of different 

individuals that may be exposed to 

airgun sounds with received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for seismic airgun operations on 

one or more occasions by considering 

the total marine area that would be 

within the 160 dB radius around the 

operating airgun array on at least one 

occasion and the expected density of 

marine mammals in the area (in the 

absence of the a seismic survey). The 

number of possible exposures can be 

estimated by considering the total 

marine area that would be within the 

160 dB radius (the diameter is 670 m 

times 2) around the operating airguns. 

The 160 dB radii are based on acoustic 

modeling data for the airguns that may 

be used during the planned action (see 

Attachment B of the IHA application). 

As summarized in Table 3 (see Table 8 

of the IHA application), the modeling 

results for the planned low-energy 

seismic airgun array indicate the 

received levels are dependent on water 

depth. Since the majority of the planned 

airgun operations will be conducted in 

waters greater than 1,000 m deep, the 

buffer zone of 670 m for the two 105 in3

GI airguns was used. 

The number of different individuals 

potentially exposed to received levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) from seismic airgun operations 

was calculated by multiplying: 

(1) The expected species density (in 

number/km2), times 

(2) The anticipated area to be 

ensonified to that level during airgun 

operations. 

Applying the approach described 

above, approximately 3,953 km2

(including the 25% contingency) would 

be ensonified within the 160 dB 

isopleth for seismic airgun operations 

on one or more occasions during the 

planned survey. The take calculations 

within the study sites do not explicitly 

add animals to account for the fact that 

new animals (i.e., turnover) not 

accounted for in the initial density 

snapshot could also approach and enter 

the area ensonified above 160 dB for 

seismic airgun operations. However, 

studies suggest that many marine 

mammals will avoid exposing 

themselves to sounds at this level, 

which suggests that there will not 

necessarily be a large number of new 

animals entering the area once the 

seismic survey started. Because this 

approach for calculating take estimates 

does not account for turnover in the 

marine mammal populations in the area 

during the course of the planned survey, 

the actual number of individuals 

exposed may be underestimated. 

However, any underestimation is likely 

offset by the conservative (i.e., probably 

overestimated) line-kilometer distances 

(including the 25% contingency) used 

to calculate the survey area, and the fact 

the approach assumes that no cetaceans 

or pinnipeds will move away or toward 

the tracklines as the Palmer approaches 

in response to increasing sound levels 

before the levels reach 160 dB for 

seismic airgun operations, which is 

likely to occur and which will decrease 

the density of marine mammals in the 

survey area. Another way of interpreting 

the estimates in Table 5 is that they 

represent the number of individuals that 

will be expected (in absence of a seismic 

program) to occur in the waters that will 

be exposed to greater than or equal to 

160 dB (rms) for seismic airgun 

operations. 

NSF and ASC’s estimates of exposures 

to various sound levels assume that the 

planned seismic survey will be carried 

out in full; however, the ensonified 

areas calculated using the planned 

number of line-kilometers has been 

increased by 25% to accommodate lines 

that may need to be repeated, 

equipment testing, etc. As is typical 

during offshore ship surveys, inclement 

weather and equipment malfunctions 

will be likely to cause delays and may 

limit the number of useful linekilometers of seismic operations that 

can be undertaken. The estimates of the 

numbers of marine mammals potentially 

exposed to 160 dB (rms) received levels 

are precautionary and probably 

overestimate the actual numbers of 

marine mammals that could be 

involved. These estimates assume that 

there will be no weather, equipment, or 

mitigation delays that limit the seismic 

operations, which is highly unlikely. 

Table 5 shows the estimates of the 

number of different individual marine 

mammals anticipated to be exposed to 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for seismic airgun operations 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60829 

during the low-energy seismic survey if 

no animals moved away from the survey 

vessel. The total authorized take 

authorization is given in the middle 

column (fourth from the right) of Table 

5. 

Encouraging and Coordinating 

Research 

NSF and ASC will coordinate the 

planned marine mammal monitoring 

program associated with the low-energy 

seismic survey with other parties that 

express interest in this activity and area. 

NSF and ASC will coordinate with 

applicable U.S. agencies (e.g., NMFS), 

and will comply with their 

requirements. NSF has already prepared 

a permit application for the Government 

of South Georgia and South Sandwich 

Islands for the planned research 

activities, including trawling and 

sampling of the seafloor. The action will 

complement fieldwork studying other 

Antarctic ice shelves, oceanographic 

studies, and ongoing development of ice 

sheet and other ocean models. It will 

facilitate learning at sea and ashore by 

students, help to fill important spatial 

and temporal gaps in a lightly sampled 

region of coastal Antarctica, provide 

additional data on marine mammals 

present in the Scotia Sea study areas, 

and communicate its findings via 

reports, publications, and public 

outreach. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

also requires NMFS to determine that 

the authorization will not have an 

unmitigable adverse effect on the 

availability of marine mammal species 

or stocks for subsistence use. There are 

no relevant subsistence uses of marine 

mammals implicated by this action (in 

the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic 

Ocean study area). Therefore, NMFS has 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for subsistence purposes. 

Analysis and Determinations 

Negligible Impact 

Negligible impact is ‘‘an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of Level B harassment takes, alone, is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, etc.) 

and the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

migration, etc.), as well as the number 

and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, 

and the status of the species. 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, NMFS evaluated factors 

such as: 

(1) The number of anticipated serious 

injuries and or mortalities; 

(2) The number and nature of 

anticipated injuries; 

(3) The number, nature, intensity, and 

duration of takes by Level B harassment 

(all of which are relatively limited in 

this case); 

(4) The context in which the takes 

occur (e.g., impacts to areas of 

significance, impacts to local 

populations, and cumulative impacts 

when taking into account successive/

contemporaneous actions when added 

to baseline data); 

(5) The status of stock or species of 

marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not 

depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, 

impact relative to the size of the 

population); 

(6) Impacts on habitat affecting rates 

of recruitment/survival; and 

(7) The effectiveness of monitoring 

and mitigation measures. 

NMFS has determined that the 

specified activities associated with the 

marine seismic survey are not likely to 

cause PTS, or other non-auditory injury, 

serious injury, or death, based on the 

analysis above and the following factors: 

(1) The likelihood that, given 

sufficient notice through relatively slow 

ship speed, marine mammals are 

expected to move away from a noise 

source that is annoying prior to its 

becoming potentially injurious; 

(2) The availability of alternate areas 

of similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the operation of the 

airgun(s) to avoid acoustic harassment; 

(3) The potential for temporary or 

permanent hearing impairment is 

relatively low and would likely be 

avoided through the implementation of 

the required monitoring and mitigation 

measures (including shut-down 

measures); and 

(4) The likelihood that marine 

mammal detection ability by trained 

PSOs is high at close proximity to the 

vessel. 

No injuries, serious injuries, or 

mortalities are anticipated to occur as a 

result of NSF and ASC’s planned lowenergy seismic survey, and none are 

authorized by NMFS. Table 5 of this 

document outlines the number of 

authorized Level B harassment takes 

that are anticipated as a result of these 

activities. Due to the nature, degree, and 

context of Level B (behavioral) 

harassment anticipated and described in 

this notice (see ‘‘Potential Effects on 

Marine Mammals’’ section above), the 

activity is not expected to impact rates 

of annual recruitment or survival for 

any affected species or stock, 

particularly given NMFS’s and the 

applicant’s planned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures to 

minimize impacts to marine mammals. 

Additionally, the seismic survey would 

not adversely impact marine mammal 

habitat. 

For the marine mammal species that 

may occur within the action area, there 

are no known designated or important 

feeding and/or reproductive areas. Many 

animals perform vital functions, such as 

feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hr 

cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise 

exposure (such as disruption of critical 

life functions, displacement, or 

avoidance of important habitat) are 

more likely to be significant if they last 

more than one diel cycle or recur on 

subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 

While airgun operations are anticipated 

to occur on consecutive days, the 

estimated duration of the survey will 

not last more than a total of 30 days. 

Additionally, the seismic survey will be 

increasing sound levels in the marine 

environment in a relatively small area 

surrounding the vessel (compared to the 

range of the animals), which is 

constantly travelling over distances, so 

individual animals likely will only be 

exposed to and harassed by sound for 

less than a day. 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that 26 species of marine 

mammals under its jurisdiction could be 

potentially affected by Level B 

harassment over the course of the IHA. 

The population estimates for the marine 

mammal species that may be taken by 

Level B harassment were provided in 

Tables 2 and 5 of this document. As 

shown in those tables, the takes all 

represent small proportions of the 

overall populations of these marine 

mammal species (i.e., all are less than or 

equal to 5%). No injury, serious injury, 

or mortality is expected to occur for any 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 

of these species, and due to the nature, 

degree, and context of the Level B 

harassment anticipated, the activity is 

not expected to impact rates of 

recruitment or survival for any of these 

marine mammal species. 

Of the 26 marine mammal species 

under NMFS jurisdiction that may or 

are known to likely occur in the study 

area, six are listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA: Southern 

right, humpback, sei, fin, blue, and 

sperm whales. These species are also 

considered depleted under the MMPA. 

None of the other marine mammal 

species that may be taken are listed as 

depleted under the MMPA. Of the ESAlisted species, incidental take has been 

authorized for all six species. To protect 

these animals (and other marine 

mammals in the study area), NSF and 

ASC will be required to cease airgun 

operations if any marine mammal enters 

designated exclusion zones. No injury, 

serious injury, or mortality is expected 

to occur for any of these species, and 

due to the nature, degree, and context of 

the Level B harassment anticipated, the 

activity is not expected to impact rates 

of recruitment or survival for any of 

these species. 

NMFS’s practice has been to apply the 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) received level 

threshold for underwater impulse sound 

levels to determine whether take by 

Level B harassment occurs. Southall et 

al. (2007) provide a severity scale for 

ranking observed behavioral responses 

of both free-ranging marine mammals 

and laboratory subjects to various types 

of anthropogenic sound (see Table 4 in 

Southall et al. [2007]). NMFS has 

determined that, provided that the 

aforementioned mitigation and 

monitoring measures are implemented, 

the impact of conducting a low-energy 

marine seismic survey in the Scotia Sea 

and southern Atlantic Ocean, September 

to October 2014, may result, at worst, in 

a modification in behavior and/or lowlevel physiological effects (Level B 

harassment) of certain species of marine 

mammals. 

While behavioral modifications, 

including temporarily vacating the area 

during the operation of the airgun(s), 

may be made by these species to avoid 

the resultant acoustic disturbance, the 

availability of alternate areas for species 

to move to and the short and sporadic 

duration of the research activities have 

led NMFS to determine that the taking 

by Level B harassment from the 

specified activity will have a negligible 

impact on the affected species in the 

specified geographic region. Due to the 

nature, degree, and context of Level B 

(behavioral) harassment anticipated and 

described (see ‘‘Potential Effects on 

Marine Mammals’’ section above) in this 

notice, the activity is not expected to 

impact rates of annual recruitment or 

survival for any affected species or 

stock, particularly given the NMFS and 

applicant’s plan to implement 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

will minimize impacts to marine 

mammals. 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 NSF 

and ASC’s low-energy seismic survey 

will have a negligible impact on the 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that 26 species of marine 

mammals under its jurisdiction could be 

potentially affected by Level B 

harassment over the course of the IHA. 

The population estimates for the marine 

mammal species that may be taken by 

Level B harassment were provided in 

Tables 2 and 5 of this document. 

The estimated numbers of individual 

cetaceans and pinnipeds that could be 

exposed to seismic sounds with 

received levels greater than or equal to 

160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) during the survey 

(including a 25% contingency) are in 

Table 5 of this document. Of the 

cetaceans, 31 southern right, 3 

humpback, 616 Antarctic minke, 616 

minke, 25 sei, 72 fin, 1 blue, and 8 

sperm whales could be taken by Level 

B harassment during the planned 

seismic survey, which would represent 

0.39, 0.03, 3.4, unknown, 0.03, 1.54, 0.1, 

and <0.01% of the affected worldwide 

or regional populations, respectively. In 

addition, 45 Arnoux’s beaked, 3 

Cuvier’s beaked, 7 Gray’s beaked, 37 

Shepherd’s beaked, 3 strap-toothed 

beaked, and 35 southern bottlenose 

whales could be taken be Level B 

harassment during the planned seismic 

survey, which would represent 

unknown, unknown, unknown, 

unknown, unknown, and 0.07% of the 

affected worldwide or regional 

populations, respectively. Of the 

delphinids, 61 killer whales, 848 longfinned pilot whales, and 10 Peale’s, 61 

hourglass, and 24 southern right whale 

dolphins, and 6 spectacled porpoise 

could be taken by Level B harassment 

during the planned seismic survey, 

which would represent 0.08, 0.42, 

unknown/5, 0.04, unknown, and 

unknown of the affected worldwide or 

regional populations, respectively. Of 

the pinnipeds, 73 crabeater, 46 leopard, 

20 Weddell, and 1 southern elephant 

seals and 2,017 Antarctic and 2,017 

Subantarctic fur seals could be taken by 

Level B harassment during the planned 

seismic survey, which would represent 

<0.01, 0.02, <0.01, <0.01, 0.13, and 0.65 

of the affected worldwide or regional 

population, respectively. 

No known current worldwide or 

regional population estimates are 

available for 9 species under NMFS’s 

jurisdiction that could potentially be 

affected by Level B harassment over the 

course of the IHA. These species 

include the minke, Arnoux’s beaked, 

Cuvier’s beaked, Gray’s beaked, 

Shepherd’s beaked, and strap-toothed 

beaked whales, and Peale’s and 

southern right whale dolphins and 

spectacled porpoises. Minke whales 

occur throughout the North Pacific 

Ocean and North Atlantic Ocean and 

the dwarf sub-species occurs in the 

Southern Hemisphere (Jefferson et al., 

2008). Arnoux’s beaked whales have a 

vast circumpolar distribution in the 

deep, cold waters of the Southern 

Hemisphere generally southerly from 

34° South. Cuvier’s beaked whales 

generally occur in deep, offshore waters 

of tropical to polar regions worldwide. 

They seem to prefer waters over and 

near the continental slope (Jefferson et 

al., 2008). Gray’s beaked whales are 

generally found in deep waters of 

temperate regions (south of 30° South) 

in the Southern Hemisphere (Jefferson 

et al., 2008). Shepherd’s beaked whales 

are generally found in deep temperate 

waters (south of 30° South) of the 

Southern Hemisphere and are thought 

to have a circumpolar distribution 

(Jefferson et al., 2008). Strap-toothed 

beaked whales are generally found in 

deep temperate waters (between 35 to 

60° South) of the Southern Hemisphere 

(Jefferson et al., 2008). Peale’s dolphins 

generally occur in the waters around the 

southern tip of South America from 33 

to 38° South, but may extend to islands 

further south. This species is considered 

coastal as they are commonly found in 

waters over the continental shelf 

(Jefferson et al., 2008). Southern right 

whale dolphins are generally found in 

temperate to subantarctic waters (30 to 

65° South), with a southern limit 

bounded by the Antarctic Convergence 

(Jefferson et al., 2008). Spectacled 

porpoises are generally found in 

subantarctic waters and may have a 

circumpolar distribution in the 

Southern Hemisphere (as far south as 

64° South). They have been sighted in 

oceanic waters, near islands, as well as 

in rivers and channels (Jefferson et al., 

2008). Based on these distributions and 

preferences of these species, NMFS 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 8, 2014 / Notices 60831 

concludes that the authorized take of 

these species likely represent small 

numbers relative to the affected species’ 

overall population sizes. 

NMFS makes its small numbers 

determination based on the number of 

marine mammals that will be taken 

relative to the populations of the 

affected species or stocks. The 

authorized take estimates all represent 

small numbers relative to the affected 

species or stock size (i.e., all are less 

than or equal to 5%). Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the likely 

effects of the specified activity on 

marine mammals and their habitat, and 

taking into consideration the 

implementation of the mitigation and 

monitoring measures, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the populations of 

the affected species or stocks. See Table 

5 for the authorized take numbers of 

marine mammals. 

Endangered Species Act 

Of the species of marine mammals 

that may occur in the survey area, six 

are listed as endangered under the ESA: 

The southern right, humpback, sei, fin, 

blue, and sperm whales. Under section 

7 of the ESA, NSF, on behalf of ASC and 

two other research institutions, initiated 

formal consultation with the NMFS, 

Office of Protected Resources, 

Endangered Species Act Interagency 

Cooperation Division, on this lowenergy seismic survey. NMFS’s Office of 

Protected Resources, Permits and 

Conservation Division, initiated and 

engaged in formal consultation under 

section 7 of the ESA with NMFS’s Office 

of Protected Resources, Endangered 

Species Act Interagency Cooperation 

Division, on the issuance of an IHA 

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

for this activity. These two 

consultations were consolidated and 

addressed in a single Biological Opinion 

addressing the direct and indirect 

effects of these independent actions. In 

September 2014, NMFS issued a 

Biological Opinion that concluded that 

the action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the six listed 

cetaceans that may occur in the survey 

area and included an Incidental Take 

Statement (ITS) incorporating the 

requirements of the IHA as Terms and 

Conditions of the ITS. Compliance with 

those Terms and Conditions is likewise 

a mandatory requirement of the IHA. 

The Biological Opinion also concluded 

that designated critical habitat of these 

species does not occur in the action area 

and would not be affected by the survey. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

With NSF and ASC’s complete IHA 

application, NSF and ASC provided 

NMFS an ‘‘Initial Environmental 

Evaluation/Environmental Assessment 

to Conduct a Study of the Role of the 

Central Scotia Sea and North Scotia 

Ridge in the Onset and Development of 

the Antarctic Circumpolar Current,’’ 

(IEE/EA), prepared by AECOM on behalf 

of NSF and ASC. The IEE/EA analyzes 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts of the planned 

specified activities on marine mammals, 

including those listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. NMFS, after 

review and evaluation of the NSF and 

ASC IEE/EA for consistency with the 

regulations published by the Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and 

NOAA Administrative Order 216–6, 

Environmental Review Procedures for 

Implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act, prepared an 

independent Environmental Assessment 

titled ‘‘Environmental Assessment on 

the Issuance of an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization to the 

National Science Foundation and 

Antarctic Support Contract to Take 

Marine Mammals by Harassment 

Incidental to a Low-Energy Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the Scotia Sea 

and South Atlantic Ocean, September to 

October 2014.’’ NMFS has determined 

that the issuance of the IHA is not likely 

to result in significant impacts on the 

human environment and issued a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to NSF and 

ASC for conducting a low-energy 

seismic survey in the Scotia Sea and 

southern Atlantic Ocean, incorporating 

the previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements. 

Dated: October 2, 2014. 

Perry F. Gayaldo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23985 Filed 10–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD531 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Rocky Intertidal 

Monitoring Surveys Along the Oregon 

and California Coasts 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the Partnership for 

Interdisciplinary Study of Coastal 

Oceans (PISCO) at the University of 

California (UC) Santa Cruz for an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(IHA) to take marine mammals, by 

harassment, incidental to rocky 

intertidal monitoring surveys. Pursuant 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an IHA to PISCO 

to incidentally take, by Level B 

harassment only, marine mammals 

during the specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than November 7, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to Jolie 

Harrison, Chief, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The 

mailbox address for providing email 

comments is ITP.Nachman@noaa.gov. 

NMFS is not responsible for email 

comments sent to addresses other than 

the one provided here. Comments sent 

via email, including all attachments, 

must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/research.htm without 

change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

An electronic copy of the application 

containing a list of the references used 

in this document and associated 

Environmental Assessment (EA) may be 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES