68512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD512 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Low-Energy 

Marine Geophysical Survey in the 

Ross Sea, January to February 2015 

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 National Science 

Foundation (NSF) Division of Polar 

Programs, and Antarctic Support 

Contract (ASC) on behalf of Louisiana 

State University, for an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take 

marine mammals, by harassment, 

incidental to conducting a low-energy 

marine geophysical (seismic) survey in 

the Ross Sea, January to February 2015. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an IHA to NSF and ASC to 

incidentally harass, by Level B 

harassment only, 18 species of marine 

mammals during the specified activity. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than December 17, 

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.Goldstein@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/ without change. All Personal 

Identifying Information (for example, 

name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter may be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

Confidential Business Information or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. 

A copy of the IHA application 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 may also be viewed by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

NSF and ASC have prepared a ‘‘Draft 

Initial Environmental Evaluation/

Environmental Assessment to Perform 

Marine Geophysical Survey, Collect 

Bathymetric Measurements, and 

Conduct Coring by the RVIB Nathaniel 

B. Palmer in the Ross Sea’’ (IEE/EA) in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

the regulations published by the 

Council of Environmental Quality 

(CEQ). It is posted at the foregoing site. 

NMFS has independently evaluated the 

IEE/EA and has prepared a separate 

NEPA analysis titled ‘‘Draft 

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 Ross 

Sea, January to April 2015.’’ Information 

in the NSF and ASC’s IHA application, 

Draft IEE/EA, Draft EA and this notice 

of the proposed IHA collectively 

provide the environmental information 

related to proposed issuance of the IHA 

for public review and comment. NMFS 

will review all comments submitted in 

response to this notice as we complete 

the NEPA process, including a decision 

of whether to sign a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), prior to a 

final decision on the IHA request. 

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 

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.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the United States can 

apply for an authorization to 

incidentally take small numbers of 

marine mammals by harassment. 

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

establishes a 45-day time limit for 

NMFS’s review of an application, 

followed by a 30-day public notice and 

comment period on any proposed 

authorizations for the incidental 

harassment of small numbers of marine 

mammals. Within 45 days of the close 

of the public comment period, NMFS 

must either issue or deny the 

authorization. 

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 July 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 International 

Waters (i.e., high seas) in the Ross Sea 

during January to February 2015. The 

IHA application includes an addendum 

which includes incidental take requests 

for marine mammals related to 

icebreaking activities. 

The research would be conducted by 

Louisiana State University. 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 

Ross Sea. The vessel would be operated 

by ASC, which operates the United 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68513 

States Antarctic Program (USAP) under 

contract with NSF. In support of the 

USAP, NSF and ASC plan to use 

conventional low-energy, seismic 

methodology to perform marine-based 

studies in the Ross Sea, including 

evaluation of the timing and duration of 

two grounding events (i.e., advances of 

grounded ice) to the outer and middle 

shelf of the Whales Deep Basin, a West 

Antarctic Ice Sheet paleo ice stream 

trough in the eastern Ross Sea (see 

Figures 1 and 2 of the IHA application). 

The studies would involve a low-energy 

seismic survey, acquiring core samples 

from the seafloor, and performing 

radiocarbon dating of benthic 

foraminifera to meet a number of 

research goals. In addition to the 

proposed operations of the seismic 

airgun array and hydrophone 

streamer(s), 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. 

Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased 

underwater sound) generated during the 

operation of the seismic airgun array 

and from icebreaking activities may 

have the potential to cause behavioral 

disturbance for marine mammals in the 

proposed 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 18 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 27 operational days). It 

is likely that any marine mammal would 

be able to avoid the vessel. 

Description of the Proposed Specified 

Activity 

Overview 

NSF and ASC propose 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 NSFfunded research project ‘‘Timing and 

Duration of LGM and post-LGM 

Grounding Events in the Whales Deep 

Paleo Ice Streams, Eastern Ross Sea 

Continental Shelf.’’ In addition to the 

airguns, NSF and ASC intend to 

conduct a bathymetric survey and core 

sampling from the Palmer during the 

proposed low-energy seismic survey. 

Dates and Duration 

The Palmer is expected to depart from 

McMurdo Station on approximately 

January 24, 2015 and arrive at Hobart, 

Australia on approximately March 20, 

2015. Research operations would be 

conducted over a span of 27 days (from 

approximately January 24 to February 

26, 2015). At the end of the proposed 

research operations, the Palmer would 

resume other operational activities, and 

transit to Hobart, Australia. The total 

distance the Palmer would travel in the 

region to conduct the proposed research 

activities (i.e., seismic survey, 

bathymetric survey, transit to coring 

locations and McMurdo Station) 

represents approximately 12,000 km 

(6,479.5 nmi). 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 airgun 

operations if collected data are deemed 

to be of substandard quality). 

Specified Geographic Region 

The proposed project and survey sites 

are located in selected regions of the 

Ross Sea (located north of the Ross Ice 

Shelf) and focus on the Whales Deep 

Basin trough (encompassing the region 

between 76 to 78° South, and between 

165 to 170° West) (see Figure 2 of the 

IHA application). Figure 2 also 

illustrates the general bathymetry of the 

proposed study area and the previously 

collected data with respect to seismic 

units and dated cores. The proposed 

low-energy seismic survey would be 

conducted in International Waters. 

Figure 2 of the IHA application 

illustrates the general bathymetry of the 

proposed study area near the Ross Ice 

Shelf. Water depths in the survey area 

are between 100 to 1,000 m. The 

proposed low-energy seismic survey 

would be within an area of 

approximately 3,882 km2 (1,131.8 

nmi2). This estimate is based on the 

maximum number of kilometers for the 

low-energy seismic survey (1,750 km) 

multiplied by the area ensonified 

around the planned tracklines (1.109 km 

× 2). The ensonified area is based on the 

predicted rms radii (m) based on 

modeling and empirical measurements 

(assuming 100% use of the two 105 in3

GI airguns in 100 to 1,000 m water 

depths), which was calculated to be 

1,109 m (3,638.5 ft) (see Appendix B of 

the IHA application). 

If icebreaking is required during the 

course of the research activities in the 

Antarctica region, it is expected to occur 

on a limited basis. The research 

activities and associated contingencies 

are designed to avoid areas of heavy sea 

ice condition, and the Ross Sea region 

is typically clear during the January to 

February time period due to a large 

polynya which routinely forms in front 

of the Ross Ice Shelf. 

Researchers would work to minimize 

time spent breaking ice. The proposed 

science operations are more difficult to 

conduct in icy conditions because the 

ice noise degrades the quality of the 

geophysical and ADCP data. Also, time 

spent breaking ice takes away from time 

supporting research. Logistically, if the 

vessel were in heavy ice conditions, 

researchers would not tow the airgun 

array and streamer, as this would likely 

damage equipment and generate noise 

interference. It is possible that the lowenergy seismic survey can be performed 

in low ice conditions if the Palmer 

could generate an open path behind the 

vessel. 

Because the Palmer is not rated to 

routinely break multi-year ice, 

operations would generally avoid 

transiting through older ice (i.e., 2 years 

or older, thicker than 1 m). If sea ice is 

encountered during the cruise, it is 

anticipated the Palmer would proceed 

primarily through one year sea ice, and 

possibly some new, very thin ice, and 

would follow leads wherever possible. 

Satellite imagery from the Ross Sea 

region (http://www.iup.physik.unibremen.de:8084/ssmis/) documents that 

sea ice is at its minimum extent during 

the month of February. 

Based on the proposed tracklines, 

estimated transit to the proposed study 

area from McMurdo Station, and 

expected ice conditions (using historical 

sea ice extent), it is estimated that the 

Palmer may need to break ice along a 

distance of approximately 500 km 

(269.9 nmi) or less. Based on the ship’s 

speed of 5 knots under moderate ice 

conditions, 500 km represents 

approximately 54 hours of icebreaking 

operations. It is noted that typical 

transit through areas of primarily open 

water containing brash or pancake ice 

are not considered icebreaking for the 

purposes of this assessment. 

Detailed Description of the Proposed 

Specified Activity 

NSF and ASC propose to conduct a 

low-energy seismic survey in the Ross 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

Sea from January to February 2015. In 

addition to the low-energy seismic 

survey, scientific research activities 

would include conducting a 

bathymetric profile survey of the 

seafloor using transducer-based 

instruments such as a multi-beam 

echosounder and sub-bottom profiler; 

acquiring bottom imaging, using 

underwater camera systems; and 

collecting approximately 32 core 

samples from the seafloor using various 

methods and equipment. Water depths 

in the survey area are 100 to 1,000 

meters (m) (328.1 to 3,280.1 feet [ft]). 

The proposed low-energy seismic 

survey is scheduled to occur for a total 

of approximately 200 hours over the 

course of the entire cruise, which would 

be for approximately 27 operational 

days in January to February 2015. The 

proposed research activities would 

bisect approximately 25,500 km2

(7,434.6 nmi2) in the Ross Sea region 

(see Figure 2 of the IHA application). 

The proposed low-energy seismic 

survey would be conducted during the 

day (from nautical twilight-dawn to 

nautical twilight-dusk) and night, and 

for up to 100 hours of continuous 

operations at a time. Note that there 

would be 24-hour or near 24-hour 

daylight in the proposed study area 

between January 24 and February 26, 

2015 (http://www.timeanddate.com/ 

sun/antarctica/mcmurdo

?month=2&year=2015). The operation 

hours and survey length would include 

equipment testing, ramp-up, line 

changes, and repeat coverage. Some 

minor deviation from these dates would 

be possible, depending on logistics and 

weather. The Principal Investigator is 

Dr. Philip Bart of the Louisiana State 

University (Baton Rouge). 

Grounding events in the Whales Deep 

Basin are represented by seismically 

resolvable Grounding Zone Wedges. 

During the proposed activities in the 

Ross Sea, researchers would acquire 

additional seismic data and multi-beam 

bathymetry and imaging to precisely 

define the depositional and erosional 

limits of the outer and middle shelf 

Grounding Zone Wedges. The proposed 

collection of benthic samples and 

resulting analyses would test the 

hypothesis and counter hypothesis 

regarding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet 

retreat as it relates to the Whales Deep 

Basin paleo ice stream through: (1) 

Radiocarbon dating in situ benthic 

foraminifera isolated from diamict 

deposited on the Grounding Zone 

Wedges foreset; (2) ramped pyrolysis of 

acid insoluble organic isolated from 

diatom ooze overlying Grounding Zone 

Wedges diamict; (3) calculating the 

duration of the two grounding events; 

and (4) extracting pore-water from the 

Grounding Zone Wedges diamict to 

determine salinity and d18O values to 

test a numerical model prediction 

regarding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet 

retreat. 

The procedures to be used for the 

survey would be similar to those used 

during previous low-energy seismic 

surveys by NSF and would use 

conventional seismic methodology. The 

proposed survey would involve one 

source vessel, the Palmer. NSF and ASC 

would 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 would 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 would 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 would 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 would 

be in water depths 100 to 1,000 m. As 

the GI airguns are towed along the 

survey lines, the hydrophone 

streamer(s) would receive the returning 

acoustic signals and transfer the data to 

the onboard processing system. All 

planned seismic data acquisition 

activities would be conducted by 

technicians provided by NSF and ASC, 

with onboard assistance by the 

scientists who have proposed the study. 

The vessel would be self-contained, and 

the crew would live aboard the vessel 

for the entire cruise. 

The weather, sea, and ice conditions 

would be closely monitored, including 

the presence of pack ice that could 

hinder operation of the airgun array and 

streamer(s) as well as conditions that 

could limit visibility. If situations are 

encountered which pose a risk to the 

equipment, impede data collection, or 

require the vessel to stop forward 

progress, the equipment would be shutdown and retrieved until conditions 

improve. In general, the airgun array 

and streamer(s) could 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) would 

consist of approximately 1,750 

kilometers (km) (944.9 nautical miles 

[nmi]) of transect lines (including turns) 

in the study area in the Ross Sea (see 

Figures 1 and 2 of the IHA application). 

In addition to the operation of the 

airgun array, a single-beam and multibeam echosounder, ADCP, and a subbottom profiler would also likely be 

operated from the Palmer continuously 

throughout the cruise. There would 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 

sub-standard. In NSF and ASC’s 

estimated take calculations, 25% has 

been added for those additional 

operations. The portion of the cruise 

planned for after the low-energy seismic 

survey in the Ross Sea is not associated 

with the project; it is associated with 

McMurdo Station support and would 

occur regardless of the low-energy 

seismic survey (i.e., no science activities 

would be conducted). In addition, the 

Palmer would transit approximately 

3,980 km (2,149 nmi) to Australia after 

the planned support activities for 

McMurdo Station. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY ACTIVITIES IN THE ROSS SEA

Survey length 

(km) 

Total 

duration 

(hr) 1

Airgun array total volume Time between airgun shots 

(distance) 

Streamer length 

(m) 

1,750 (944.9 nmi) ......................... ∼200 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 100 continuous hours at a time. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68515 

Vessel Specifications 

The Palmer, a research vessel owned 

by Edison Chouest Offshore, Inc. and 

operated by NSF and ACS (under a 

long-term charter with Edison Chouest 

Offshore, Inc.), would tow the two GI 

airgun array, as well as the hydrophone 

streamer. When the Palmer is towing the 

airgun array and the relatively short 

hydrophone streamer, the turning rate of 

the vessel while the gear is deployed is 

approximately 20 degrees per minute, 

which is much higher than the limit of 

5 degrees per minute for a seismic 

vessel towing a streamer of more typical 

length (much greater than 1 km [0.5 

nmi]). Thus, the maneuverability of the 

vessel is not limited much during 

operations with the streamer. 

The U.S.-flagged vessel, built in 1992, 

has a length of 94 m (308.5 ft); a beam 

of 18.3 m (60 ft); a maximum draft of 6.8 

m (22.5 ft); and a gross tonnage of 6,174. 

The ship is powered by four Caterpillar 

3608 diesel engines (3,300 brake 

horsepower [hp] at 900 rotations per 

minute [rpm]) and a 1,400 hp flushmounted, water jet azimuthing 

bowthruster. Electrical power is 

provided by four Caterpillar 3512, 1,050 

kiloWatt (kW) diesel generators. The GI 

airgun compressor onboard the vessel is 

manufactured by Borsig-LMF Seismic 

Air Compressor. The Palmer’s operation 

speed during seismic acquisition is 

typically approximately 9.3 km/hr (5 

kts) (varying between 7.4 to 11.1 km/hr 

[4 to 6 kts]). When not towing seismic 

survey gear, the Palmer typically cruises 

at 18.7 km/hr (10.1 kts) and has a 

maximum speed of 26.9 km/hr (14.5 

kts). The Palmer has an operating range 

of approximately 27,780 km (15,000 

nmi) (the distance the vessel can travel 

without refueling), which is 

approximately 70 to 75 days. The vessel 

can accommodate 37 scientists and 22 

crew members. 

The vessel also has two locations as 

likely observation stations from which 

Protected Species Observers (PSO) 

would watch for marine mammals 

before and during the proposed airgun 

operations. Observing stations would be 

at the bridge level, with a PSO’s eye 

level approximately 16.5 m (54.1 ft) 

above sea level and an approximately 

270° view around the vessel, and an 

aloft observation tower that is 

approximately 24.4 m (80.1 ft) above sea 

level, is protected from the weather and 

has an approximately 360° view around 

the vessel. More details of the Palmer 

can be found in the IHA application and 

online at: http://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/ 

support/nathpalm.jsp and http:// 

www.usap.gov/ 

vesselScienceAndOperations/ 

contentHandler.cfm?id=1561 

Acoustic Source Specifications— 

Seismic Airguns 

The Palmer would deploy an airgun 

array, consisting of two 105 in3 Sercel 

GI airguns as the primary energy source 

and a 100 m streamer(s) containing 

hydrophones. The airgun array would 

have a supply firing pressure of 2,000 

pounds per square inch (psi) and 2,200 

psi when at high pressure stand-by (i.e., 

shut-down). The regulator would be 

adjusted to ensure that the maximum 

pressure to the GI airguns is 2,000 psi, 

but there are times when the GI airguns 

may be operated at pressures as low as 

1,750 to 1,800 psi. Seismic pulses for 

the GI airguns would be emitted at 

intervals of approximately 5 seconds. 

There would be between 360 and 720 

shots per hour and the relative linear 

distance between the shots would be 

between 15 to 30 m (49.2 to 98.4 ft). 

During firing, a brief (approximately 

0.03 second) pulse sound is emitted; the 

airguns would be silent during the 

intervening periods. The dominant 

frequency components range from two 

to 188 Hertz (Hz). 

The GI airguns would fire the 

compressed air volume in unison in 

harmonic mode. The GI airguns would 

be used in harmonic mode, that is, the 

volume of the injector chamber (I) of 

each GI airgun is equal to that of its 

generator chamber (G): 105 in3 (1,721 

cm3) for each airgun. The generator 

chamber of each GI airgun in the 

primary source is the one responsible 

for introducing the sound pulse into the 

ocean. The injector chamber injects air 

into the previously-generated bubble to 

maintain its shape, and does not 

introduce more sound into the water. In 

harmonic mode, the injector volume is 

designed to destructively interfere with 

the reverberations of the generator 

(source component). Firing the airguns 

in harmonic mode maximizes resolution 

in the data and minimizes any excess 

noise in the water column or data 

caused by the reverberations (or bubble 

pulses). The two GI airguns would be 

spaced approximately 3 m (9.8 ft) apart, 

side-by-side, between 15 and 40 m (49.2 

and 131.2 ft) behind the Palmer, at a 

depth of up to 3 to 4 m during the lowenergy seismic survey. 

The Nucleus modeling software used 

at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of 

Columbia University (L–DEO) does not 

include GI airguns as part of its airgun 

library, however signatures and 

mitigation models have been obtained 

for two 105 in3 G airguns that are close 

approximations. A tow depth of 4 m is 

assumed and would result in the largest 

radii. For the two 105 in3 airgun array, 

the source output (downward) is 234.1 

dB re 1 mPam 0-to-peak and 239.8 dB re 

1 mPam for peak-to-peak. These numbers 

were determined applying the 

aforementioned G-airgun approximation 

to the GI airgun and using signatures 

filtered with DFS V out-256 Hz 72 dB/ 

octave. The dominant frequency range 

would be 20 to 150 Hz for a pair of GI 

airguns towed at 4 m depth. 

During the low-energy seismic survey, 

the vessel would attempt to maintain a 

constant cruise speed of approximately 

5 knots. The airguns would operate 

continuously for no more than 100 

hours at a time based on operational 

constraints. The total duration of the 

airgun operations would not exceed 200 

hours. The relatively short, 24-channel 

hydrophone streamer would provide 

operational flexibility to allow the lowenergy seismic survey to proceed along 

the designated cruise tracklines. The 

design of the seismic equipment is to 

achieve high-resolution images with the 

ability to correlate to the ultra-high 

frequency sub-bottom profiling data and 

provide cross-sectional views to pair 

with the seafloor bathymetry. 

Metrics Used in This Document 

This section includes a brief 

explanation of the sound measurements 

frequently used in the discussions of 

acoustic effects in this document. Sound 

pressure is the sound force per unit 

area, and is usually measured in 

micropascals (mPa), where 1 pascal (Pa) 

is the pressure resulting from a force of 

one newton exerted over an area of one 

square meter. Sound pressure level 

(SPL) is expressed as the ratio of a 

measured sound pressure and a 

reference level. The commonly used 

reference pressure level in underwater 

acoustics is 1 mPa, and the units for 

SPLs are dB re 1 mPa. SPL (in decibels 

[dB]) = 20 log (pressure/reference 

pressure). 

SPL is an instantaneous measurement 

and can be expressed as the peak, the 

peak-to-peak (p-p), or the root mean 

square (rms). Root mean square, which 

is the square root of the arithmetic 

average of the squared instantaneous 

pressure values, is typically used in 

discussions of the effects of sounds on 

vertebrates and all references to SPL in 

this document refer to the root mean 

square unless otherwise noted. SPL does 

not take the duration of a sound into 

account. 

Characteristics of the Airgun Pulses 

Airguns function by venting highpressure air into the water, which 

creates an air bubble. The pressure 

signature of an individual airgun 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

consists of a sharp rise and then fall in 

pressure, followed by several positive 

and negative pressure excursions caused 

by the oscillation of the resulting air 

bubble. The oscillation of the air bubble 

transmits sounds downward through the 

seafloor, and the amount of sound 

transmitted in the near horizontal 

directions is reduced. However, the 

airgun array also emits sounds that 

travel horizontally toward non-target 

areas. 

The nominal downward-directed 

source levels of the airgun arrays used 

by NSF and ASC on the Palmer do not 

represent actual sound levels that can be 

measured at any location in the water. 

Rather, they represent the level that 

would be found 1 m (3.3 ft) from a 

hypothetical point source emitting the 

same total amount of sound as is 

emitted by the combined GI airguns. 

The actual received level at any location 

in the water near the GI airguns would 

not exceed the source level of the 

strongest individual source. In this case, 

that would be about 228.3 dB re 1 mPam 

peak or 234.0 dB re 1 mPam peak-topeak for the two 105 in3 airgun array. 

However, the difference between rms 

and peak or peak-to-peak values for a 

given pulse depends on the frequency 

content and duration of the pulse, 

among other factors. Actual levels 

experienced by any organism more than 

1 m from either GI airgun would be 

significantly lower. 

Accordingly, L–DEO has predicted 

and modeled the received sound levels 

in relation to distance and direction 

from the two GI airgun array. A detailed 

description of L–DEO’s modeling for 

this survey’s marine seismic source 

arrays for protected species mitigation is 

provided in the NSF/USGS PEIS. These 

are the nominal source levels applicable 

to downward propagation. The NSF/

USGS PEIS discusses the characteristics 

of the airgun pulses. NMFS refers the 

reviewers to that document for 

additional information. 

Predicted Sound Levels for the Airguns 

To determine buffer and exclusion 

zones for the airgun array to be used, 

received sound levels have been 

modeled by L–DEO for a number of 

airgun configurations, including two 

105 in3 G airguns, in relation to distance 

and direction from the airguns (see 

Figure 2 in Appendix B of the IHA 

application). The model does not allow 

for bottom interactions, and is most 

directly applicable to deep water. 

Because the model results are for G 

airguns, which have more energy than 

GI airguns of the same size, those 

distances overestimate (by 

approximately 10%) the distances for 

the two 105 in3 GI airguns. Although the 

distances are overestimated, no 

adjustments for this have been made to 

the radii distances in Table 2 (below). 

Based on the modeling, estimates of the 

maximum distances from the GI airguns 

where sound levels of 190, 180, and 160 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) are predicted to be 

received in intermediate water are 

shown in Table 2 (see Table 1 of 

Appendix B of the IHA application). 

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 Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM) in 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and 

2007 to 2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009; 

Diebold et al., 2010). Results of the 18 

and 36 airgun array are not relevant for 

the two GI airguns to be used in the 

proposed low-energy seismic 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). For the 

two G airgun array, measurements were 

obtained only in shallow water. When 

compared to measurements in acquired 

in deep water, mitigation radii provided 

by the L–DEO model for the proposed 

airgun operations were found to be 

conservative. The acoustic verification 

surveys also showed that distances to 

given received levels vary with water 

depth; these are larger in shallow water, 

while intermediate/slope environments 

show characteristics intermediate 

between those of shallow water and 

those of deep water environments, and 

documented the influence of a sloping 

seafloor. The only measurements 

obtained for intermediate depths during 

either survey were for the 36-airgun 

array in 2007 to 2008 (Diebold et al., 

2010). Following results obtained at this 

site and earlier practice, a correction 

factor of 1.5, irrespective of distance to 

the airgun array, is used to derive 

intermediate-water radii from modeled 

deep-water radii. Estimates of the 

maximum distances from the GI airguns 

where sound levels of 160, 180, and 190 

dB (rms) are predicted to be received in 

intermediate water are 739, 74, and 24 

m (2,424.5, 242.8, 78.7 ft), respectively, 

are obtained from L–DEO’s model 

results in deep water, which after 

multiplication by the correction factor 

of 1.5 are 1,109, 111, and 36 m (3,638.5, 

364.2, and 118.1 ft) (see Table 1 of 

Appendix B of IHA application) 

Measurements were not made for a 

two GI airgun array in intermediate and 

deep water; however, NSF and ASC 

proposes to use the buffer and exclusion 

zones predicted by L–DEO’s model for 

the proposed GI airgun operations in 

intermediate water, although they are 

likely conservative given the empirical 

results for the other arrays. Using the L– 

DEO model, Table 2 (below) shows the 

distances at which three rms sound 

levels are expected to be received from 

the two GI airguns. The 160 dB re 1 

mPam (rms) is the threshold specified by 

NMFS for potential Level B (behavioral) 

harassment from impulsive noise for 

both cetaceans and pinnipeds. The 180 

and 190 dB re 1 mPam (rms) distances 

are the safety criteria for potential Level 

A harassment as specified by NMFS 

(2000) and are applicable to cetaceans 

and pinnipeds, respectively. If marine 

mammals are detected within or about 

to enter the appropriate exclusion zone, 

the airguns would be shut-down 

immediately. Table 2 summarizes the 

predicted distances at which sound 

levels (160, 180, and 190 dB [rms]) are 

expected to be received from the two 

airgun array (each 105 in3) operating in 

intermediate water (100 to 1,000 m 

[328.1 to 3,280 ft]) depths. 

TABLE 2—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 PROPOSED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC

SURVEY IN THE ROSS SEA, JANUARY TO FEBRUARY 2015 

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 ............ Intermediate (100 to 

1,000).

1,109 (3,638.5 

ft).

111 (364.2 ft) .... 36 (118.1 ft) *100 would be used for 

pinnipeds as described in NSF/USGS 

PEIS*. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68517 

Based on the NSF/USGS PEIS and 

Record of Decision, for situations which 

incidental take of marine mammals is 

anticipated, NSF and ASC have 

proposed exclusion zones of 100 m for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds for all lowenergy acoustic sources in water depths 

greater than 100 m. While NMFS views 

the 100 m exclusion zone for pinnipeds 

appropriate, NMFS has proposed to 

require an exclusion zone of 111 m for 

cetaceans based on the predicted and 

modeled values by L–DEO and to be 

more protective for marine mammals. 

NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli 

resulting from the proposed operation of 

the two GI airgun array has the potential 

to harass marine mammals. NMFS does 

not expect that the movement of the 

Palmer, during the conduct of the lowenergy seismic survey, has the potential 

to harass marine mammals because the 

relatively slow operation speed of the 

vessel (approximately 5 kts; 9.3 km/hr; 

5.8 mph) during seismic data 

acquisition should allow marine 

mammals to avoid the vessel. 

Bathymetric Survey 

Along with the low-energy airgun 

operations, other additional geophysical 

(detailed swath bathymetry) 

measurements focused on a specific 

study area within the Ross Sea would be 

made using hull-mounted sonar system 

instruments. The proposed bathymetric 

research would bisect approximately 

8,300 km2 (2,419.9 nmi2) in the Ross Sea 

Region (see Figure 2 of the IHA 

application). In addition, several other 

transducer-based instruments onboard 

the vessel would be operated 

continuously during the cruise for 

operational and navigational purposes. 

During bathymetric survey operations, 

when the vessel is not towing seismic 

equipment, its average speed would be 

approximately 10.1 kts (18.8 km/hr). 

Operating characteristics for the 

instruments to be used are described 

below. 

Single-Beam Echosounder (Knudsen 

3260)—The hull-mounted CHIRP sonar 

would be operated continuously during 

all phases of the cruise. This instrument 

is operated at 12 kHz for bottomtracking purposes or at 3.5 kHz in the 

sub-bottom profiling mode. The sonar 

emits energy in a 30° beam from the 

bottom of the ship. 

Single-Beam Echosounder (Bathy 

2000)—The hull-mounted sonar 

characteristics of the Bathy 2000 are 

similar to the Knudsen 3260. Only one 

hull-mounted echosounder can be 

operated at a time, and this source 

would be operated instead of the 

Knudsen 3260 only if needed (i.e., only 

one would be in continuous operation 

during the cruise). The specific model to 

be used is expected to be selected by the 

scientific researchers. This was also the 

preferred instrument for many previous 

low-energy seismic surveys on the 

Palmer. 

Multi-Beam Sonar (Simrad EM120)— 

The hull-mounted multi-beam sonar 

would be operated continuously during 

the cruise. This instrument operates at 

a frequency of 12 kHz, has an estimated 

maximum source energy level of 242 dB 

re 1mPa (rms), and emits a very narrow 

(<2°) beam fore to aft and 150° in crosstrack. The multi-beam system emits a 

series of nine consecutive 15 ms pulses. 

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

(ADCP Teledyne RDI VM–150)—The 

hull-mounted ADCP would be operated 

continuously throughout the cruise. The 

ADCP operates at a frequency of 150 

kHz with an estimated acoustic output 

level at the source of 223.6 dB re 1mPa 

(rms). Sound energy from the ADCP is 

emitted as a 30° conically-shaped beam. 

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

(ADCP Ocean Surveyor OS–38)—The 

characteristics of this backup hullmounted ADCP unit are similar to the 

Teledyne VM–150 and would be 

continuously operated. 

Acoustic Locator (Pinger)—A pinger 

would be deployed with certain 

instruments (e.g., camera) and 

equipment (e.g., corers) so these devices 

can be located in the event they become 

detached from their lines. A pinger 

typically operates at a frequency of 12 

kHz, generates a 5 ms pulse per second, 

and has an acoustical output of 162 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms). A maximum total of 32 

coring samples would be obtained using 

these devices and ranging from 1.5 to 3 

hours per sample and require 

approximately 62 hours per sample. 

Therefore, it is estimated that the pinger 

would operate a total of 62 hours. 

Passive Instruments—During the lowenergy seismic survey in the Ross Sea, 

underwater imagery would be obtained 

through deployment of a benthos 

bottom camera and towing benthic 

camera system (during the coring 

activities). In addition, numerous 

(approximately 50) expendable 

bathythermograph (XBTs) probes would 

also be released (and none would be 

recovered) over the course of the cruise 

to obtain temperature data necessary to 

calculate sound velocity profiles used 

by the multi-beam sonar. 

Core Sampling 

The primary sampling goals involve 

the acquisition of sediment cores for 

analysis. The coring locations would be 

determined using data generated by the 

low-energy seismic survey. 

It is anticipated that cores would be 

advanced at a total of 32 coring 

locations using several different types of 

equipment designed to meet research 

specific objectives. Proposed sediment 

coring activities include: box coring at 

3 locations, gravity coring at 3 locations, 

jumbo piston coring at 4 locations, 

Kasten coring at 11 locations, and 

standard piston coring at 11 locations. 

The proposed coring activities are 

summarized in Table 3 (see below). The 

small diameter coring devices would 

collect sediment from the seafloor at 32 

sample locations. At each sampling 

location up to 176 cm2 (27.3 in2) of 

seafloor would be disturbed by 

deployment of the coring devices, 

yielding a cumulative total of 

approximately 0.6 m2 (6.5 ft2) 

disturbance during the proposed project 

(see Figure 2 of the IHA application). 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED CORING ACTIVITIES IN THE ROSS SEA

Sampling device 

Core 

diameter 

(cm) 

Core length 

(m) 

Number of 

cores 

Box Core (Rectangular Profile) ............................................................................................... 10 0 .5 3 

Gravity Core ............................................................................................................................. 7 .5 3 3 

Jumbo Piston Core .................................................................................................................. 12 .7 12 4 

Kasten Core ............................................................................................................................. 15 6 11 

Standard Piston Core .............................................................................................................. 8 .9 9 11 

From the sediment cores, the in situ 

foraminifera and ramped pyrolysis 

radiocarbon data would be used to 

conduct a detailed comparison of acid 

insoluble organic versus foraminifera 

radiocarbon dates. The grounding-event 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

duration data generated would provide 

a test of the two radiocarbon dating 

strategies. Resolving which of the two 

interpretations of how near-surface 

sedimentology and stratigraphy of 

Glomar Challenger Basin Grounding 

Zone Wedges stratigraphy in eastern 

Ross Sea relates to post-Last Glacial 

Maximum grounding-line migration is 

the goal of the proposed research; 

determining which of the strategies is 

more accurate and/or what offsets exist 

between the two dating strategies used 

to support these interpretations is 

important because constraining the 

timing of recent grounding events is 

essential to predict what factors might 

cause the current stability (i.e., a pause 

in grounding-line migration) to end with 

additional West Antarctic Ice Sheet 

retreat. 

Icebreaking 

Icebreaking is considered by NMFS to 

be a continuous sound and NMFS 

estimates that harassment occurs when 

marine mammals are exposed to 

continuous sounds at a received sound 

level of 120 dB SPL or above. Potential 

takes of marine mammals may ensue 

from icebreaking activity in which the 

Palmer is expected to engage in 

Antarctic waters (i.e., along the Ross Sea 

region, between 76 to 78° South, 

between 165 to 170° West). While 

breaking ice, the noise from the ship, 

including impact with ice, engine noise, 

and propeller cavitation, would exceed 

120 dB (rms) continuously. If 

icebreaking does occur in Antarctic 

waters, NMFS, NSF and ASC expect it 

would occur on a limited basis during 

transit and non-seismic operations to 

gain access to coring or other sampling 

locations and not during seismic airgun 

operations. The research activities and 

associated contingencies are designed to 

avoid areas of heavy sea ice condition, 

and the Ross Sea region is typically 

clear during the January to February 

time period. If the Palmer breaks ice 

during transit within the Antarctic 

waters (within the Ross Sea or other 

areas of the Southern Ocean), airgun 

operations would not be conducted 

concurrently. 

In 2008, acousticians from Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography Marine 

Physical Laboratory and University of 

New Hampshire Center for Coastal and 

Ocean Mapping conducted 

measurements of SPLs of the U.S. Coast 

Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy 

icebreaking under various conditions 

(Roth and Schmidt, 2010). The results 

indicated that the highest mean SPL 

(185 dB) was measured at survey speeds 

of 4 to 4.5 kts in conditions of 5/10 ice 

and greater. Mean SPL under conditions 

where the ship was breaking heavy ice 

by backing and ramming was actually 

lower (180 dB). In addition, when 

backing and ramming, the vessel is 

essentially stationary, so the ensonified 

area is limited for a short period (on the 

order of minutes to tens of minutes) to 

the immediate vicinity of the vessel 

until the ship breaks free and once again 

makes headway. 

The 120 dB received sound level 

radius around the Healy while 

icebreaking was estimated by 

researchers (USGS, 2010). Using a 

practical spreading model, a source 

level of 185 dB decays to 120 dB in 

about 21.54 km (11.6 nmi). This model 

is corroborated by Roth and Schmidt 

(2010). Therefore, as the ship travels 

through the ice, a swath 43.08 km (23.3 

nmi ft) wide would be subject to sound 

levels greater than or equal to 120 dB. 

This results in potential exposure of 21, 

540 km2 (6,280.1 nmi2) to sounds 

greater than or equal to 120 dB from 

icebreaking. 

Data characterizing the sound levels 

generated by icebreaking activities 

conducted by the Palmer are not 

available; therefore, data for noise 

generating from an icebreaking vessel 

such as the USCGC Healy would be 

used as a proxy. It is noted that the 

Palmer is a smaller vessel and has less 

icebreaking capability than the U.S. 

Coast Guard’s other polar icebreakers, 

being only capable of breaking ice up to 

1 m thick at speeds of 3 kts (5.6 km/hr 

or 3 nmi). Therefore, the sound levels 

that may be generated by the Palmer are 

expected to be lower than the 

conservative levels estimated and 

measured for the USCGC Healy. 

Researchers would work to minimize 

time spent breaking ice as science 

operations are more difficult to conduct 

in icy conditions since the ice noise 

degrades the quality of the seismic and 

ADCP data and time spent breaking ice 

takes away from time supporting 

scientific research. Logistically, if the 

vessel were in heavy ice conditions, 

researchers would not tow the airgun 

array and streamer, as this would likely 

damage equipment and generate noisy 

data. It is possible that the low-energy 

seismic survey can be performed in low 

ice conditions if the Palmer could 

generate an open path behind the vessel. 

Because the Palmer is not rated to 

break multi-year ice routinely, 

operations generally avoid transiting 

through older ice (i.e., 2 years or older, 

thicker than 1 m). If sea ice is 

encountered during the cruise, it is 

anticipated the Palmer would proceed 

primarily through one year sea ice, and 

possibly some new, very thin ice, and 

would follow leads wherever possible. 

Based on historical sea ice extent and 

the proposed cruise tracklines, it is 

estimated by NSF and ASC that the 

Palmer may actively break up ice to a 

distance of 500 km (270 nmi). Based on 

a ship’s speed of 5 kts under moderate 

ice conditions, this distance represents 

approximately 54 hours of icebreaking 

operations. It is noted that typical 

transit through areas primarily open 

water and containing brash ice or 

pancake ice would not be considered 

icebreaking. 

Description of the Marine Mammals in 

the Specified Geographic Area of the 

Proposed Specified Activity 

Various international and national 

Antarctic research programs (e.g., 

Antarctic Pack Ice Seals Program, 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Antarctic Marine Living Resources, 

Japanese Whale Research Program 

under Special Permit in the Antarctic, 

and NMFS National Marine Mammal 

Laboratory), academic institutions (e.g., 

University of Canterbury, Tokai 

University, Virginia Institute of Marine 

Sciences, University of Genova), and 

other organizations (e.g., National 

Institute of Water and Atmospheric 

Research Ltd., Institute of Cetacean 

Research, Nippon Kaiyo Co., Ltd., H.T. 

Harvey & Associates, Center for Whale 

Research) have conducted scientific 

cruises and/or examined data on marine 

mammal sightings along the coast of 

Antarctica, Southern Ocean, and Ross 

Sea, and these data were considered in 

evaluating potential marine mammals in 

the proposed 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 proposed 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 Ocean in proximity to the 

proposed action area in the Ross Sea 

include 20 species of cetaceans and 7 

species of pinnipeds. 

The Ross Sea and surrounding 

Southern Ocean is a feeding ground for 

a variety of marine mammals. In 

general, many of the species present in 

the sub-Antarctic study area may be 

present or migrating through the 

Southern Ocean in the Ross Sea during 

the proposed low-energy seismic 

survey. Many of the species that may be 

potentially present in the study area 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68519 

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 five species of pinnipeds that are 

found in the Southern Ocean and most 

likely be present in the proposed study 

area include the crabeater (Lebodon 

carcinophagus), leopard (Hydrurga 

leptonyx), Ross (Ommatophoca rossii), 

Weddell (Leptonychotes weddellii), and 

southern elephant (Mirounga leonina) 

seal. Many of these pinniped species 

breed on either the pack ice or 

subantarctic islands. Crabeater seals are 

more common in the northern regions of 

the Ross Sea, concentrated in the pack 

ice over the Antarctic Slope Front. 

Leopard seals are often seen during the 

austral summer off the Adelie penguin 

(Pygoscelis adeliae) rookeries of Ross 

Island. Ross seals are often found in 

pack ice and open waters, they seem to 

prefer dense consolidated pack ice 

rather than the open pack ice that is 

frequented by crabeater seals. The 

Weddell seal is considered to be 

common and frequently encountered in 

the Ross Sea. Southern elephant seals 

may enter the Ross Sea in the austral 

summer from breeding and feeding 

grounds further to the north. They are 

considered uncommon in the Ross Sea. 

The southern elephant seal and 

Antarctic fur seal have haul-outs and 

rookeries that are located on 

subantarctic islands and prefer beaches. 

Antarctic (Arctocephalus gazella) and 

Subantarctic (Arctocephalus tropicalis) 

fur seals preferred habitat is not in the 

proposed study area, and thus it is not 

considered further in this document. 

Marine mammal species likely to be 

encountered in the proposed 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 13 species known 

to occur in the Ross Sea, there are 7 

cetacean species with ranges that are 

known to potentially occur in the waters 

of the proposed study area: southern 

right, Cuvier’s beaked (Ziphius 

cavirostris), Gray’s beaked (Mesoplodon 

grayi), Hector’s beaked (Mesoplodon 

hectori), and spade-toothed beaked 

(Mesoplodon traversii) whale, southern 

right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis 

peronii), and spectacled porpoise 

(Phocoena dioptrica). However, these 

species have not been sighted and are 

not expected to occur where the 

proposed activities would take place. 

These species are not considered further 

in this document. Table 4 (below) 

presents information on the habitat, 

occurrence, distribution, abundance, 

population, and conservation status of 

the species of marine mammals that 

may occur in the proposed study area 

during January to February 2015. 

TABLE 4—THE HABITAT, OCCURRENCE, RANGE, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE

MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE PROPOSED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE ROSS SEA

[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 .. Rare ....... Circumpolar 20 to 55° South .......... 8,000 3 to 15,000 4 .......................... EN ...... D 

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 

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 

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 ................ Rare ....... Cosmopolitan .................................. 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 

Gray’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon grayi).

Pelagic ................ Rare ....... 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

TABLE 4—THE HABITAT, OCCURRENCE, RANGE, REGIONAL ABUNDANCE, AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT MAY OCCUR IN OR NEAR THE PROPOSED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY AREA IN THE ROSS SEA—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

Southern right whale dolphin 

(Lissodelphis peronii).

Pelagic ................ Rare ....... 12 to 65° South ............................... 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 .. Rare ....... 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— 

Worldwide.

NL ...... NC 

Leopard seal (Hydrurga 

leptonyx).

Pack ice, subAntarctic islands.Common Sub-Antarctic islands to pack ice ... 220,000 to 440,000 3 10—Worldwide NL ...... NC 

Ross seal (Ommatophoca 

rossii).

Pack ice, smooth 

ice floes, pelagic.

Common Circumpolar—Antarctic ................... 130,000 3 .........................................

20,000 to 220,000 14—Worldwide ...

NL ...... NC 

Weddell seal (Leptonychotes 

weddellii).

Fast ice, pack 

ice, sub-Antarctic islands.

Common Circumpolar—Southern Hemisphere.500,000 to 1,000,000 3 11—Worldwide.

NL ...... NC 

Southern elephant seal 

(Mirounga leonina).

Coastal, pelagic, 

sub-Antarctic 

waters.

Uncommon.Circumpolar—Antarctic Convergence to pack ice.640,000 12 to 650,000 3—Worldwide 

470,000—South Georgia Island 14 ..

NL ...... NC 

Antarctic fur seal 

(Arctocephalus gazella).

Shelf, rocky habitats.Rare ....... Sub-Antarctic islands to pack ice 

edge.

1,600,000 13 to 3,000,000 3—Worldwide.NL ...... NC 

Subantarctic fur seal 

(Arctocephalus tropicalis).

Shelf, rocky habitats.Rare ....... Subtropical front to sub-Antarctic islands and Antarctica.Greater than 310,000 3—Worldwide 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 proposed action area. 

The IHA application also presents how 

NSF and ASC calculated the estimated 

densities for the marine mammals in the 

proposed study area. NMFS has 

reviewed these data and determined 

them to be the best available scientific 

information for the purposes of the 

proposed IHA. 

Potential Effects of the Proposed 

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, and 

icebreaking) 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 would be 

carried out or the mitigation that would 

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 would 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 ‘‘Proposed 

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): 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68521 

• Low-frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): Functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 30 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia spp., the 

franciscana [Pontoporia blainvillei], and 

four species of cephalorhynchids): 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; and 

• Phocid pinnipeds in water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 75 Hz and 100 

kHz; 

• Otariid pinnipeds in water: 

Functional hearing is estimated to occur 

between approximately 100 Hz and 40 

kHz. 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, 18 marine mammal species 

(13 cetacean and 5 pinniped species) are 

likely to occur in the proposed lowenergy seismic survey area. Of the 13 

cetacean species likely to occur in NSF 

and ASC’s proposed action area, 6 are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

(humpback, minke, Antarctic minke, 

sei, fin, and blue whale), and 7 are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(sperm, Arnoux’s beaked, southern 

bottlenose, strap-toothed beaked, killer, 

and long-finned pilot whale, and 

hourglass dolphin) (Southall et al., 

2007). Of the 5 pinniped species likely 

to occur in NSF and ASC’s proposed 

action area, all are classified as phocid 

pinnipeds (crabeater, leopard, Ross, 

Weddell, and southern elephant 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 proposed study 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 non-auditory 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 proposed project 

would 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. 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 ‘‘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.’’ 

Tolerance 

Richardson et al. (1995) defines 

tolerance as the occurrence of marine 

mammals in areas where they are 

exposed to human activities or manmade noise. In many cases, tolerance 

develops by the animal habituating to 

the stimulus (i.e., the gradual waning of 

responses to a repeated or ongoing 

stimulus) (Richardson, et al., 1995; 

Thorpe, 1963), but because of ecological 

or physiological requirements, many 

marine animals may need to remain in 

areas where they are exposed to chronic 

stimuli (Richardson, et al., 1995). 

Numerous studies have shown that 

pulsed sounds from airguns are often 

readily detectable in the water at 

distances of many kilometers. Several 

studies have shown that marine 

mammals at distances more than a few 

kilometers from operating seismic 

vessels often show no apparent 

response. That is often true even in 

cases when the pulsed sounds must be 

readily audible to the animals based on 

measured received levels and the 

hearing sensitivity of the marine 

mammal group. Although various 

baleen whales and toothed whales, and 

(less frequently) pinnipeds have been 

shown to react behaviorally to airgun 

pulses under some conditions, at other 

times marine mammals of all three types 

have shown no overt reactions. The 

relative responsiveness of baleen and 

toothed whales are quite variable. 

Masking 

The term masking refers to the 

inability of a subject to recognize the 

occurrence of an acoustic stimulus as a 

result of the interference of another 

acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009). 

Introduced underwater sound may, 

through masking, reduce the effective 

communication distance of a marine 

mammal species if the frequency of the 

source is close to that used as a signal 

by the marine mammal, and if the 

anthropogenic sound is present for a 

significant fraction of the time 

(Richardson et al., 1995). 

The airguns for the proposed lowenergy seismic survey have dominant 

frequency components of 2 to 188 Hz. 

This frequency range fully overlaps the 

lower part of the frequency range of 

odontocete calls and/or functional 

hearing (full range about 150 Hz to 180 

kHz). Airguns also produce a small 

portion of their sound at mid and high 

frequencies that overlap most, if not all, 

frequencies produced by odontocetes. 

While it is assumed that mysticetes can 

detect acoustic impulses from airguns 

and vessel sounds (Richardson et al., 

1995a), sub-bottom profilers, and most 

of the multi-beam echosounders would 

likely be detectable by some mysticetes 

based on presumed mysticete hearing 

sensitivity. Odontocetes are presumably 

more sensitive to mid to high 

frequencies produced by the multi-beam 

echosounders and sub-bottom profilers 

than to the dominant low frequencies 

produced by the airguns and vessel. A 

more comprehensive review of the 

relevant background information for 

odontocetes appears in Section 3.6.4.3, 

Section 3.7.4.3 and Appendix E of the 

NSF/USGS PEIS (2011). 

Masking effects of pulsed sounds 

(even from large arrays of airguns) on 

marine mammal calls and other natural 

sounds are expected to be limited. 

Because of the intermittent nature and 

low duty cycle of seismic airgun pulses, 

animals can emit and receive sounds in 

the relatively quiet intervals between 

pulses. However, in some situations, 

reverberation occurs for much or the 

entire interval between pulses (e.g., 

Simard et al., 2005; Clark and Gagnon, 

2006) which could mask calls. Some 

baleen and toothed whales are known to 

continue calling in the presence of 

seismic pulses, and their calls can 

usually be heard between the seismic 

pulses (e.g., Richardson et al., 1986; 

McDonald et al., 1995; Greene et al., 

1999; Nieukirk et al., 2004; Smultea et 

al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a,b, 2006; and 

Dunn and Hernandez, 2009). However, 

Clark and Gagnon (2006) reported that 

fin whales in the North Atlantic Ocean 

went silent for an extended period 

starting soon after the onset of a seismic 

survey in the area. Similarly, there has 

been one report that sperm whales 

ceased calling when exposed to pulses 

from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

et al., 1994). However, more recent 

studies found that they continued 

calling in the presence of seismic pulses 

(Madsen et al., 2002; Tyack et al., 2003; 

Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2006; 

and Jochens et al., 2008). Dilorio and 

Clark (2009) found evidence of 

increased calling by blue whales during 

operations by a lower-energy seismic 

source (i.e., sparker). Dolphins and 

porpoises commonly are heard calling 

while airguns are operating (e.g., 

Gordon et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; 

Holst et al., 2005a, b; and Potter et al., 

2007). The sounds important to small 

odontocetes are predominantly at much 

higher frequencies than are the 

dominant components of airgun sounds, 

thus limiting the potential for masking. 

Pinnipeds have the most sensitive 

hearing and/or produce most of their 

sounds in frequencies higher than the 

dominant components of airgun sound, 

but there is some overlap in the 

frequencies of the airgun pulses and the 

calls. However, the intermittent nature 

of airgun pules presumably reduces the 

potential for masking. 

Marine mammals are thought to be 

able to compensate for masking by 

adjusting their acoustic behavior 

through shifting call frequencies, 

increasing call volume, and increasing 

vocalization rates. For example blue 

whales are found to increase call rates 

when exposed to noise from seismic 

surveys in the St. Lawrence Estuary 

(Dilorio and Clark, 2009). The North 

Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

glacialis) exposed to high shipping 

noise increased call frequency (Parks et 

al., 2007), while some humpback 

whales respond to low-frequency active 

sonar playbacks by increasing song 

length (Miller et al., 2000). In general, 

NMFS expects the masking effects of 

seismic pulses to be minor, given the 

normally intermittent nature of seismic 

pulses. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Marine mammals may behaviorally 

react to sound when exposed to 

anthropogenic noise. Disturbance 

includes a variety of effects, including 

subtle to conspicuous changes in 

behavior, movement, and displacement. 

Reactions to sound, if any, depend on 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, time 

of day, and many other factors 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 

2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007). These behavioral reactions are 

often shown as: Changing durations of 

surfacing and dives, number of blows 

per surfacing, or moving direction and/ 

or speed; reduced/increased vocal 

activities; changing/cessation of certain 

behavioral activities (such as socializing 

or feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where noise sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into the water from haul-outs 

or rookeries). If a marine mammal does 

react briefly to an underwater sound by 

changing its behavior or moving a small 

distance, the impacts of the change are 

unlikely to be significant to the 

individual, let alone the stock or 

population. However, if a sound source 

displaces marine mammals from an 

important feeding or breeding area for a 

prolonged period, impacts on 

individuals and populations could be 

significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 

2007; Weilgart, 2007). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

the consequences of behavioral 

modification could be expected to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, and/or 

reproduction. Some of these significant 

behavioral modifications include: 

• Change in diving/surfacing patterns 

(such as those thought to be causing 

beaked whale stranding due to exposure 

to military mid-frequency tactical 

sonar); 

• Habitat abandonment due to loss of 

desirable acoustic environment; and 

• Cessation of feeding or social 

interaction. 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic noise depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

noise sources and their paths) and the 

receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is also 

difficult to predict (Richardson et al., 

1995; Southall et al., 2007). Given the 

many uncertainties in predicting the 

quantity and types of impacts of noise 

on marine mammals, it is common 

practice to estimate how many 

mammals would be present within a 

particular distance of industrial 

activities and/or exposed to a particular 

level of sound. In most cases, this 

approach likely overestimates the 

numbers of marine mammals that would 

be affected in some biologicallyimportant manner. 

Baleen Whales—Baleen whales 

generally tend to avoid operating 

airguns, but avoidance radii are quite 

variable (reviewed in Richardson et al., 

1995; Gordon et al., 2004). Whales are 

often reported to show no overt 

reactions to pulses from large arrays of 

airguns at distances beyond a few 

kilometers, even though the airgun 

pulses remain well above ambient noise 

levels out to much longer distances. 

However, baleen whales exposed to 

strong noise pulses from airguns often 

react by deviating from their normal 

migration route and/or interrupting 

their feeding and moving away. In the 

cases of migrating gray (Eschrichtius 

robustus) and bowhead (Balaena 

mysticetus) whales, the observed 

changes in behavior appeared to be of 

little or no biological consequence to the 

animals (Richardson, et al., 1995). They 

simply avoided the sound source by 

displacing their migration route to 

varying degrees, but within the natural 

boundaries of the migration corridors. 

Studies of gray, bowhead, and 

humpback whales have shown that 

seismic pulses with received levels of 

160 to 170 dB re 1 mPa (rms) seem to 

cause obvious avoidance behavior in a 

substantial fraction of the animals 

exposed (Malme et al., 1986, 1988; 

Richardson et al., 1995). In many areas, 

seismic pulses from large arrays of 

airguns diminish to those levels at 

distances ranging from 4 to 15 km (2.2 

to 8.1 nmi) from the source. A 

substantial proportion of the baleen 

whales within those distances may 

show avoidance or other strong 

behavioral reactions to the airgun array. 

Subtle behavioral changes sometimes 

become evident at somewhat lower 

received levels, and studies have shown 

that some species of baleen whales, 

notably bowhead, gray, and humpback 

whales, at times, show strong avoidance 

at received levels lower than 160 to 170 

dB re 1 mPa (rms). 

Researchers have studied the 

responses of humpback whales to 

seismic surveys during migration, 

feeding during the summer months, 

breeding while offshore from Angola, 

and wintering offshore from Brazil. 

McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a) studied 

the responses of humpback whales off 

western Australia to a full-scale seismic 

survey with a 16 airgun array (2,678 in3) 

and to a single airgun (20 in3) with 

source level of 227 dB re 1 mPa (p-p). In 

the 1998 study, they documented that 

avoidance reactions began at 5 to 8 km 

(2.7 to 4.3 nmi) from the array, and that 

those reactions kept most pods 

approximately 3 to 4 km (1.6 to 2.2 nmi) 

from the operating seismic boat. In the 

2000 study, they noted localized 

displacement during migration of 4 to 5 

km (2.2 to 2.7 nmi) by traveling pods 

and 7 to 12 km (3.8 to 6.5 nmi) by more 

sensitive resting pods of cow-calf pairs. 

Avoidance distances with respect to the 

single airgun were smaller but 

consistent with the results from the full 

array in terms of the received sound 

levels. The mean received level for 

initial avoidance of an approaching 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68523 

airgun was 140 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

humpback pods containing females, and 

at the mean closest point of approach 

distance the received level was 143 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms). The initial avoidance 

response generally occurred at distances 

of 5 to 8 km (2.7 to 4.3 nmi) from the 

airgun array and 2 km (1.1 nmi) from 

the single airgun. However, some 

individual humpback whales, especially 

males, approached within distances of 

100 to 400 m (328 to 1,312 ft), where the 

maximum received level was 179 dB re 

1 mPa (rms). 

Data collected by observers during 

several seismic surveys in the 

Northwest Atlantic showed that sighting 

rates of humpback whales were 

significantly greater during non-seismic 

periods compared with periods when a 

full array was operating (Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). In addition, humpback 

whales were more likely to swim away 

and less likely to swim towards a vessel 

during seismic vs. non-seismic periods 

(Moulton and Holst, 2010). 

Humpback whales on their summer 

feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did 

not exhibit persistent avoidance when 

exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64– 

L (100 in3) airgun (Malme et al., 1985). 

Some humpbacks seemed ‘‘startled’’ at 

received levels of 150 to 169 dB re 1 

mPa. Malme et al. (1985) concluded that 

there was no clear evidence of 

avoidance, despite the possibility of 

subtle effects, at received levels up to 

172 dB re 1 mPa (rms). However, 

Moulton and Holst (2010) reported that 

humpback whales monitored during 

seismic surveys in the Northwest 

Atlantic had lower sighting rates and 

were most often seen swimming away 

from the vessel during seismic periods 

compared with periods when airguns 

were silent. 

Studies have suggested that South 

Atlantic humpback whales wintering off 

Brazil may be displaced or even strand 

upon exposure to seismic surveys (Engel 

et al., 2004). The evidence for this was 

circumstantial and subject to alternative 

explanations (IAGC, 2004). Also, the 

evidence was not consistent with 

subsequent results from the same area of 

Brazil (Parente et al., 2006), or with 

direct studies of humpbacks exposed to 

seismic surveys in other areas and 

seasons. After allowance for data from 

subsequent years, there was ‘‘no 

observable direct correlation’’ between 

strandings and seismic surveys (IWC, 

2007: 236). 

Reactions of migrating and feeding 

(but not wintering) gray whales to 

seismic surveys have been studied. 

Malme et al. (1986, 1988) studied the 

responses of feeding eastern Pacific gray 

whales to pulses from a single 100 in3

airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the 

northern Bering Sea. They estimated, 

based on small sample sizes, that 50 

percent of feeding gray whales stopped 

feeding at an average received pressure 

level of 173 dB re 1 mPa on an 

(approximate) rms basis, and that 10 

percent of feeding whales interrupted 

feeding at received levels of 163 dB re 

1 mPa (rms). Those findings were 

generally consistent with the results of 

experiments conducted on larger 

numbers of gray whales that were 

migrating along the California coast 

(Malme et al., 1984; Malme and Miles, 

1985), and western Pacific gray whales 

feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia 

(Wursig et al., 1999; Gailey et al., 2007; 

Johnson et al., 2007; Yazvenko et al., 

2007a, b), along with data on gray 

whales off British Columbia (Bain and 

Williams, 2006). 

Various species of Balaenoptera (blue, 

sei, fin, and minke whales) have 

occasionally been seen in areas 

ensonified by airgun pulses (Stone, 

2003; MacLean and Haley, 2004; Stone 

and Tasker, 2006), and calls from blue 

and fin whales have been localized in 

areas with airgun operations (e.g., 

McDonald et al., 1995; Dunn and 

Hernandez, 2009; Castellote et al., 

2010). Sightings by observers on seismic 

vessels off the United Kingdom from 

1997 to 2000 suggest that, during times 

of good sightability, sighting rates for 

mysticetes (mainly fin and sei whales) 

were similar when large arrays of 

airguns were shooting versus silent 

(Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). 

However, these whales tended to exhibit 

localized avoidance, remaining 

significantly further (on average) from 

the airgun array during seismic 

operations compared with non-seismic 

periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006). 

Castellote et al. (2010) reported that 

singing fin whales in the Mediterranean 

moved away from an operating airgun 

array. 

Ship-based monitoring studies of 

baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei, 

minke, and humpback whales) in the 

Northwest Atlantic found that overall, 

this group had lower sighting rates 

during seismic vs. non-seismic periods 

(Moulton and Holst, 2010). Baleen 

whales as a group were also seen 

significantly farther from the vessel 

during seismic compared with nonseismic periods, and they were more 

often seen to be swimming away from 

the operating seismic vessel (Moulton 

and Holst, 2010). Blue and minke 

whales were initially sighted 

significantly farther from the vessel 

during seismic operations compared to 

non-seismic periods; the same trend was 

observed for fin whales (Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). Minke whales were most 

often observed to be swimming away 

from the vessel when seismic operations 

were underway (Moulton and Holst, 

2010). 

Data on short-term reactions by 

cetaceans to impulsive noises are not 

necessarily indicative of long-term or 

biologically significant effects. It is not 

known whether impulsive sounds affect 

reproductive rate or distribution and 

habitat use in subsequent days or years. 

However, gray whales have continued to 

migrate annually along the west coast of 

North America with substantial 

increases in the population over recent 

years, despite intermittent seismic 

exploration (and much ship traffic) in 

that area for decades (Appendix A in 

Malme et al., 1984; Richardson et al., 

1995; Allen and Angliss, 2010). The 

western Pacific gray whale population 

did not seem affected by a seismic 

survey in its feeding ground during a 

previous year (Johnson et al., 2007). 

Similarly, bowhead whales have 

continued to travel to the eastern 

Beaufort Sea each summer, and their 

numbers have increased notably, 

despite seismic exploration in their 

summer and autumn range for many 

years (Richardson et al., 1987; Allen and 

Angliss, 2010). The history of 

coexistence between seismic surveys 

and baleen whales suggests that brief 

exposures to sound pulses from any 

single seismic survey are unlikely to 

result in prolonged effects. 

Toothed Whales—Little systematic 

information is available about reactions 

of toothed whales to noise pulses. Few 

studies similar to the more extensive 

baleen whale/seismic pulse work 

summarized above have been reported 

for toothed whales. However, there are 

recent systematic studies on sperm 

whales (e.g., Gordon et al., 2006; 

Madsen et al., 2006; Winsor and Mate, 

2006; Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et al., 

2009). There is an increasing amount of 

information about responses of various 

odontocetes to seismic surveys based on 

monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; 

Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton and 

Miller, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; 

Holst et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 

2006; Potter et al., 2007; Hauser et al., 

2008; Holst and Smultea, 2008; Weir, 

2008; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Richardson 

et al., 2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010). 

Seismic operators and PSOs on 

seismic vessels regularly see dolphins 

and other small toothed whales near 

operating airgun arrays, but in general 

there is a tendency for most delphinids 

to show some avoidance of operating 

seismic vessels (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; 

Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 

2003; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006; 

Weir, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009; 

Barkaszi et al., 2009; Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). Some dolphins seem to be 

attracted to the seismic vessel and 

floats, and some ride the bow wave of 

the seismic vessel even when large 

arrays of airguns are firing (e.g., 

Moulton and Miller, 2005). Nonetheless, 

small toothed whales more often tend to 

head away, or to maintain a somewhat 

greater distance from the vessel, when a 

large array of airguns is operating than 

when it is silent (e.g., Stone and Tasker, 

2006; Weir, 2008; Barry et al., 2010; 

Moulton and Holst, 2010). In most 

cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids 

appear to be small, on the order of one 

km or less, and some individuals show 

no apparent avoidance. Captive 

bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops 

truncatus) and beluga whales 

(Delphinapterus leucas) exhibited 

changes in behavior when exposed to 

strong pulsed sounds similar in 

duration to those typically used in 

seismic surveys (Finneran et al., 2000, 

2002, 2005). However, the animals 

tolerated high received levels of sound 

before exhibiting aversive behaviors. 

Results of porpoises depend on 

species. The limited available data 

suggest that harbor porpoises (Phocoena 

phocoena) show stronger avoidance of 

seismic operations than do Dall’s 

porpoises (Phocoenoides dalli) (Stone, 

2003; MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain 

and Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, 

2006). Dall’s porpoises seem relatively 

tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean 

and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 

2006), although they too have been 

observed to avoid large arrays of 

operating airguns (Calambokidis and 

Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). 

This apparent difference in 

responsiveness of these two porpoise 

species is consistent with their relative 

responsiveness to boat traffic and some 

other acoustic sources (Richardson et 

al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007). 

Most studies of sperm whales exposed 

to airgun sounds indicate that the sperm 

whale shows considerable tolerance of 

airgun pulses (e.g., Stone, 2003; 

Moulton et al., 2005, 2006a; Stone and 

Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008). In most cases 

the whales do not show strong 

avoidance, and they continue to call. 

However, controlled exposure 

experiments in the Gulf of Mexico 

indicate that foraging behavior was 

altered upon exposure to airgun sound 

(Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2009; 

Tyack, 2009). There are almost no 

specific data on the behavioral reactions 

of beaked whales to seismic surveys. 

However, some northern bottlenose 

whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) 

remained in the general area and 

continued to produce high-frequency 

clicks when exposed to sound pulses 

from distant seismic surveys (Gosselin 

and Lawson, 2004; Laurinolli and 

Cochrane, 2005; Simard et al., 2005). 

Most beaked whales tend to avoid 

approaching vessels of other types (e.g., 

Wursig et al., 1998). They may also dive 

for an extended period when 

approached by a vessel (e.g., Kasuya, 

1986), although it is uncertain how 

much longer such dives may be as 

compared to dives by undisturbed 

beaked whales, which also are often 

quite long (Baird et al., 2006; Tyack et 

al., 2006). Based on a single observation, 

Aguilar-Soto et al. (2006) suggested that 

foraging efficiency of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales may be reduced by close 

approach of vessels. In any event, it is 

likely that most beaked whales would 

also show strong avoidance of an 

approaching seismic vessel, although 

this has not been documented 

explicitly. In fact, Moulton and Holst 

(2010) reported 15 sightings of beaked 

whales during seismic studies in the 

Northwest Atlantic; seven of those 

sightings were made at times when at 

least one airgun was operating. There 

was little evidence to indicate that 

beaked whale behavior was affected by 

airgun operations; sighting rates and 

distances were similar during seismic 

and non-seismic periods (Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). 

There are increasing indications that 

some beaked whales tend to strand 

when naval exercises involving midfrequency sonar operation are ongoing 

nearby (e.g., Simmonds and LopezJurado, 1991; Frantzis, 1998; NOAA and 

USN, 2001; Jepson et al., 2003; 

Hildebrand, 2005; Barlow and Gisiner, 

2006; see also the ‘‘Stranding and 

Mortality’’ section in this notice). These 

strandings are apparently a disturbance 

response, although auditory or other 

injuries or other physiological effects 

may also be involved. Whether beaked 

whales would ever react similarly to 

seismic surveys is unknown. Seismic 

survey sounds are quite different from 

those of the sonar in operation during 

the above-cited incidents. 

Odontocete reactions to large arrays of 

airguns are variable and, at least for 

delphinids, seem to be confined to a 

smaller radius than has been observed 

for the more responsive of some 

mysticetes. However, other data suggest 

that some odontocete species, including 

harbor porpoises, may be more 

responsive than might be expected 

given their poor low-frequency hearing. 

Reactions at longer distances may be 

particularly likely when sound 

propagation conditions are conducive to 

transmission of the higher frequency 

components of airgun sound to the 

animals’ location (DeRuiter et al., 2006; 

Goold and Coates, 2006; Tyack et al., 

2006; Potter et al., 2007). 

Pinnipeds—Pinnipeds are not likely 

to show a strong avoidance reaction to 

the airgun array. Visual monitoring from 

seismic vessels has shown only slight (if 

any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, 

and only slight (if any) changes in 

behavior. In the Beaufort Sea, some 

ringed seals avoided an area of 100 m 

to (at most) a few hundred meters 

around seismic vessels, but many seals 

remained within 100 to 200 m (328 to 

656 ft) of the trackline as the operating 

airgun array passed by (e.g., Harris et al., 

2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002; 

Miller et al., 2005.). Ringed seal (Pusa 

hispida) sightings averaged somewhat 

farther away from the seismic vessel 

when the airguns were operating than 

when they were not, but the difference 

was small (Moulton and Lawson, 2002). 

Similarly, in Puget Sound, sighting 

distances for harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) and California sea lions 

(Zalophus californianus) tended to be 

larger when airguns were operating 

(Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998). 

Previous telemetry work suggests that 

avoidance and other behavioral 

reactions may be stronger than evident 

to date from visual studies (Thompson 

et al., 1998). 

During seismic exploration off Nova 

Scotia, gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) 

exposed to noise from airguns and 

linear explosive charges did not react 

strongly (J. Parsons in Greene et al., 

1985). Pinnipeds in both water and air, 

sometimes tolerate strong noise pulses 

from non-explosive and explosive 

scaring devices, especially if attracted to 

the area for feeding and reproduction 

(Mate and Harvey, 1987; Reeves et al., 

1996). Thus pinnipeds are expected to 

be rather tolerant of, or habituate to, 

repeated underwater sounds from 

distant seismic sources, at least when 

the animals are strongly attracted to the 

area. 

Hearing Impairment and Other Physical 

Effects 

Exposure to high intensity sound for 

a sufficient duration may result in 

auditory effects such as a noise-induced 

threshold shift—an increase in the 

auditory threshold after exposure to 

noise (Finneran, Carder, Schlundt, and 

Ridgway, 2005). Factors that influence 

the amount of threshold shift include 

the amplitude, duration, frequency 

content, temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of noise exposure. The 

magnitude of hearing threshold shift 

normally decreases over time following 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68525 

cessation of the noise exposure. The 

amount of threshold shift just after 

exposure is called the initial threshold 

shift. If the threshold shift eventually 

returns to zero (i.e., the threshold 

returns to the pre-exposure value), it is 

called temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

(Southall et al., 2007). Researchers have 

studied TTS in certain captive 

odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to 

strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et 

al., 2007). However, there has been no 

specific documentation of TTS let alone 

permanent hearing damage, i.e., 

permanent threshold shift (PTS), in freeranging marine mammals exposed to 

sequences of airgun pulses during 

realistic field conditions. 

Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is 

the mildest form of hearing impairment 

that can occur during exposure to a 

strong sound (Kryter, 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises and a sound must be stronger in 

order to be heard. At least in terrestrial 

mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 

hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. 

For sound exposures at or somewhat 

above the TTS threshold, hearing 

sensitivity in both terrestrial and marine 

mammals recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the noise ends. Few data on 

sound levels and durations necessary to 

elicit mild TTS have been obtained for 

marine mammals, and none of the 

published data concern TTS elicited by 

exposure to multiple pulses of sound. 

Available data on TTS in marine 

mammals are summarized in Southall et 

al. (2007). Table 2 (above) presents the 

estimated distances from the Palmer’s 

airguns at which the received energy 

level (per pulse, flat-weighted) would be 

expected to be greater than or equal to 

180 and 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms). 

To avoid the potential for injury, 

NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that 

cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be 

exposed to pulsed underwater noise at 

received levels exceeding 180 and 190 

dB re 1 mPa (rms). NMFS believes that 

to avoid the potential for Level A 

harassment, cetaceans and pinnipeds 

should not be exposed to pulsed 

underwater noise at received levels 

exceeding 180 and 190 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms), respectively. The established 180 

and 190 dB (rms) criteria are not 

considered to be the levels above which 

TTS might occur. Rather, they are the 

received levels above which, in the view 

of a panel of bioacoustics specialists 

convened by NMFS before TTS 

measurements for marine mammals 

started to become available, one could 

not be certain that there would be no 

injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, 

to marine mammals. NMFS also 

assumes that cetaceans and pinnipeds 

exposed to levels exceeding 160 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) may experience Level B 

harassment. 

For toothed whales, researchers have 

derived TTS information for 

odontocetes from studies on the 

bottlenose dolphin and beluga. The 

experiments show that exposure to a 

single impulse at a received level of 207 

kPa (or 30 psi, p-p), which is equivalent 

to 228 dB re 1 Pa (p-p), resulted in a 7 

and 6 dB TTS in the beluga whale at 0.4 

and 30 kHz, respectively. Thresholds 

returned to within 2 dB of the preexposure level within 4 minutes of the 

exposure (Finneran et al., 2002). For the 

one harbor porpoise tested, the received 

level of airgun sound that elicited onset 

of TTS was lower (Lucke et al., 2009). 

If these results from a single animal are 

representative, it is inappropriate to 

assume that onset of TTS occurs at 

similar received levels in all 

odontocetes (cf. Southall et al., 2007). 

Some cetaceans apparently can incur 

TTS at considerably lower sound 

exposures than are necessary to elicit 

TTS in the beluga or bottlenose dolphin. 

For baleen whales, there are no data, 

direct or indirect, on levels or properties 

of sound that are required to induce 

TTS. The frequencies to which baleen 

whales are most sensitive are assumed 

to be lower than those to which 

odontocetes are most sensitive, and 

natural background noise levels at those 

low frequencies tend to be higher. As a 

result, auditory thresholds of baleen 

whales within their frequency band of 

best hearing are believed to be higher 

(less sensitive) than are those of 

odontocetes at their best frequencies 

(Clark and Ellison, 2004). From this, it 

is suspected that received levels causing 

TTS onset may also be higher in baleen 

whales than those of odontocetes 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

In pinnipeds, researchers have not 

measured TTS thresholds associated 

with exposure to brief pulses (single or 

multiple) of underwater sound. Initial 

evidence from more prolonged (nonpulse) exposures suggested that some 

pinnipeds (harbor seals in particular) 

incur TTS at somewhat lower received 

levels than do small odontocetes 

exposed for similar durations (Kastak et 

al., 1999, 2005; Ketten et al., 2001). The 

TTS threshold for pulsed sounds has 

been indirectly estimated as being an 

SEL of approximately 171 dB re 1 mPa2·s 

(Southall et al., 2007) which would be 

equivalent to a single pulse with a 

received level of approximately 181 to 

186 dB re 1 mPa (rms), or a series of 

pulses for which the highest rms values 

are a few dB lower. Corresponding 

values for California sea lions and 

northern elephant seals (Mirounga 

angustirostris) are likely to be higher 

(Kastak et al., 2005). 

Permanent Threshold Shift—When 

PTS occurs, there is physical damage to 

the sound receptors in the ear. In severe 

cases, there can be total or partial 

deafness, whereas in other cases, the 

animal has an impaired ability to hear 

sounds in specific frequency ranges 

(Kryter, 1985). There is no specific 

evidence that exposure to pulses of 

airgun sound can cause PTS in any 

marine mammal, even with large arrays 

of airguns. However, given the 

possibility that mammals close to an 

airgun array might incur at least mild 

TTS, there has been further speculation 

about the possibility that some 

individuals occurring very close to 

airguns might incur PTS (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995, p. 372ff; 

Gedamke et al., 2008). Single or 

occasional occurrences of mild TTS are 

not indicative of permanent auditory 

damage, but repeated or (in some cases) 

single exposures to a level well above 

that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals but are assumed to be 

similar to those in humans and other 

terrestrial mammals (Southall et al., 

2007). PTS might occur at a received 

sound level at least several dBs above 

that inducing mild TTS if the animal 

were exposed to strong sound pulses 

with rapid rise times. Based on data 

from terrestrial mammals, a 

precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS threshold for impulse sounds (such 

as airgun pulses as received close to the 

source) is at least 6 dB higher than the 

TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, 

and probably greater than 6 dB (Southall 

et al., 2007). Given the higher level of 

sound necessary to cause PTS as 

compared with TTS, it is considerably 

less likely that PTS would occur. Baleen 

whales generally avoid the immediate 

area around operating seismic vessels, 

as do some other marine mammals. 

Non-auditory Physiological Effects— 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to strong 

underwater sound include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation, 

resonance, and other types of organ or 

tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall 

et al., 2007). Studies examining such 

effects are limited. However, resonance 

effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noiseinduced bubble formations (Crum et al., 

2005) are implausible in the case of 

exposure to an impulsive broadband 

source like an airgun array. If seismic 

surveys disrupt diving patterns of deepdiving species, this might perhaps result 

in bubble formation and a form of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

bends, as speculated to occur in beaked 

whales exposed to sonar. However, 

there is no specific evidence of this 

upon exposure to airgun pulses. 

In general, very little is known about 

the potential for seismic survey sounds 

(or other types of strong underwater 

sounds) to cause non-auditory physical 

effects in marine mammals. Such 

effects, if they occur at all, would 

presumably be limited to short distances 

and to activities that extend over a 

prolonged period. The available data do 

not allow identification of a specific 

exposure level above which nonauditory effects can be expected 

(Southall et al., 2007), or any 

meaningful quantitative predictions of 

the numbers (if any) of marine mammals 

that might be affected in those ways. 

Marine mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of seismic vessels, including 

most baleen whales, some odontocetes, 

and some pinnipeds, are especially 

unlikely to incur non-auditory physical 

effects. 

Stranding and Mortality—When a 

living or dead marine mammal swims or 

floats onto shore and becomes 

‘‘beached’’ or incapable of returning to 

sea, the event is termed a ‘‘stranding’’ 

(Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin and Geraci, 

2002; Geraci and Lounsbury, 2005; 

NMFS, 2007). The legal definition for a 

stranding under the MMPA is that ‘‘(A) 

a marine mammal is dead and is (i) on 

a beach or shore of the United States; or 

(ii) in waters under the jurisdiction of 

the United States (including any 

navigable waters); or (B) a marine 

mammal is alive and is (i) on a beach 

or shore of the United States and is 

unable to return to the water; (ii) on a 

beach or shore of the United States and, 

although able to return to the water is 

in need of apparent medical attention; 

or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters), but is 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance.’’ 

Marine mammals are known to strand 

for a variety of reasons, such as 

infectious agents, biotoxicosis, 

starvation, fishery interaction, ship 

strike, unusual oceanographic or 

weather events, sound exposure, or 

combinations of these stressors 

sustained concurrently or in series. 

However, the cause or causes of most 

strandings are unknown (Geraci et al., 

1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et al., 1980; 

Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest 

that the physiology, behavior, habitat 

relationships, age, or condition of 

cetaceans may cause them to strand or 

might pre-dispose them to strand when 

exposed to another phenomenon. These 

suggestions are consistent with the 

conclusions of numerous other studies 

that have demonstrated that 

combinations of dissimilar stressors 

commonly combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

does not produce the same result 

(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries 

et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley 

et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, 

2005a, 2005b; Romero, 2004; Sih et al., 

2004). 

Strandings Associated with Military 

Active Sonar—Several sources have 

published lists of mass stranding events 

of cetaceans in an attempt to identify 

relationships between those stranding 

events and military active sonar 

(Hildebrand, 2004; IWC, 2005; Taylor et 

al., 2004). For example, based on a 

review of stranding records between 

1960 and 1995, the International 

Whaling Commission (2005) identified 

ten mass stranding events and 

concluded that, out of eight stranding 

events reported from the mid-1980s to 

the summer of 2003, seven had been 

coincident with the use of midfrequency active sonar and most 

involved beaked whales. 

Over the past 12 years, there have 

been five stranding events coincident 

with military mid-frequency active 

sonar use in which exposure to sonar is 

believed to have been a contributing 

factor to strandings: Greece (1996); the 

Bahamas (2000); Madeira (2000); Canary 

Islands (2002); and Spain (2006). Refer 

to Cox et al. (2006) for a summary of 

common features shared by the 

strandings events in Greece (1996), 

Bahamas (2000), Madeira (2000), and 

Canary Islands (2002); and Fernandez et 

al., (2005) for an additional summary of 

the Canary Islands 2002 stranding event. 

Potential for Stranding from Seismic 

Surveys—Marine mammals close to 

underwater detonations of high 

explosives can be killed or severely 

injured, and the auditory organs are 

especially susceptible to injury (Ketten 

et al., 1993; Ketten, 1995). However, 

explosives are no longer used in marine 

waters for commercial seismic surveys 

or (with rare exceptions) for seismic 

research. These methods have been 

replaced entirely by airguns or related 

non-explosive pulse generators. Airgun 

pulses are less energetic and have 

slower rise times, and there is no 

specific evidence that they can cause 

serious injury, death, or stranding even 

in the case of large airgun arrays. 

However, the association of strandings 

of beaked whales with naval exercises 

involving mid-frequency active sonar 

(non-pulse sound) and, in one case, the 

regional co-occurrence of an L–DEO 

seismic survey (Malakoff, 2002; Cox et 

al., 2006), has raised the possibility that 

beaked whales exposed to strong 

‘‘pulsed’’ sounds could also be 

susceptible to injury and/or behavioral 

reactions that can lead to stranding (e.g., 

Hildebrand, 2005; Southall et al., 2007). 

Specific sound-related processes that 

lead to strandings and mortality are not 

well documented, but may include: 

(1) Swimming in avoidance of a 

sound into shallow water; 

(2) A change in behavior (such as a 

change in diving behavior) that might 

contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble 

formation, hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, 

hypertensive hemorrhage or other forms 

of trauma; 

(3) A physiological change such as a 

vestibular response leading to a 

behavioral change or stress-induced 

hemorrhagic diathesis, leading in turn 

to tissue damage; and 

(4) Tissue damage directly from sound 

exposure, such as through acousticallymediated bubble formation and growth 

or acoustic resonance of tissues. 

Some of these mechanisms are unlikely 

to apply in the case of impulse sounds. 

However, there are indications that gasbubble disease (analogous to ‘‘the 

bends’’), induced in supersaturated 

tissue by a behavioral response to 

acoustic exposure, could be a pathologic 

mechanism for the strandings and 

mortality of some deep-diving cetaceans 

exposed to sonar. The evidence for this 

remains circumstantial and associated 

with exposure to naval mid-frequency 

sonar, not seismic surveys (Cox et al., 

2006; Southall et al., 2007). 

Seismic pulses and mid-frequency 

sonar signals are quite different, and 

some mechanisms by which sonar 

sounds have been hypothesized to affect 

beaked whales are unlikely to apply to 

airgun pulses. Sounds produced by 

airgun arrays are broadband impulses 

with most of the energy below one kHz. 

Typical military mid-frequency sonar 

emits non-impulse sounds at 

frequencies of 2 to 10 kHz, generally 

with a relatively narrow bandwidth at 

any one time. A further difference 

between seismic surveys and naval 

exercises is that naval exercises can 

involve sound sources on more than one 

vessel. Thus, it is not appropriate to 

expect that the same effects to marine 

mammals would result from military 

sonar and seismic surveys. However, 

evidence that sonar signals can, in 

special circumstances, lead (at least 

indirectly) to physical damage and 

mortality (e.g., Balcomb and Claridge, 

2001; NOAA and USN, 2001; Jepson et 

al., 2003; Ferna ́ndez et al., 2004, 2005; 

Hildebrand 2005; Cox et al., 2006) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68527 

suggests that caution is warranted when 

dealing with exposure of marine 

mammals to any high-intensity sound. 

There is no conclusive evidence of 

cetacean strandings or deaths at sea as 

a result of exposure to seismic surveys, 

but a few cases of strandings in the 

general area where a seismic survey was 

ongoing have led to speculation 

concerning a possible link between 

seismic surveys and strandings. 

Suggestions that there was a link 

between seismic surveys and strandings 

of humpback whales in Brazil (Engel et 

al., 2004) were not well founded (IAGC, 

2004; IWC, 2007). In September 2002, 

there was a stranding of two Cuvier’s 

beaked whales in the Gulf of California, 

Mexico, when the L–DEO vessel R/V 

Maurice Ewing was operating a 20 

airgun (8,490 in3) array in the general 

region. The link between the stranding 

and the seismic surveys was 

inconclusive and not based on any 

physical evidence (Hogarth, 2002; 

Yoder, 2002). Nonetheless, the Gulf of 

California incident plus the beaked 

whale strandings near naval exercises 

involving use of mid-frequency sonar 

suggests a need for caution in 

conducting seismic surveys in areas 

occupied by beaked whales until more 

is known about effects of seismic 

surveys on those species (Hildebrand, 

2005). No injuries of beaked whales are 

anticipated during the proposed study 

because of: 

(1) The high likelihood that any 

beaked whales nearby would avoid the 

approaching vessel before being 

exposed to high sound levels, and 

(2) Differences between the sound 

sources to be used in the proposed 

study and operated by NSF and ASC 

and those involved in the naval 

exercises associated with strandings. 

Potential Effects of Other Acoustic 

Devices and Sources 

Multi-Beam Echosounder 

NSF and ASC would operate the 

Simrad EM120 multi-beam echosounder 

from the source vessel during the 

planned study. Sounds from the multibeam echosounder are very short pulses, 

occurring for approximately 15 ms, 

depending on water depth. Most of the 

energy in the sound pulses emitted by 

the multi-beam echosounder is at 

frequencies near 12 kHz, and the 

maximum source level is 242 dB re 1 

mPa (rms). The beam is narrow (1 to 2°) 

in fore-aft extent and wide (150°) in the 

cross-track extent. Each ping consists of 

nine (in water greater than 1,000 m 

deep) consecutive successive fanshaped transmissions (segments) at 

different cross-track angles. Any given 

mammal at depth near the trackline 

would be in the main beam for only one 

or two of the nine segments. Also, 

marine mammals that encounter the 

Simrad EM120 are unlikely to be 

subjected to repeated pulses because of 

the narrow fore–aft width of the beam 

and would receive only limited amounts 

of pulse energy because of the short 

pulses. Animals close to the ship (where 

the beam is narrowest) are especially 

unlikely to be ensonified for more than 

one 15 ms pulse (or two pulses if in the 

overlap area). Similarly, Kremser et al. 

(2005) noted that the probability of a 

cetacean swimming through the area of 

exposure when a multi-beam 

echosounder emits a pulse is small. The 

animal would have to pass the 

transducer at close range and be 

swimming at speeds similar to the 

vessel in order to receive the multiple 

pulses that might result in sufficient 

exposure to cause TTS. 

Navy sonars that have been linked to 

avoidance reactions and stranding of 

cetaceans: (1) Generally have longer 

pulse duration than the Simrad EM120; 

and (2) are often directed close to 

horizontally, as well as omnidirectional, 

versus more downward and narrowly 

for the multi-beam echosounder. The 

area of possible influence of the multibeam echosounder is much smaller—a 

narrow band below the source vessel. 

Also, the duration of exposure for a 

given marine mammal can be much 

longer for naval sonar. During NSF and 

ASC’s operations, the individual pulses 

would be very short, and a given 

mammal would not receive many of the 

downward-directed pulses as the vessel 

passes by. Possible effects of a multibeam echosounder on marine mammals 

are described below. 

Stranding—In 2013, an International 

Scientific Review Panel investigated a 

2008 mass stranding of approximately 

100 melon-headed whales in a 

Madagascar lagoon system (Southall et 

al., 2013) associated with the use of a 

high-frequency mapping system. The 

report indicated that the use of a 12 kHz 

multi-beam echosounder was the most 

plausible and likely initial behavioral 

trigger of the mass stranding event. This 

was the first time that a relatively highfrequency mapping sonar system has 

been associated with a stranding event. 

However, the report also notes that there 

were several site- and situation-specific 

secondary factors that may have 

contributed to the avoidance responses 

that lead to the eventual entrapment and 

mortality of the whales within the Loza 

Lagoon system (e.g., the survey vessel 

transiting in a north-south direction on 

the shelf break parallel to the shore may 

have trapped the animals between the 

sound source and the shore driving 

them towards the Loza Lagoon). The 

report concluded that for odontocete 

cetaceans that hear well in the 10 to 50 

kHz range, where ambient noise is 

typically quite low, high-power active 

sonars operating in this range may be 

more easily audible and have potential 

effects over larger areas than lowfrequency systems that have more 

typically been considered in terms of 

anthropogenic noise impacts (Southall 

et al., 2013). However, the risk may be 

very low given the extensive use of 

these systems worldwide on a daily 

basis and the lack of direct evidence of 

such responses previously (Southall et 

al., 2013). 

Masking—Marine mammal 

communications would not be masked 

appreciably by the multi-beam 

echosounder signals, given the low duty 

cycle of the echosounder and the brief 

period when an individual mammal is 

likely to be within its beam. 

Furthermore, in the case of baleen 

whales, the multi-beam echosounder 

signals (12 kHz) generally do not 

overlap with the predominant 

frequencies in the calls (16 Hz to less 

than 12 kHz), which would avoid any 

significant masking (Richardson et al., 

1995). 

Behavioral Responses—Behavioral 

reactions of free-ranging marine 

mammals to sonars, echosounders, and 

other sound sources appear to vary by 

species and circumstance. Observed 

reactions have included silencing and 

dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins et 

al., 1985), increased vocalizations and 

no dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell 

and Gordon, 1999), and the previouslymentioned beachings by beaked whales. 

During exposure to a 21 to 25 kHz 

‘‘whale-finding’’ sonar with a source 

level of 215 dB re 1 mPa, gray whales 

reacted by orienting slightly away from 

the source and being deflected from 

their course by approximately 200 m 

(656.2 ft) (Frankel, 2005). When a 38 

kHz echosounder and a 150 kHz ADCP 

were transmitting during studies in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific, baleen whales 

showed no significant responses, while 

spotted and spinner dolphins were 

detected slightly more often and beaked 

whales less often during visual surveys 

(Gerrodette and Pettis, 2005). 

Captive bottlenose dolphins and a 

beluga whale exhibited changes in 

behavior when exposed to 1 second 

tonal signals at frequencies similar to 

those that would be emitted by the 

multi-beam echosounder used by NSF 

and ASC, and to shorter broadband 

pulsed signals. Behavioral changes 

typically involved what appeared to be 

deliberate attempts to avoid the sound 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

exposure (Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2002; Finneran and 

Schlundt, 2004). The relevance of those 

data to free-ranging odontocetes is 

uncertain, and in any case, the test 

sounds were quite different in duration 

as compared with those from a multibeam echosounder. 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects—Given several 

stranding events that have been 

associated with the operation of naval 

sonar in specific circumstances, there is 

concern that mid-frequency sonar 

sounds can cause serious impacts to 

marine mammals (see above). However, 

the multi-beam echosounder proposed 

for use by NSF and ASC is quite 

different than sonar used for Navy 

operations. Pulse duration of the multibeam echosounder is very short relative 

to the naval sonar. Also, at any given 

location, an individual marine mammal 

would be in the beam of the multi-beam 

echosounder for much less time, given 

the generally downward orientation of 

the beam and its narrow fore-aft 

beamwidth; Navy sonar often uses nearhorizontally-directed sound. Those 

factors would all reduce the sound 

energy received from the multi-beam 

echosounder rather drastically relative 

to that from naval sonar. NMFS believes 

that the brief exposure of marine 

mammals to one pulse, or small 

numbers of signals, from the multi-beam 

echosounder in this particular case is 

not likely to result in the harassment of 

marine mammals. 

Single-Beam Echosounder 

NSF and ASC would operate the 

Knudsen 3260 and Bathy 2000 singlebeam echosounders from the source 

vessel during the planned study. 

Sounds from the single-beam 

echosounder are very short pulses, 

depending on water depth. Most of the 

energy in the sound pulses emitted by 

the singlebeam echosounder is at 

frequencies near 12 kHz for bottomtracking purposes or at 3.5 kHz in the 

sub-bottom profiling mode. The sonar 

emits energy in a 30° beam from the 

bottom of the ship. Marine mammals 

that encounter the Knudsen 3260 or 

Bathy 2000 are unlikely to be subjected 

to repeated pulses because of the 

relatively narrow fore–aft width of the 

beam and would receive only limited 

amounts of pulse energy because of the 

short pulses. Animals close to the ship 

(where the beam is narrowest) are 

especially unlikely to be ensonified for 

more than one pulse (or two pulses if in 

the overlap area). Similarly, Kremser et 

al. (2005) noted that the probability of 

a cetacean swimming through the area 

of exposure when a single-beam 

echosounder emits a pulse is small. The 

animal would have to pass the 

transducer at close range and be 

swimming at speeds similar to the 

vessel in order to receive the multiple 

pulses that might result in sufficient 

exposure to cause TTS. 

Navy sonars that have been linked to 

avoidance reactions and stranding of 

cetaceans: (1) Generally have longer 

pulse duration than the Knudsen 3260 

or Bathy 2000; and (2) are often directed 

close to horizontally versus more 

downward for the echosounder. The 

area of possible influence of the singlebeam echosounder is much smaller—a 

narrow band below the source vessel. 

Also, the duration of exposure for a 

given marine mammal can be much 

longer for naval sonar. During NSF and 

ASC’s operations, the individual pulses 

would be very short, and a given 

mammal would not receive many of the 

downward-directed pulses as the vessel 

passes by. Possible effects of a singlebeam echosounder on marine mammals 

are described below. 

Masking—Marine mammal 

communications would not be masked 

appreciably by the single-beam 

echosounder signals given the low duty 

cycle of the echosounder and the brief 

period when an individual mammal is 

likely to be within its beam. 

Furthermore, in the case of baleen 

whales, the single-beam echosounder 

signals (12 or 3.5 kHz) do not overlap 

with the predominant frequencies in the 

calls (16 Hz to less than 12 kHz), which 

would avoid any significant masking 

(Richardson et al., 1995). 

Behavioral Responses—Behavioral 

reactions of free-ranging marine 

mammals to sonars, echosounders, and 

other sound sources appear to vary by 

species and circumstance. Observed 

reactions have included silencing and 

dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins et 

al., 1985), increased vocalizations and 

no dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell 

and Gordon, 1999), and the previouslymentioned beachings by beaked whales. 

During exposure to a 21 to 25 kHz 

‘‘whale-finding’’ sonar with a source 

level of 215 dB re 1 mPa, gray whales 

reacted by orienting slightly away from 

the source and being deflected from 

their course by approximately 200 m 

(656.2 ft) (Frankel, 2005). When a 38 

kHz echosounder and a 150 kHz ADCP 

were transmitting during studies in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific, baleen whales 

showed no significant responses, while 

spotted and spinner dolphins were 

detected slightly more often and beaked 

whales less often during visual surveys 

(Gerrodette and Pettis, 2005). 

Captive bottlenose dolphins and a 

beluga whale exhibited changes in 

behavior when exposed to 1 second 

tonal signals at frequencies similar to 

those that would be emitted by the 

single-beam echosounder used by NSF 

and ASC, and to shorter broadband 

pulsed signals. Behavioral changes 

typically involved what appeared to be 

deliberate attempts to avoid the sound 

exposure (Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2002; Finneran and 

Schlundt, 2004). The relevance of those 

data to free-ranging odontocetes is 

uncertain, and in any case, the test 

sounds were quite different in duration 

as compared with those from a singlebeam echosounder. 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects—Given recent stranding 

events that have been associated with 

the operation of naval sonar, there is 

concern that mid-frequency sonar 

sounds can cause serious impacts to 

marine mammals (see above). However, 

the single-beam echosounder proposed 

for use by NSF and ASC is quite 

different than sonar used for Navy 

operations. Pulse duration of the singlebeam echosounder is very short relative 

to the naval sonar. Also, at any given 

location, an individual marine mammal 

would be in the beam of the single-beam 

echosounder for much less time given 

the generally downward orientation of 

the beam and its narrow fore-aft 

beamwidth; Navy sonar often uses nearhorizontally-directed sound. Those 

factors would all reduce the sound 

energy received from the single-beam 

echosounder rather drastically relative 

to that from naval sonar. NMFS believes 

that the brief exposure of marine 

mammals to one pulse, or small 

numbers of signals, from the singlebeam echosounder in this particular 

case is not likely to result in the 

harassment of marine mammals. 

Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers 

NSF and ASC would operate the 

ADCP Teledyne RDI VM–150 and ADCP 

Ocean Surveyor OS–38 from the source 

vessel during the planned study. Most 

of the energy in the sound pulses 

emitted by the ADCPs operate at 

frequencies near 150 kHz, and the 

maximum source level is 223.6 dB re 1 

mPa (rms). Sound energy from the ADCP 

is emitted as a 30° conically-shaped 

beam. Marine mammals that encounter 

the ADCPs are unlikely to be subjected 

to repeated pulses because of the 

relatively narrow fore–aft width of the 

beam and would receive only limited 

amounts of pulse energy because of the 

short pulses. Animals close to the ship 

(where the beam is narrowest) are 

especially unlikely to be ensonified for 

more than one 15 ms pulse (or two 

pulses if in the overlap area). Similarly, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68529 

Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the 

probability of a cetacean swimming 

through the area of exposure when the 

ADCPs emit a pulse is small. The 

animal would have to pass the 

transducer at close range and be 

swimming at speeds similar to the 

vessel in order to receive the multiple 

pulses that might result in sufficient 

exposure to cause TTS. 

Navy sonars that have been linked to 

avoidance reactions and stranding of 

cetaceans: (1) Generally have longer 

pulse duration than the ADCPs; and (2) 

are often directed close to horizontally 

versus more downward for the ADCPs. 

The area of possible influence of the 

ADCPs is much smaller—a narrow band 

below the source vessel. Also, the 

duration of exposure for a given marine 

mammal can be much longer for naval 

sonar. During NSF and ASC’s 

operations, the individual pulses would 

be very short, and a given mammal 

would not receive many of the 

downward-directed pulses as the vessel 

passes by. Possible effects of the ADCPs 

on marine mammals are described 

below. 

Masking—Marine mammal 

communications would not be masked 

appreciably by the ADCP signals, given 

the low duty cycle of the ADCPs and the 

brief period when an individual 

mammal is likely to be within its beam. 

Furthermore, in the case of baleen 

whales, the ADCP signals (150 kHz) do 

not overlap with the predominant 

frequencies in the calls (16 Hz to less 

than 12 kHz), which would avoid any 

significant masking (Richardson et al., 

1995). 

Behavioral Responses—Behavioral 

reactions of free-ranging marine 

mammals to sonars, echosounders, and 

other sound sources appear to vary by 

species and circumstance. Observed 

reactions have included silencing and 

dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins et 

al., 1985), increased vocalizations and 

no dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell 

and Gordon, 1999), and the previouslymentioned beachings by beaked whales. 

During exposure to a 21 to 25 kHz 

‘‘whale-finding’’ sonar with a source 

level of 215 dB re 1 mPa, gray whales 

reacted by orienting slightly away from 

the source and being deflected from 

their course by approximately 200 m 

(656.2 ft) (Frankel, 2005). When a 38 

kHz echosounder and a 150 kHz ADCP 

were transmitting during studies in the 

Eastern Tropical Pacific, baleen whales 

showed no significant responses, while 

spotted and spinner dolphins were 

detected slightly more often and beaked 

whales less often during visual surveys 

(Gerrodette and Pettis, 2005). 

Captive bottlenose dolphins and a 

beluga whale exhibited changes in 

behavior when exposed to 1 second 

tonal signals at frequencies similar to 

those that would be emitted by the 

ADCPs used by NSF and ASC, and to 

shorter broadband pulsed signals. 

Behavioral changes typically involved 

what appeared to be deliberate attempts 

to avoid the sound exposure (Schlundt 

et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002; 

Finneran and Schlundt, 2004). The 

relevance of those data to free-ranging 

odontocetes is uncertain, and in any 

case, the test sounds were quite 

different in duration as compared with 

those from an ADCP. 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects—Given recent stranding 

events that have been associated with 

the operation of naval sonar, there is 

concern that mid-frequency sonar 

sounds can cause serious impacts to 

marine mammals (see above). However, 

the ADCPs proposed for use by NSF and 

ASC is quite different than sonar used 

for Navy operations. Pulse duration of 

the ADCPs is very short relative to the 

naval sonar. Also, at any given location, 

an individual marine mammal would be 

in the beam of the ADCPs for much less 

time given the generally downward 

orientation of the beam and its narrow 

fore-aft beamwidth; Navy sonar often 

uses near-horizontally-directed sound. 

Those factors would all reduce the 

sound energy received from the ADCPs 

rather drastically relative to that from 

naval sonar. NMFS believes that the 

brief exposure of marine mammals to 

one pulse, or small numbers of signals, 

from the ADCPs in this particular case 

is not likely to result in the harassment 

of marine mammals. 

Coring Activities 

During coring, the noise created by 

the mechanical action of the devices on 

the seafloor is expected to be perceived 

by nearby fish and other marine 

organisms and deter them from 

swimming toward the source. Coring 

activities would be highly localized and 

short-term in duration and would not be 

expected to significantly interfere with 

marine mammal behavior. The potential 

direct effects include temporary 

localized disturbance or displacement 

from associated sounds and/or physical 

movement/actions of the operations. 

Additionally, the potential indirect 

effects may consist of very localized and 

transitory/short-term disturbance of 

bottom habitat and associated prey in 

shallow-water areas as a result of coring 

and sediment sampling (NSF/USGS 

PEIS, 2011). NMFS believes that the 

brief exposure of marine mammals to 

noise created from the mechanical 

action of the devices for coring is not 

likely to result in the harassment of 

marine mammals. 

A maximum total of 32 coring 

samples would be obtained using these 

devices and ranging from 1.5 to 3 hours 

per sample and it is estimated that the 

pinger would operate a total of 96 hours. 

The vessel would be stationary during 

core sampling deployment and 

recovery, so the likelihood of a collision 

or entanglement with a marine mammal 

is very low. 

Vessel Movement and Collisions 

Vessel movement in the vicinity of 

marine mammals has the potential to 

result in either a behavioral response or 

a direct physical interaction. Both 

scenarios are discussed below in this 

section. 

Behavioral Responses to Vessel 

Movement—There are limited data 

concerning marine mammal behavioral 

responses to vessel traffic and vessel 

noise, and a lack of consensus among 

scientists with respect to what these 

responses mean or whether they result 

in short-term or long-term adverse 

effects. In those cases where there is a 

busy shipping lane or where there is a 

large amount of vessel traffic, marine 

mammals (especially low frequency 

specialists) may experience acoustic 

masking (Hildebrand, 2005) if they are 

present in the area (e.g., killer whales in 

Puget Sound; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et 

al., 2008). In cases where vessels 

actively approach marine mammals 

(e.g., whale watching or dolphin 

watching boats), scientists have 

documented that animals exhibit altered 

behavior such as increased swimming 

speed, erratic movement, and active 

avoidance behavior (Bursk, 1983; 

Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon, 

1991; Trites and Bain, 2000; Williams et 

al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003), 

reduced blow interval (Ritcher et al., 

2003), disruption of normal social 

behaviors (Lusseau, 2003, 2006), and the 

shift of behavioral activities which may 

increase energetic costs (Constantine et 

al., 2003, 2004). A detailed review of 

marine mammal reactions to ships and 

boats is available in Richardson et al., 

(1995). For each of the marine mammal 

taxonomy groups, Richardson et al., 

(1995) provides the following 

assessment regarding reactions to vessel 

traffic: 

Toothed whales—‘‘In summary, 

toothed whales sometimes show no 

avoidance reaction to vessels, or even 

approach them. However, avoidance can 

occur, especially in response to vessels 

of types used to chase or hunt the 

animals. This may cause temporary 

displacement, but we know of no clear 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

evidence that toothed whales have 

abandoned significant parts of their 

range because of vessel traffic.’’ 

Baleen whales—‘‘When baleen whales 

receive low-level sounds from distant or 

stationary vessels, the sounds often 

seem to be ignored. Some whales 

approach the sources of these sounds. 

When vessels approach whales slowly 

and non-aggressively, whales often 

exhibit slow and inconspicuous 

avoidance maneuvers. In response to 

strong or rapidly changing vessel noise, 

baleen whales often interrupt their 

normal behavior and swim rapidly 

away. Avoidance is especially strong 

when a boat heads directly toward the 

whale.’’ 

Behavioral responses to stimuli are 

complex and influenced to varying 

degrees by a number of factors, such as 

species, behavioral contexts, 

geographical regions, source 

characteristics (moving or stationary, 

speed, direction, etc.), prior experience 

of the animal and physical status of the 

animal. For example, studies have 

shown that beluga whales’ reaction 

varied when exposed to vessel noise 

and traffic. In some cases, beluga whales 

exhibited rapid swimming from icebreaking vessels up to 80 km (43.2 nmi) 

away and showed changes in surfacing, 

breathing, diving, and group 

composition in the Canadian high 

Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley 

et al., 1990). In other cases, beluga 

whales were more tolerant of vessels, 

but responded differentially to certain 

vessels and operating characteristics by 

reducing their calling rates (especially 

older animals) in the St. Lawrence River 

where vessel traffic is common (Blane 

and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay, 

Alaska, beluga whales continued to feed 

when surrounded by fishing vessels and 

resisted dispersal even when 

purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania, 

1971). 

In reviewing more than 25 years of 

whale observation data, Watkins (1986) 

concluded that whale reactions to vessel 

traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous 

experience and current activity: 

Habituation often occurred rapidly, 

attention to other stimuli or 

preoccupation with other activities 

sometimes overcame their interest or 

wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed 

that over the years of exposure to ships 

in the Cape Cod area, minke whales 

changed from frequent positive interest 

(e.g., approaching vessels) to generally 

uninterested reactions; fin whales 

changed from mostly negative (e.g., 

avoidance) to uninterested reactions; fin 

whales changed from mostly negative 

(e.g., avoidance) to uninterested 

reactions; right whales apparently 

continued the same variety of responses 

(negative, uninterested, and positive 

responses) with little change; and 

humpbacks dramatically changed from 

mixed responses that were often 

negative to reactions that were often 

strongly positive. Watkins (1986) 

summarized that ‘‘whales near shore, 

even in regions with low vessel traffic, 

generally have become less wary of 

boats and their noises, and they have 

appeared to be less easily disturbed than 

previously. In particular locations with 

intense shipping and repeated 

approaches by boats (such as the whalewatching areas of Stellwagen Bank), 

more and more whales had positive 

reactions to familiar vessels, and they 

also occasionally approached other 

boats and yachts in the same ways.’’ 

Although the radiated sound from the 

Palmer would be audible to marine 

mammals over a large distance, it is 

unlikely that marine mammals would 

respond behaviorally (in a manner that 

NMFS would consider harassment 

under the MMPA) to low-level distant 

shipping noise as the animals in the 

area are likely to be habituated to such 

noises (Nowacek et al., 2004). In light of 

these facts, NMFS does not expect the 

Palmer’s movements to result in Level B 

harassment. 

Vessel Strike—Ship strikes of 

cetaceans can cause major wounds, 

which may lead to the death of the 

animal. An animal at the surface could 

be struck directly by a vessel, a 

surfacing animal could hit the bottom of 

a vessel, or an animal just below the 

surface could be cut by a vessel’s 

propeller. The severity of injuries 

typically depends on the size and speed 

of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 

2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). 

The most vulnerable marine mammals 

are those that spend extended periods of 

time at the surface in order to restore 

oxygen levels within their tissues after 

deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In 

addition, some baleen whales, such as 

the North Atlantic right whale, seem 

generally unresponsive to vessel sound, 

making them more susceptible to vessel 

collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These 

species are primarily large, slow moving 

whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., 

bottlenose dolphins) move quickly 

through the water column and are often 

seen riding the bow wave of large ships. 

Marine mammal responses to vessels 

may include avoidance and changes in 

dive pattern (NRC, 2003). 

An examination of all known ship 

strikes from all shipping sources 

(civilian and military) indicates vessel 

speed is a principal factor in whether a 

vessel strike results in death (Knowlton 

and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; 

Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). In assessing records in 

which vessel speed was known, Laist et 

al. (2001) found a direct relationship 

between the occurrence of a whale 

strike and the speed of the vessel 

involved in the collision. The authors 

concluded that most deaths occurred 

when a vessel was traveling in excess of 

13 kts (24.1 km/hr, 14.9 mph). 

NSF and ASC’s proposed operation of 

one source vessel for the proposed lowenergy seismic survey is relatively small 

in scale (i.e., a one vessel operation) 

compared to the number of other ships 

(e.g., fishing, tourist, and other vessels 

supporting McMurdo Station 

operations) transiting at higher speeds 

in the same areas on an annual basis. 

The probability of vessel and marine 

mammal interactions occurring during 

the proposed low-energy seismic survey 

is unlikely due to the Palmer’s slow 

operational speed, which is typically 5 

kts. Outside of seismic operations, the 

Palmer’s cruising speed would be 

approximately 10.1 to 14.5 kts, which is 

generally below the speed at which 

studies have noted reported increases of 

marine mammal injury or death (Laist et 

al., 2001). 

As a final point, the Palmer has a 

number of other advantages for avoiding 

ship strikes as compared to most 

commercial merchant vessels, including 

the following: The Palmer’s bridge and 

aloft observation tower offers good 

visibility to visually monitor for marine 

mammal presence; PSOs posted during 

operations scan the ocean for marine 

mammals and must report visual alerts 

of marine mammal presence to crew; 

and the PSOs receive extensive training 

that covers the fundamentals of visual 

observing for marine mammals and 

information about marine mammals and 

their identification at sea. 

Entanglement 

Entanglement can occur if wildlife 

becomes immobilized in survey lines, 

cables, nets, or other equipment that is 

moving through the water column. The 

proposed low-energy seismic survey 

would require towing approximately 

one or two 100 m cable streamers. While 

towing this size of an array carries some 

level of risk of entanglement for marine 

mammals due to the operational nature 

of the activity, entanglement is unlikely. 

Wildlife, especially slow moving 

individuals, such as large whales, have 

a low probability of becoming entangled 

due to slow speed of the survey vessel 

and onboard monitoring efforts. In May 

2011, there was one recorded 

entrapment of an olive ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys olivacea) in the R/V 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68531 

Marcus G. Langseth’s barovanes after 

the conclusion of a seismic survey off 

Costa Rica. There have been cases of 

baleen whales, mostly gray whales 

(Heyning, 1990), becoming entangled in 

fishing lines. The probability for 

entanglement of marine mammals is 

considered very low because of the 

vessel speed and the monitoring efforts 

onboard the survey vessel. Furthermore, 

there has been no history of marine 

mammal entanglement with seismic 

equipment used by the U.S. academic 

research fleet. 

Icebreaking Activities 

Icebreakers produce more noise while 

breaking ice than ships of comparable 

size due, primarily, to the sounds of 

propeller cavitating (Richardson et al., 

1995). Multi-year ice is expected to be 

encountered in the proposed action 

area. Icebreakers commonly back and 

ram into heavy ice until losing 

momentum to make way. The highest 

noise levels usually occur while backing 

full astern in preparation to ram forward 

through the ice. Overall the noise 

generated by an icebreaker pushing ice 

was 10 to 15 dB greater than the noise 

produced by the ship underway in open 

water (Richardson et al., 1995). In 

general, the Antarctic and Southern 

Ocean is a noisy environment. Calving 

and grounding icebergs as well as the 

break-up of ice sheets, can produce a 

large amount of underwater noise. Little 

information is available about the 

increased sound levels due to 

icebreaking. 

Cetaceans—Few studies have been 

conducted to evaluate the potential 

interference of icebreaking noise with 

marine mammal vocalizations. Erbe and 

Farmer (1998) measured masked hearing 

thresholds of a captive beluga whale. 

They reported that the recording of a 

Canadian Coast Guard Ship (CCGS) 

Henry Larsen, ramming ice in the 

Beaufort Sea, masked recordings of 

beluga vocalizations at a noise to signal 

pressure ratio of 18 dB, when the noise 

pressure level was eight times as high as 

the call pressure. Erbe and Farmer 

(2000) also predicted when icebreaker 

noise would affect beluga whales 

through software that combined a sound 

propagation model and beluga whale 

impact threshold models. They again 

used the data from the recording of the 

Henry Larsen in the Beaufort Sea and 

predicted that masking of beluga whale 

vocalizations could extend between 40 

and 71 km (21.6 and 38.3 nmi) near the 

surface. Lesage et al. (1999) report that 

beluga whales changed their call type 

and call frequency when exposed to 

boat noise. It is possible that the whales 

adapt to the ambient noise levels and 

are able to communicate despite the 

sound. Given the documented reaction 

of belugas to ships and icebreakers it is 

highly unlikely that beluga whales 

would remain in the proximity of 

vessels where vocalizations would be 

masked. 

Beluga whales have been documented 

swimming rapidly away from ships and 

icebreakers in the Canadian high Arctic 

when a ship approaches to within 35 to 

50 km (18.9 to 27 nmi), and they may 

travel up to 80 km (43.2 nmi) from the 

vessel’s track (Richardson et al., 1995). 

It is expected that belugas avoid 

icebreakers as soon as they detect the 

ships (Cosens and Dueck, 1993). 

However, the reactions of beluga whales 

to ships vary greatly and some animals 

may become habituated to high levels of 

ambient noise (Erbe and Darmber, 

2000). 

There is little information about the 

effects of icebreaking ships on baleen 

whales. Migrating bowhead whales 

appeared to avoid an area around a drill 

site by greater than 25 km (13.5 mi) 

where an icebreaker was working in the 

Beaufort Sea. There was intensive 

icebreaking daily in support of the 

drilling activities (Brewer et al., 1993). 

Migrating bowheads also avoided a 

nearby drill site at the same time of year 

where little icebreaking was being 

conducted (LGL and Greeneridge, 1987). 

It is unclear as to whether the drilling 

activities, icebreaking operations, or the 

ice itself might have been the cause for 

the whale’s diversion. Bowhead whales 

are not expected to occur in the 

proximity of the proposed action area. 

Pinnipeds—Brueggeman et al. (1992) 

reported on the reactions of seals to an 

icebreaker during activities at two 

prospects in the Chukchi Sea. Reactions 

of seals to the icebreakers varied 

between the two prospects. Most (67%) 

seals did not react to the icebreaker at 

either prospect. Reaction at one 

prospect was greatest during icebreaking 

activity (running/maneuvering/jogging) 

and was 0.23 km (0.12 nmi) of the vessel 

and lowest for animals beyond 0.93 km 

(0.5 nmi). At the second prospect 

however, seal reaction was lowest 

during icebreaking activity with higher 

and similar levels of response during 

general (non-icebreaking) vessel 

operations and when the vessel was at 

anchor or drifting. The frequency of seal 

reaction generally declined with 

increasing distance from the vessel 

except during general vessel activity 

where it remained consistently high to 

about 0.46 km (0.25 nmi) from the 

vessel before declining. 

Similarly, Kanik et al. (1980) found 

that ringed (Pusa hispida) and harp 

seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) often 

dove into the water when an icebreaker 

was breaking ice within 1 km (0.5 nmi) 

of the animals. Most seals remained on 

the ice when the ship was breaking ice 

1 to 2 km (0.5 to 1.1 nmi) away. 

The potential effects to marine 

mammals described in this section of 

the document do not take into 

consideration the proposed monitoring 

and mitigation measures described later 

in this document (see the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting’’ sections) which, as 

noted are designed to effect the least 

practicable impact on affected marine 

mammal species and stocks. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The proposed low-energy seismic 

survey is not anticipated to have any 

permanent impact on habitats used by 

the marine mammals in the proposed 

study area, including the food sources 

they use (i.e. fish and invertebrates). 

Additionally, no physical damage to any 

habitat is anticipated as a result of 

conducting airgun operations during the 

proposed low-energy seismic survey. 

While it is anticipated that the specified 

activity may result in marine mammals 

avoiding certain areas due to temporary 

ensonification, this impact to habitat is 

temporary and was considered in 

further detail earlier in this document, 

as behavioral modification. The main 

impact associated with the proposed 

activity would be temporarily elevated 

noise levels and the associated direct 

effects on marine mammals in any 

particular area of the approximately 

3,882 km2 proposed study area, 

previously discussed in this notice. 

The Palmer is designed for 

continuous passage at 3 kts through ice 

1 m thick. During the proposed project 

the Palmer would typically encounter 

first- or second-year ice while avoiding 

thicker ice floes, particularly large intact 

multi-year ice, whenever possible. In 

addition, the vessel would follow leads 

when possible while following the 

survey route. As the vessel passes 

through the ice, the ship causes the ice 

to part and travel alongside the hull. 

This ice typically returns to fill the 

wake as the ship passes. The effects are 

transitory (i.e., hours at most) and 

localized (i.e., constrained to a relatively 

narrow swath perhaps 10 m [32.1 ft] to 

each side of the vessel). The Palmer’s 

maximum beam is 18.3 m (60 ft). 

Applying the maximum estimated 

amount of icebreaking (500 km), to the 

corridor opened by the ship, NSF and 

ASC anticipate that a maximum of 

approximately 18 km2 (5.3 nmi2) of ice 

may be disturbed. This represents an 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

inconsequential amount of the total ice 

present in the Southern Ocean. 

Sea ice is important for pinniped life 

functions such as resting, breeding, and 

molting. Icebreaking activities may 

damage seal breathing holes and would 

also reduce the haul-out area in the 

immediate vicinity of the ship’s track. 

Icebreaking along a maximum of 500 km 

of tracklines would alter local ice 

conditions in the immediate vicinity of 

the vessel. This has the potential to 

temporarily lead to a reduction of 

suitable seal haul-out habitat. However, 

the dynamic sea-ice environment 

requires that seals be able to adapt to 

changes in sea, ice, and snow 

conditions, and they therefore create 

new breathing holes and lairs 

throughout the winter and spring 

(Hammill and Smith, 1989). In addition, 

seals often use open leads and cracks in 

the ice to surface and breathe (Smith 

and Stirling, 1975). Disturbance of the 

ice would occur in a very small area 

relative to the Southern Ocean ice-pack 

and no significant impact on marine 

mammals is anticipated by icebreaking 

during the proposed low-energy seismic 

survey. The next section discusses the 

potential impacts of anthropogenic 

sound sources on common marine 

mammal prey in the proposed study 

area (i.e., fish and invertebrates). 

Anticipated Effects on Fish 

One reason for the adoption of airguns 

as the standard energy source for marine 

seismic surveys is that, unlike 

explosives, they have not been 

associated with large-scale fish kills. 

However, existing information on the 

impacts of seismic surveys on marine 

fish and invertebrate populations is 

limited. There are three types of 

potential effects of exposure to seismic 

surveys: (1) Pathological, (2) 

physiological, and (3) behavioral. 

Pathological effects involve lethal and 

temporary or permanent sub-lethal 

injury. Physiological effects involve 

temporary and permanent primary and 

secondary stress responses, such as 

changes in levels of enzymes and 

proteins. Behavioral effects refer to 

temporary and (if they occur) permanent 

changes in exhibited behavior (e.g., 

startle and avoidance behavior). The 

three categories are interrelated in 

complex ways. For example, it is 

possible that certain physiological and 

behavioral changes could potentially 

lead to an ultimate pathological effect 

on individuals (i.e., mortality). 

The specific received sound levels at 

which permanent adverse effects to fish 

potentially could occur are little studied 

and largely unknown. Furthermore, the 

available information on the impacts of 

seismic surveys on marine fish is from 

studies of individuals or portions of a 

population; there have been no studies 

at the population scale. The studies of 

individual fish have often been on caged 

fish that were exposed to airgun pulses 

in situations not representative of an 

actual seismic survey. Thus, available 

information provides limited insight on 

possible real-world effects at the ocean 

or population scale. This makes drawing 

conclusions about impacts on fish 

problematic because, ultimately, the 

most important issues concern effects 

on marine fish populations, their 

viability, and their availability to 

fisheries. 

Hastings and Popper (2005), Popper 

(2009), and Popper and Hastings 

(2009a,b) provided recent critical 

reviews of the known effects of sound 

on fish. The following sections provide 

a general synopsis of the available 

information on the effects of exposure to 

seismic and other anthropogenic sound 

as relevant to fish. The information 

comprises results from scientific studies 

of varying degrees of rigor plus some 

anecdotal information. Some of the data 

sources may have serious shortcomings 

in methods, analysis, interpretation, and 

reproducibility that must be considered 

when interpreting their results (see 

Hastings and Popper, 2005). Potential 

adverse effects of the program’s sound 

sources on marine fish are noted. 

Pathological Effects—The potential 

for pathological damage to hearing 

structures in fish depends on the energy 

level of the received sound and the 

physiology and hearing capability of the 

species in question. For a given sound 

to result in hearing loss, the sound must 

exceed, by some substantial amount, the 

hearing threshold of the fish for that 

sound (Popper, 2005). The 

consequences of temporary or 

permanent hearing loss in individual 

fish on a fish population are unknown; 

however, they likely depend on the 

number of individuals affected and 

whether critical behaviors involving 

sound (e.g., predator avoidance, prey 

capture, orientation and navigation, 

reproduction, etc.) are adversely 

affected. 

Little is known about the mechanisms 

and characteristics of damage to fish 

that may be inflicted by exposure to 

seismic survey sounds. Few data have 

been presented in the peer-reviewed 

scientific literature. As far as NSF, ASC, 

and NMFS know, there are only two 

papers with proper experimental 

methods, controls, and careful 

pathological investigation implicating 

sounds produced by actual seismic 

survey airguns in causing adverse 

anatomical effects. One such study 

indicated anatomical damage, and the 

second indicated TTS in fish hearing. 

The anatomical case is McCauley et al. 

(2003), who found that exposure to 

airgun sound caused observable 

anatomical damage to the auditory 

maculae of pink snapper (Pagrus 

auratus). This damage in the ears had 

not been repaired in fish sacrificed and 

examined almost two months after 

exposure. On the other hand, Popper et 

al. (2005) documented only TTS (as 

determined by auditory brainstem 

response) in two of three fish species 

from the Mackenzie River Delta. This 

study found that broad whitefish 

(Coregonus nasus) exposed to five 

airgun shots were not significantly 

different from those of controls. During 

both studies, the repetitive exposure to 

sound was greater than would have 

occurred during a typical seismic 

survey. However, the substantial lowfrequency energy produced by the 

airguns (less than 400 Hz in the study 

by McCauley et al. [2003] and less than 

approximately 200 Hz in Popper et al. 

[2005]) likely did not propagate to the 

fish because the water in the study areas 

was very shallow (approximately nine 

m in the former case and less than two 

m in the latter). Water depth sets a 

lower limit on the lowest sound 

frequency that would propagate (the 

‘‘cutoff frequency’’) at about one-quarter 

wavelength (Urick, 1983; Rogers and 

Cox, 1988). 

Wardle et al. (2001) suggested that in 

water, acute injury and death of 

organisms exposed to seismic energy 

depends primarily on two features of 

the sound source: (1) The received peak 

pressure, and (2) the time required for 

the pressure to rise and decay. 

Generally, as received pressure 

increases, the period for the pressure to 

rise and decay decreases, and the 

chance of acute pathological effects 

increases. According to Buchanan et al. 

(2004), for the types of seismic airguns 

and arrays involved with the proposed 

program, the pathological (mortality) 

zone for fish would be expected to be 

within a few meters of the seismic 

source. Numerous other studies provide 

examples of no fish mortality upon 

exposure to seismic sources (Falk and 

Lawrence, 1973; Holliday et al., 1987; 

La Bella et al., 1996; Santulli et al., 

1999; McCauley et al., 2000a,b, 2003; 

Bjarti, 2002; Thomsen, 2002; Hassel et 

al., 2003; Popper et al., 2005; Boeger et 

al., 2006). 

An experiment of the effects of a 

single 700 in3 airgun was conducted in 

Lake Meade, Nevada (USGS, 1999). The 

data were used in an Environmental 

Assessment of the effects of a marine 

reflection survey of the Lake Meade 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68533 

fault system by the National Park 

Service (Paulson et al., 1993, in USGS, 

1999). The airgun was suspended 3.5 m 

(11.5 ft) above a school of threadfin shad 

in Lake Meade and was fired three 

successive times at a 30 second interval. 

Neither surface inspection nor diver 

observations of the water column and 

bottom found any dead fish. 

For a proposed seismic survey in 

Southern California, USGS (1999) 

conducted a review of the literature on 

the effects of airguns on fish and 

fisheries. They reported a 1991 study of 

the Bay Area Fault system from the 

continental shelf to the Sacramento 

River, using a 10 airgun (5,828 in 3) 

array. Brezzina and Associates were 

hired by USGS to monitor the effects of 

the surveys and concluded that airgun 

operations were not responsible for the 

death of any of the fish carcasses 

observed. They also concluded that the 

airgun profiling did not appear to alter 

the feeding behavior of sea lions, seals, 

or pelicans observed feeding during the 

seismic surveys. 

Some studies have reported, some 

equivocally, that mortality of fish, fish 

eggs, or larvae can occur close to 

seismic sources (Kostyuchenko, 1973; 

Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Booman et 

al., 1996; Dalen et al., 1996). Some of 

the reports claimed seismic effects from 

treatments quite different from actual 

seismic survey sounds or even 

reasonable surrogates. However, Payne 

et al. (2009) reported no statistical 

differences in mortality/morbidity 

between control and exposed groups of 

capelin eggs or monkfish larvae. Saetre 

and Ona (1996) applied a ‘worst-case 

scenario’ mathematical model to 

investigate the effects of seismic energy 

on fish eggs and larvae. They concluded 

that mortality rates caused by exposure 

to seismic surveys are so low, as 

compared to natural mortality rates, that 

the impact of seismic surveying on 

recruitment to a fish stock must be 

regarded as insignificant. 

Physiological Effects—Physiological 

effects refer to cellular and/or 

biochemical responses of fish to 

acoustic stress. Such stress potentially 

could affect fish populations by 

increasing mortality or reducing 

reproductive success. Primary and 

secondary stress responses of fish after 

exposure to seismic survey sound 

appear to be temporary in all studies 

done to date (Sverdrup et al., 1994; 

Santulli et al., 1999; McCauley et al., 

2000a,b). The periods necessary for the 

biochemical changes to return to normal 

are variable and depend on numerous 

aspects of the biology of the species and 

of the sound stimulus. 

Behavioral Effects—Behavioral effects 

include changes in the distribution, 

migration, mating, and catchability of 

fish populations. Studies investigating 

the possible effects of sound (including 

seismic survey sound) on fish behavior 

have been conducted on both uncaged 

and caged individuals (e.g., Chapman 

and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson et al., 1992; 

Santulli et al., 1999; Wardle et al., 2001; 

Hassel et al., 2003). Typically, in these 

studies fish exhibited a sharp startle 

response at the onset of a sound 

followed by habituation and a return to 

normal behavior after the sound ceased. 

The Minerals Management Service 

(MMS, 2005) assessed the effects of a 

proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet. 

The seismic survey proposed using 

three vessels, each towing two fourairgun arrays ranging from 24,580.6 to 

40,967.7 cm 3 (1,500 to 2,500 in 3). MMS 

noted that the impact to fish 

populations in the survey area and 

adjacent waters would likely be very 

low and temporary. MMS also 

concluded that seismic surveys may 

displace the pelagic fishes from the area 

temporarily when airguns are in use. 

However, fishes displaced and avoiding 

the airgun noise are likely to backfill the 

survey area in minutes to hours after 

cessation of seismic testing. Fishes not 

dispersing from the airgun noise (e.g., 

demersal species) may startle and move 

short distances to avoid airgun 

emissions. 

In general, any adverse effects on fish 

behavior or fisheries attributable to 

seismic testing may depend on the 

species in question and the nature of the 

fishery (season, duration, fishing 

method). They may also depend on the 

age of the fish, its motivational state, its 

size, and numerous other factors that are 

difficult, if not impossible, to quantify at 

this point, given such limited data on 

effects of airguns on fish, particularly 

under realistic at-sea conditions. 

Anticipated Effects on Invertebrates 

The existing body of information on 

the impacts of seismic survey sound on 

marine invertebrates is very limited. 

However, there is some unpublished 

and very limited evidence of the 

potential for adverse effects on 

invertebrates, thereby justifying further 

discussion and analysis of this issue. 

The three types of potential effects of 

exposure to seismic surveys on marine 

invertebrates are pathological, 

physiological, and behavioral. Based on 

the physical structure of their sensory 

organs, marine invertebrates appear to 

be specialized to respond to particle 

displacement components of an 

impinging sound field and not to the 

pressure component (Popper et al., 

2001). 

The only information available on the 

impacts of seismic surveys on marine 

invertebrates involves studies of 

individuals; there have been no studies 

at the population scale. Thus, available 

information provides limited insight on 

possible real-world effects at the 

regional or ocean scale. The most 

important aspect of potential impacts 

concerns how exposure to seismic 

survey sound ultimately affects 

invertebrate populations and their 

viability, including availability to 

fisheries. 

Literature reviews of the effects of 

seismic and other underwater sound on 

invertebrates were provided by 

Moriyasu et al. (2004) and Payne et al. 

(2008). The following sections provide a 

synopsis of available information on the 

effects of exposure to seismic survey 

sound on species of decapod 

crustaceans and cephalopods, the two 

taxonomic groups of invertebrates on 

which most such studies have been 

conducted. The available information is 

from studies with variable degrees of 

scientific soundness and from anecdotal 

information. A more detailed review of 

the literature on the effects of seismic 

survey sound on invertebrates is 

provided in Appendix D of NSF/USGS’s 

PEIS. 

Pathological Effects—In water, lethal 

and sub-lethal injury to organisms 

exposed to seismic survey sound 

appears to depend on at least two 

features of the sound source: (1) The 

received peak pressure; and (2) the time 

required for the pressure to rise and 

decay. Generally, as received pressure 

increases, the period for the pressure to 

rise and decay decreases, and the 

chance of acute pathological effects 

increases. For the type of airgun array 

planned for the proposed program, the 

pathological (mortality) zone for 

crustaceans and cephalopods is 

expected to be within a few meters of 

the seismic source, at most; however, 

very few specific data are available on 

levels of seismic signals that might 

damage these animals. This premise is 

based on the peak pressure and rise/

decay time characteristics of seismic 

airgun arrays currently in use around 

the world. 

Some studies have suggested that 

seismic survey sound has a limited 

pathological impact on early 

developmental stages of crustaceans 

(Pearson et al., 1994; Christian et al., 

2003; DFO, 2004). However, the impacts 

appear to be either temporary or 

insignificant compared to what occurs 

under natural conditions. Controlled 

field experiments on adult crustaceans 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

(Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004) 

and adult cephalopods (McCauley et al., 

2000a,b) exposed to seismic survey 

sound have not resulted in any 

significant pathological impacts on the 

animals. It has been suggested that 

exposure to commercial seismic survey 

activities has injured giant squid 

(Guerra et al., 2004), but the article 

provides little evidence to support this 

claim. Tenera Environmental (2011b) 

reported that Norris and Mohl (1983, 

summarized in Mariyasu et al., 2004) 

observed lethal effects in squid (Loligo 

vulgaris) at levels of 246 to 252 dB after 

3 to 11 minutes. 

Andre et al. (2011) exposed four 

species of cephalopods (Loligo vulgaris, 

Sepia officinalis, Octopus vulgaris, and 

Ilex coindetii), primarily cuttlefish, to 

two hours of continuous 50 to 400 Hz 

sinusoidal wave sweeps at 157+/¥5 dB 

re 1 mPa while captive in relatively 

small tanks. They reported 

morphological and ultrastructural 

evidence of massive acoustic trauma 

(i.e., permanent and substantial 

alterations [lesions] of statocyst sensory 

hair cells) to the exposed animals that 

increased in severity with time, 

suggesting that cephalopods are 

particularly sensitive to low frequency 

sound. The received SPL was reported 

as 157+/¥5 dB re 1 mPa, with peak 

levels at 175 dB re 1 mPa. As in the 

McCauley et al. (2003) paper on sensory 

hair cell damage in pink snapper as a 

result of exposure to seismic sound, the 

cephalopods were subjected to higher 

sound levels than they would be under 

natural conditions, and they were 

unable to swim away from the sound 

source. 

Physiological Effects—Physiological 

effects refer mainly to biochemical 

responses by marine invertebrates to 

acoustic stress. Such stress potentially 

could affect invertebrate populations by 

increasing mortality or reducing 

reproductive success. Primary and 

secondary stress responses (i.e., changes 

in haemolymph levels of enzymes, 

proteins, etc.) of crustaceans have been 

noted several days or months after 

exposure to seismic survey sounds 

(Payne et al., 2007). It was noted 

however, than no behavioral impacts 

were exhibited by crustaceans (Christian 

et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004). The 

periods necessary for these biochemical 

changes to return to normal are variable 

and depend on numerous aspects of the 

biology of the species and of the sound 

stimulus. 

Behavioral Effects—There is 

increasing interest in assessing the 

possible direct and indirect effects of 

seismic and other sounds on 

invertebrate behavior, particularly in 

relation to the consequences for 

fisheries. Changes in behavior could 

potentially affect such aspects as 

reproductive success, distribution, 

susceptibility to predation, and 

catchability by fisheries. Studies 

investigating the possible behavioral 

effects of exposure to seismic survey 

sound on crustaceans and cephalopods 

have been conducted on both uncaged 

and caged animals. In some cases, 

invertebrates exhibited startle responses 

(e.g., squid in McCauley et al., 2000a,b). 

In other cases, no behavioral impacts 

were noted (e.g., crustaceans in 

Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO 2004). 

There have been anecdotal reports of 

reduced catch rates of shrimp shortly 

after exposure to seismic surveys; 

however, other studies have not 

observed any significant changes in 

shrimp catch rate (Andriguetto-Filho et 

al., 2005). Similarly, Parry and Gason 

(2006) did not find any evidence that 

lobster catch rates were affected by 

seismic surveys. Any adverse effects on 

crustacean and cephalopod behavior or 

fisheries attributable to seismic survey 

sound depend on the species in 

question and the nature of the fishery 

(season, duration, fishing method). More 

information on the potential effects of 

airguns on fish and invertebrates are 

reviewed in section 3.2.4.3, section 

3.3.4.3, and Appendix D of the NSF/

USGS PEIS. 

Proposed 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 activities, NSF, 

ASC, and their designees have proposed 

to implement the following mitigation 

measures for marine mammals: 

(1) Proposed exclusion zones around 

the sound source; 

(2) Speed and course alterations; 

(3) Shut-down procedures; and 

(4) Ramp-up procedures. 

Proposed Exclusion Zones—During 

pre-planning 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 2 (presented earlier in 

this document) 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. 

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 Appendix B 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 

intermediate water were determined 

(see Table 2 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 

proposed low-energy seismic 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68535 

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 propose to use 

the safety radii predicted by L–DEO’s 

model for the proposed GI airgun 

operations in intermediate 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 proposed to be used during the 

low-energy seismic survey are 

considered a low-energy 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 low-energy sources in 

water depths greater than 100 m. This 

standard 100 m exclusion zone would 

be used during the proposed low-energy 

seismic survey. The 180 and 190 dB 

(rms) radii are shut-down 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 would 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 would be considered if 

this does not compromise operational 

safety or damage the deployed 

equipment. This would 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 

would be towing a relatively short 

hydrophone streamer, so its 

maneuverability during operations with 

the hydrophone streamer would 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 would 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 would be taken, including 

further speed and/or course alterations, 

and/or shut-down of the airgun(s). 

Typically, during seismic operations, 

the source vessel is unable to change 

speed or course, and one or more 

alternative mitigation measures would 

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 

would 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 would be shut-down 

immediately. 

Following a shut-down, NSF and ASC 

would not resume airgun activity until 

the marine mammal has cleared the 

exclusion zone. NSF and ASC would 

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, killer, and beaked 

whales). 

Although power-down procedures are 

often standard operating practice for 

seismic surveys, they are not proposed 

to be used during this planned lowenergy 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 

abilities. NSF and ASC would 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 propose 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 would begin with a single 

GI airgun (105 in3). The second GI 

airgun (105 in3) would be added after 5 

minutes. During ramp-up, the PSOs 

would monitor the exclusion zone, and 

if marine mammals are sighted, a shutdown would 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 

would not commence the ramp-up. 

Given these provisions, it is likely that 

the airgun array would not be rampedup from a complete shut-down during 

low light conditions, 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 been operating, ramp-up 

to full power would be permissible 

during low light, at night, or in poor 

visibility, on the assumption that 

marine mammals would be alerted to 

the approaching seismic vessel by the 

sounds from the single airgun and could 

move away if they choose. NSF and 

ASC would not initiate a ramp-up of the 

airguns if a marine mammal is sighted 

within or near the applicable exclusion 

zones. 

Proposed Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed 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. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

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 proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered by NMFS 

or recommended by the public, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed 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. 

Proposed 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 would 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 proposed 

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 may be modified or 

supplemented based on comments or 

new information received from the 

public during the public comment 

period. 

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. 

(4) An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; and 

(5) An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

Proposed Monitoring 

NSF and ASC propose to sponsor 

marine mammal monitoring during the 

proposed project, in order to implement 

the proposed mitigation measures that 

require real-time monitoring and to 

satisfy the anticipated monitoring 

requirements of the IHA. NSF and 

ASC’s proposed ‘‘Monitoring Plan’’ is 

described below this section. NSF and 

ASC understand that this monitoring 

plan would be subject to 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 is 

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 

PSOs would be based aboard the 

seismic source vessel and would watch 

for marine mammals near the vessel 

during icebreaking activities, daytime 

airgun operations and during any rampups of the airguns at night. PSOs would 

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 proposed low-energy seismic 

survey). When feasible, PSOs would 

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 would 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 Ross 

Sea, at least three PSOs would be based 

aboard the Palmer. At least one PSO 

would stand watch at all times while 

the Palmer is operating airguns during 

the proposed low-energy seismic 

survey; this procedure would also be 

followed when the vessel is in transit 

and conducting icebreaking. NSF and 

ASC would appoint the PSOs with 

NMFS’s concurrence. The lead PSO 

would be experienced with marine 

mammal species in the Ross Sea and/or 

Southern Ocean, the second and third 

PSOs would receive additional 

specialized training from the lead PSO 

to ensure that they can identify marine 

mammal species commonly found in 

the Ross Sea and Southern Ocean. 

Observations would take place during 

ongoing daytime operations and rampups of the airguns. During the majority 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68537 

of seismic operations, at least one PSO 

would 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) would be on duty in 

shifts no longer than 4 hours in 

duration. Other crew would also be 

instructed to assist in detecting marine 

mammals and implementing mitigation 

requirements (if practical). Before the 

start of the low-energy seismic survey, 

the crew would be given additional 

instruction on how to do so. 

The Palmer is a suitable platform for 

marine mammal observations and 

would serve as the platform from which 

PSOs would 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 would 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 would 

be reticle binoculars. Night-vision 

equipment would not be available or 

necessary as there would be 24-hour 

daylight or nautical twilight during the 

cruise. The PSOs would 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 daylight, the PSO(s) 

would scan the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7 × 50 Fujinon FMTRC–SX) and 

the naked eye. These binoculars would 

have a built-in daylight compass. 

Estimating distances is done primarily 

with the reticles in the binoculars. The 

PSO(s) would 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. PSOs would monitor for 

the presence pinnipeds and cetaceans 

during icebreaking activities, and would 

be limited to those marine mammal 

species in proximity to the ice margin 

habitat. Observations within the buffer 

zone would also include pinnipeds that 

may be present on the surface of the sea 

ice (i.e., hauled-out) and that could 

potentially dive into the water as the 

vessel approaches, indicating 

disturbance from noise generated by 

icebreaking activities). 

When a marine mammal is detected 

within or about to enter the designated 

exclusion zone, the airguns would 

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) 

would continue to maintain watch to 

determine when the animal is outside 

the exclusion zone by visual 

confirmation. Airgun operations would 

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 would 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 would be used to estimate numbers 

of animals potentially ‘‘taken’’ by 

harassment (as defined in the MMPA). 

They would also provide information 

needed to order a shut-down of the 

airguns when a marine mammal is 

within or near the exclusion zone. 

Observations would also be made 

during icebreaking activities as well as 

daylight periods when the Palmer is 

underway without seismic airgun 

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 

would 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 (including number 

of airguns operating and whether in 

state of ramp-up or shut-down), sea 

state, wind force, visibility, and sun 

glare. 

The data listed under (2) would 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 would be recorded in a 

standardized format. Data would be 

entered into an electronic database. The 

data accuracy would be verified by 

computerized data validity checks as 

the data are entered and by subsequent 

manual checking of the database by the 

PSOs at sea. These procedures would 

allow initial summaries of data to be 

prepared during and shortly after the 

field program, and would facilitate 

transfer of the data to statistical, 

graphical, and other programs for 

further processing and archiving. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations would 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 airgun 

operations and icebreaking activities. 

5. Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without airgun 

operations and icebreaking activities. 

Proposed Reporting 

NSF and ASC would submit a 

comprehensive report to NMFS within 

90 days after the end of the cruise. The 

report would describe the operations 

that were conducted and sightings of 

marine mammals near the operations. 

The report submitted to NMFS would 

provide full documentation of methods, 

results, and interpretation pertaining to 

all monitoring. The 90-day report would 

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 

would 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; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

• 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 

airgun operations and icebreaking 

activities; 

• Sighting rates of marine mammals 

during periods with and without airgun 

operations and icebreaking activities 

(and other variables that could affect 

detectability); 

• Initial sighting distances versus 

airgun operations and icebreaking 

activity state; 

• Closest point of approach versus 

airgun operations and icebreaking 

activity state; 

• Observed behaviors and types of 

movements versus airgun operations 

and icebreaking activity state; 

• Numbers of sightings/individuals 

seen versus airgun operations and 

icebreaking activity state; and 

• Distribution around the source 

vessel versus airgun operations and 

icebreaking activity state. 

The report would 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 would review the 

draft report and provide any comments 

it may have, and NSF and ASC would 

incorporate NMFS’s comments and 

prepare a final report. After the report 

is considered final, it would 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 

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]. 

TABLE 5—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 

proposed to be authorized as a result of 

the proposed low-energy seismic survey 

in the Ross Sea. Acoustic stimuli (i.e., 

increased underwater sound) generated 

during the operation of the seismic 

airgun array and icebreaking activities 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68539 

would 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 proposed low-energy seismic 

survey in the Ross Sea. The estimates 

are based on a consideration of the 

number of marine mammals that could 

be harassed during the approximately 

200 hours and 1,750 km of seismic 

airgun operations with the two GI 

airgun array to be used and 500 km of 

icebreaking activities. 

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 would already be 

affected by the airguns. During times 

when the airguns are not operating, it is 

unlikely that marine mammals would 

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. Therefore, for this 

activity, take was not authorized 

specifically for these sound sources 

beyond that which is already proposed 

to be authorized for airguns and 

icebreaking activities. 

There are no stock assessments and 

very limited population information 

available for marine mammals in the 

Ross Sea. Published estimates of marine 

mammal densities are limited for the 

proposed low-energy seismic survey’s 

action area. Available density estimates 

(using number of animals per km2) from 

the Naval Marine Species Density 

Database (NMSDD) (NAVFAC, 2012) 

were used for one mysticete and one 

odontocete (i.e., sei whale and Arnoux’s 

beaked whale). Densities for minke 

(including the dwarf sub-species) 

whales were unavailable and the 

densities for Antarctic minke whales 

were used as proxies, respectively. 

For other mysticetes and odontocetes, 

reported sightings data from one 

previous research survey (i.e., 

International Whaling Commission 

Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem 

Research [IWC SOWER]) in the Ross Sea 

and vicinity were used to identify 

species that may be present in the 

proposed action area and to estimate 

densities. Available sightings data from 

the 2002 to 2003 IWC SOWER 

Circumpolar Cruise, Area V (Ensor et 

al., 2003) were used to estimate 

densities for five mysticetes (i.e., 

humpback, Antarctic minke, minke, fin, 

and blue whale) and six odontocetes 

(i.e., sperm, southern bottlenose, straptoothed beaked, killer, long-finned pilot 

whale and hourglass dolphin). Densities 

of pinnipeds (i.e., crabeater, leopard, 

Ross, Weddell, and southern elephant 

seal) were estimated using data from 

two surveys (NZAI, 2001; Pinkerton and 

Bradford-Grieve, n.d.) and dividing the 

estimated population of animals by the 

area of the Ross Sea (approximately 

300,000 km2 [87,466 nmi2]). While these 

surveys were not specifically designed 

to quantify marine mammal densities, 

there was sufficient information to 

develop density estimates. 

The densities used for purposes of 

estimating potential take do not take 

into account the patchy distributions of 

marine mammals in an ecosystem, at 

least on the moderate to fine scales over 

which they are known to occur. Instead, 

animals are considered evenly 

distributed throughout the assessed 

study area and seasonal movement 

patterns are not taken into account as 

none are available. 

Some marine mammals that were 

present in the area during these surveys 

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 this proposed 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 (i.e., not sighted and 

reported) animals. 

The pinnipeds that may be present in 

the study area during the proposed 

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 

would be conducted. Because density 

estimates for pinnipeds in the subAntarctic 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 and icebreaking 

activities; therefore, the pinniped 

densities have been adjusted downward 

to account for this consideration. Take 

was not requested for Antarctic and 

Subantarctic seals because preferred 

habitat for these species is not within 

the proposed 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 6—ESTIMATED DENSITIES AND POSSIBLE NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES THAT MIGHT BE EXPOSED TO

GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 dB (AIRGUN OPERATIONS) AND 120 dB (ICEBREAKING) DURING NSF AND ASC’S

PROPOSED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY (APPROXIMATELY 500 km OF TRACKLINES/APPROXIMATELY 21,540 km2

ENSONIFIED AREA FOR ICEBREAKING ACTIVITIES AND APPROXIMATELY 1,750 km OF TRACKLINES/APPROXIMATELY

3,882 km2 [1.109 km × 2 × 1,750 km] ENSONIFIED AREA FOR AIRGUN OPERATIONS) IN THE ROSS SEA, JANUARY

TO FEBRUARY 2015 

Species 

Density 

(number 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

Calculated 

take from 

icebreaking 

operations 

(i.e., estimated 

number of 

individuals 

exposed to 

sound levels 

≥ 120 dB re 

1 μPa) 2

Total requested 

take 

authorization 

Abundance 3

Approximate 

percentage of 

population estimate 

(requested take) 4

Population trend 5

Mysticetes: 

Southern right whale .. NA 0 0 0 8,000 to 15,000 ........ NA ............................ Increasing at 7 to 8% 

per year. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED DENSITIES AND POSSIBLE NUMBER OF MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES THAT MIGHT BE EXPOSED TO

GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 dB (AIRGUN OPERATIONS) AND 120 dB (ICEBREAKING) DURING NSF AND ASC’S

PROPOSED LOW-ENERGY SEISMIC SURVEY (APPROXIMATELY 500 km OF TRACKLINES/APPROXIMATELY 21,540 km2

ENSONIFIED AREA FOR ICEBREAKING ACTIVITIES AND APPROXIMATELY 1,750 km OF TRACKLINES/APPROXIMATELY

3,882 km2 [1.109 km × 2 × 1,750 km] ENSONIFIED AREA FOR AIRGUN OPERATIONS) IN THE ROSS SEA, JANUARY

TO FEBRUARY 2015—Continued 

Species 

Density 

(number 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

Calculated 

take from 

icebreaking 

operations 

(i.e., estimated 

number of 

individuals 

exposed to 

sound levels 

≥ 120 dB re 

1 μPa) 2

Total requested 

take 

authorization 

Abundance 3

Approximate 

percentage of 

population estimate 

(requested take) 4

Population trend 5

Humpback whale ........ 0.0321169 125 692 817 35,000 to 40,000— 

Worldwide.

9,484—Scotia Sea 

and Antarctica Peninsula.

0.03—Worldwide ......

9.88—Scotia Sea 

and Antarctic Peninsula.

Increasing. 

Antarctic minke whale 0.0845595 329 1,822 2,151 Several 100,000— 

Worldwide.

18,125—Scotia Sea 

and Antarctica Peninsula.

11.87—Scotia Sea 

and Antarctica Peninsula.

Stable. 

Minke whale (including 

dwarf minke whale 

sub-species).

0.08455 329 1,822 2,151 NA ............................ NA ............................ NA. 

Sei whale .................... 0.0046340 18 100 118 80,000—Worldwide .. 0.15 .......................... NA. 

Fin whale .................... 0.0306570 120 661 781 140,000—Worldwide 

4,672—Scotia Sea 

and Antarctica Peninsula.

0.56—Worldwide ......

16.72—Scotia Sea 

and Antarctica Peninsula.

NA. 

Blue whale .................. 0.0065132 26 141 167 8,000 to 9,000— 

Worldwide.

1,700—Southern 

Ocean.

2.09—Worldwide ......

9.82—Southern 

Ocean.

NA. 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale .............. 0.0098821 39 213 252 360,000—Worldwide 

9,500—Antarctic .......

0.07—Worldwide ......

2.65—Antarctic .........

NA. 

Arnoux’s beaked 

whale.

0.0134420 53 290 343 NA ............................ NA ............................ NA. 

Strap-toothed beaked 

whale.

0.0044919 18 97 115 NA ............................ NA ............................ NA. 

Southern bottlenose 

whale.

0.0117912 46 254 300 50,000—South of 

Antarctic Convergence.

0.6 ............................ NA. 

Killer whale ................. 0.0208872 82 450 532 80,000—South of 

Antarctic Convergence.

25,000—Southern 

Ocean.

0.67—South of Antarctic Convergence.

2.13—Southern 

Ocean.

NA. 

Long-finned pilot 

whale.

0.0399777 156 862 1,018 200,000—South of 

Antarctic Convergence.

0.51 .......................... NA. 

Hourglass dolphin ....... 0.0189782 74 409 483 144,000—South of 

Antarctic Convergence.

0.34 .......................... NA. 

Pinnipeds: 

Crabeater seal ............ 0.6800000 2,640 14,648 17,288 5,000,000 to 

15,000,000— 

Worldwide.

0.35 .......................... Increasing. 

Leopard seal ............... 0.0266700 104 575 679 220,000 to 440,000— 

Worldwide.

0.31 .......................... NA. 

Ross seal .................... 0.0166700 65 360 425 130,000 ....................

20,000 to 220,000— 

Worldwide.

2.13 .......................... NA. 

Weddell seal ............... 0.1066700 415 2,298 2,713 500,000 to 

1,000,000—Worldwide.

0.54 .......................... NA. 

Southern elephant 

seal.

0.0001300 1 3 4 640,000 to 650,000— 

Worldwide;.

470,000—South 

Georgia Island.

<0.01—Worldwide or 

South Georgia Island.

Increasing, decreasing, or stable depending on breeding population. 

NA = Not available or not assessed. 

1 Densities based on sightings from IWC SOWER Report 2002, NMSDD, or State of the Ross Sea Region (NZAI, 2001) data. 

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. 3 Calculated take is estimated density (reported density times correction factor) multiplied by the area ensonified to 120 dB (rms) around the planned transit lines 

where icebreaking activities may occur. 3See population estimates for marine mammal species in Table 4 (above). 

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

5 Jefferson et al. (2008). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68541 

Icebreaking in Antarctic waters would 

occur, as necessary, between the 

latitudes of approximately 76 to 78° 

South and between 165 and 170° West. 

Based on a historical sea ice extent and 

the proposed tracklines, it is estimated 

that the Palmer would actively break ice 

up to a distance of 500 km. Based on the 

ship’s speed of 5 kts under moderate ice 

conditions, this distance represents 

approximately 54 hours of icebreaking 

activities. This calculation is likely an 

overestimation because icebreakers 

often follow leads when they are 

available and thus do not break ice at all 

times. The estimated number of takes 

for pinnipeds accounts for both animals 

that may be in the water and those 

hauled-out on ice surfaces. While the 

number of cetaceans that may be 

encountered within the ice margin 

habitat would be expected to be less 

than open water, the estimates utilize 

densities for open water and therefore 

represent conservative estimates. 

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 

proposed Ross Sea 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 and 

greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for icebreaking activities on one or 

more occasions by considering the total 

marine area that would be within the 

160 dB radius around the operating 

airgun array and 120 dB radius for 

icebreaking activities on at least one 

occasion and the expected density of 

marine mammals in the area (in the 

absence of the a seismic survey and 

icebreaking activities). 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 1,109 m multiplied by 2) 

around the operating airguns. The 

ensonified area for icebreaking was 

estimated by multiplying the distance of 

the icebreaking activities (500 km) by 

the estimated diameter for the area 

within the 120 dB radius (i.e., diameter 

is 43.08 km [21.54 km × 2]). The 160 dB 

radii are based on acoustic modeling 

data for the airguns that may be used 

during the proposed action (see 

Attachment B of the IHA application). 

As summarized in Table 2 (see above 

and Table 8 of the IHA application), the 

modeling results for the proposed lowenergy seismic airgun array indicate the 

received levels are dependent on water 

depth. Since the majority of the 

proposed airgun operations would be 

conducted in waters 100 to 1,000 m 

deep, the buffer zone of 1,109 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 

and 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

icebreaking activities was calculated by 

multiplying: 

(1) The expected species density (in 

number/km2), times 

(2) The anticipated area to be 

ensonified to that level during airgun 

operations and icebreaking activities. 

Applying the approach described 

above, approximately 3,882 km2

(including the 25% contingency) would 

be ensonified within the 160 dB 

isopleth for seismic airgun operations 

and approximately 21,540 km2 would 

be ensonified within the 120 dB 

isopleth for icebreaking activities on one 

or more occasions during the proposed 

low-energy seismic 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 and 120 dB 

for icebreaking activities. However, 

studies suggest that many marine 

mammals would avoid exposing 

themselves to sounds at this level, 

which suggests that there would not 

necessarily be a large number of new 

animals entering the area once the 

seismic survey and icebreaking 

activities 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 proposed low-energy 

seismic 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 would 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 and 

120 dB for icebreaking activities, which 

is likely to occur and which would 

decrease the density of marine 

mammals in the survey area. Another 

way of interpreting the estimates in 

Table 6 is that they represent the 

number of individuals that would be 

expected (in absence of a seismic and 

icebreaking program) to occur in the 

waters that would be exposed to greater 

than or equal to 160 dB (rms) for seismic 

airgun operations and greater than or 

equal to 120 dB (rms) for icebreaking 

activities. 

NSF and ASC’s estimates of exposures 

to various sound levels assume that the 

proposed seismic survey would 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 

would 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 would be no weather, equipment, 

or mitigation delays that limit the 

seismic operations, which is highly 

unlikely. 

Table 6 shows the estimates of the 

number of different individual marine 

mammals anticipated to be exposed to 

greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for icebreaking activities and 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for seismic airgun operations 

during the low-energy seismic survey if 

no animals moved away from the survey 

vessel. The total requested take 

authorization is given in the column 

that is fifth from the left) of Table 6. 

Encouraging and Coordinating 

Research 

NSF and ASC would coordinate the 

planned marine mammal monitoring 

program associated with the proposed 

low-energy seismic survey with other 

parties that express interest in this 

activity and area. NSF and ASC would 

coordinate with applicable U.S. 

agencies (e.g., NMFS), and would 

comply with their requirements. The 

proposed action would complement 

fieldwork studying other Antarctic ice 

shelves, oceanographic studies, and 

ongoing development of ice sheet and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68542 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

other ocean models. It would facilitate 

learning at sea and ashore by students, 

help to fill important spatial and 

temporal gaps in a lightly sampled 

region of the Ross Sea, provide 

additional data on marine mammals 

present in the Ross Sea study areas, and 

communicate its findings concerning 

the chronology and cause of eastern 

Ross Sea grounding-line translations 

during the last glacial cycle 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 would 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 Ross Sea study area). Therefore, 

NMFS has determined that the total 

taking of affected species or stocks 

would not have an unmitigable adverse 

impact on the availability of such 

species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Analysis and Preliminary 

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 preliminarily determined 

that the specified activities associated 

with the marine seismic survey are not 

likely to cause PTS, or other nonauditory 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 the NSF and ASC’s planned 

low-energy seismic survey, and none are 

proposed to be authorized by NMFS. 

Table 6 of this document outlines the 

number of requested 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 proposed mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting measures to 

minimize impacts to marine mammals. 

Additionally, the low-energy seismic 

survey would not adversely impact 

marine mammal habitat. 

For the marine mammal species that 

may occur within the proposed 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 would not last more than a total 

of approximately 27 operational days. 

Additionally, the low-energy seismic 

survey would 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 would only be exposed to and 

harassed by sound for less than a day. 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that 18 species of marine 

mammals under its jurisdiction could be 

potentially affected by Level B 

harassment over the course of the IHA. 

The population estimates for the marine 

mammal species that may be taken by 

Level B harassment were provided in 

Table 4 and 6 of this document. As 

shown in those tables, the proposed 

takes all represent small proportions of 

the overall populations of these marine 

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

equal to 16%). 

Of the 18 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 

requested to be authorized for five 

species. No incidental take has been 

requested for the southern right whale 

as they are generally not expected in the 

proposed action area; however, a few 

animals have been sighted in Antarctic 

waters in the austral summer. To protect 

these marine mammals in the study 

area, NSF and ASC would be required 

to cease airgun operations if any marine 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68543 

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, and 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. NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that, provided 

that the aforementioned mitigation and 

monitoring measures are implemented, 

the impact of conducting a low-energy 

marine seismic survey in the Ross Sea, 

January to February 2015, may result, at 

worst, in a modification in behavior 

and/or low-level 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 preliminary determine that 

the taking by Level B harassment from 

the specified activity would 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 

proposed 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 proposal to implement 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

would 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 proposed monitoring and 

mitigation measures, NMFS 

preliminarily finds that the total marine 

mammal take from NSF and ASC’s 

proposed low-energy seismic survey 

would have a negligible impact on the 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that 18 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 4 and 6 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 

proposed low-energy seismic survey 

(including a 25% contingency) and 

greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for icebreaking activities are in 

Table 6 of this document. Of the 

cetaceans, 937 humpback, 2,151 

Antarctic minke, 2,151 minke, 118 sei, 

781 fin, 167 blue, and 252 sperm whales 

could be taken be Level B harassment 

during the proposed low-energy seismic 

survey, which would represent 9.88, 

11.87, unknown, 0.15, 16.72, 9.82, and 

2.65% of the affected worldwide or 

regional populations, respectively. In 

addition, 343 Arnoux’s beaked, 115 

strap-toothed beaked, and 300 southern 

bottlenose whales could be taken be 

Level B harassment during the proposed 

low-energy seismic survey, which 

would represent unknown, unknown, 

and 0.6% of the affected worldwide or 

regional populations, respectively. Of 

the delphinids, 532 killer whales, 1,018 

long-finned pilot whales, and 483 

hourglass dolphins could be taken be 

Level B harassment during the proposed 

low-energy seismic survey, which 

would represent 2.13, 0.51, and 0.34 of 

the affected worldwide or regional 

populations, respectively. Of the 

pinnipeds, 17,288 crabeater, 679 

leopard, 425 Ross, 2,713 Weddell, and 

4 southern elephant seals could be taken 

by Level B harassment during the 

proposed low-energy seismic survey, 

which would represent 0.35, 0.31, 2.13, 

0.54, and <0.01 of the affected 

worldwide or regional population, 

respectively. 

No known current worldwide or 

regional population estimates are 

available for 3 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, 

and strap-toothed beaked whales. 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. Strap-toothed beaked whales 

are generally found in deep temperate 

waters (between 35 to 60° South) of the 

Southern Hemisphere (Jefferson et al., 

2008). Based on these distributions and 

preferences of these species, NMFS 

concludes that the requested 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 would be taken 

relative to the populations of the 

affected species or stocks. The requested 

take estimates all represent small 

numbers relative to the affected species 

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

equal to 16%), with the exception of the 

three species (i.e., minke, Arnoux’s 

beaked, and strap-toothed beaked 

whales) for which a qualitative rationale 

was provided. 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 preliminary finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals 

would be taken relative to the 

populations of the affected species or 

stocks. See Table 6 for the requested 

authorized take numbers of marine 

mammals. 

Endangered Species Act 

Of the species of marine mammals 

that may occur in the proposed 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 one other research institution, 

has initiated formal consultation with 

the NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, Endangered Species Act 

Interagency Cooperation Division, on 

this proposed low-energy seismic 

survey. NMFS’s Office of Protected 

Resources, Permits and Conservation 

Division, has initiated formal 

consultation under section 7 of the ESA 

with NMFS’s Office of Protected 

Resources, Endangered Species Act 

Interagency Cooperation Division, to 

obtain a Biological Opinion evaluating 

the effects of issuing the IHA on 

threatened and endangered marine 

mammals and, if appropriate, 

authorizing incidental take. NMFS 

would conclude formal section 7 

consultation prior to making a 

determination on whether or not to 

issue the IHA. If the IHA is issued, in 

addition to the mitigation and 

monitoring requirements included in 

the IHA, NSF and ASC would be 

required to comply with the Terms and 

Conditions of the Incidental Take 

Statement corresponding to NMFS’s 

Biological Opinion issued to both NSF 

and ASC, and NMFS’s Office of 

Protected Resources. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68544 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

National Environmental Policy Act 

With NSF and ASC’s complete 

application, NSF and ASC provided 

NMFS a ‘‘Draft Initial Environmental 

Evaluation/Environmental Assessment 

to Perform Marine Geophysical Survey, 

Collect Bathymetric Measurements, and 

Conduct Sediment Coring by the RVIB 

Nathaniel B. Palmer in the Ross Sea,’’ 

(IEE/EA), prepared by AECOM on behalf 

of NSF and ASC. The IEE/EA analyzes 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

specified activities on marine mammals, 

including those listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. NMFS, after 

independently reviewing and evaluating 

the document for sufficiency and 

compliance with Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations and NOAA Administrative 

Order 216–6 § 5.09(d), will conduct a 

separate NEPA analysis and has 

prepared a ‘‘Draft 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 Ross Sea, 

January to April 2015,’’ and decide 

whether to sign a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), prior to 

making a determination on the issuance 

of the IHA. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to NSF and ASC for conducting 

the low-energy seismic survey in the 

Ross Sea, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

This section contains a draft of the IHA 

itself. The wording contained in this 

section is proposed for inclusion in the 

IHA (if issued). The proposed IHA 

language is provided below: 

The NMFS hereby authorizes the 

National Science Foundation, Division 

of Polar Programs, 4201 Wilson 

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230 

and Antarctic Support Contract, 7400 

South Tucson Way, Centennial, 

Colorado 80112, under section 

101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 

1371(a)(5)(D)), to harass small numbers 

of marine mammals incidental to a lowenergy marine geophysical (seismic) 

survey conducted by the RVIB 

Nathaniel B. Palmer (Palmer) in the 

Ross Sea, January to February 2015: 

1. Effective Dates 

This Authorization is valid from 

January 24, 2015 through April 9, 2015. 

2. Specified Geographic Region 

This Authorization is valid only for 

NSF and ASC’s activities associated 

with low-energy seismic survey, 

bathymetric profile, and core sampling 

operations as well as icebreaking 

activities conducted aboard the Palmer 

that shall occur in the following 

specified geographic area: 

(a) In selected regions of the Ross Sea 

(located north of the Ross Ice Shelf) in 

International Waters with a focus on the 

Whales Deep Basin trough 

(encompassing the region between 76 

and 78° South, and between 165 and 

170° West). Water depths in the survey 

area are expected to be 100 to 1,000 m. 

No airgun operations would occur in 

shallow (less than 100 m) water depths. 

The low-energy seismic survey would 

be conducted in International Waters 

(i.e., high seas), as specified in NSF and 

ASC’s IHA application and the 

associated NSF and ASC Initial 

Environmental Evaluation/

Environmental Assessment (IEE/EA). 

3. Species Authorized and Level of 

Takes 

(a) The incidental taking of marine 

mammals, by Level B harassment only, 

is limited to the following species in the 

waters of the Ross Sea: 

(i) Mysticetes—see Table 6 (above) for 

authorized species and take numbers. 

(ii) Odontocetes—see Table 6 (above) 

for authorized species and take 

numbers. 

(iii) Pinnipeds—see Table 6 (above) 

for authorized species and take 

numbers. 

(iv) If any marine mammal species are 

encountered during seismic activities 

that are not listed in Table 6 (above) for 

authorized taking and are likely to be 

exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs) 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for seismic airgun operations or 

greater than or equal to120 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) for icebreaking activities, then the 

NSF and ASC must alter speed or course 

or shut-down the airguns to prevent 

take. 

(b) The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in Condition 

3(a) above or the taking of any kind of 

any other species of marine mammal is 

prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this Authorization. 

4. The methods authorized for taking 

by Level B harassment are limited to the 

following acoustic sources, without an 

amendment to this Authorization: 

(a) A two Generator Injector (GI) 

airgun array (each with a discharge 

volume of 105 cubic inches [in3]) with 

a total volume of 210 in3 (or smaller); 

and 

(b) Icebreaking. 

5. Prohibited Take 

The taking of any marine mammal in 

a manner prohibited under this 

Authorization must be reported 

immediately to the Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), at 301–427–8401. 

6. Mitigation and Monitoring 

Requirements 

The NSF and ASC are required to 

implement the following mitigation and 

monitoring requirements when 

conducting the specified activities to 

achieve the least practicable impact on 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks: 

Protected Species Observers and Visual 

Monitoring 

(a) Utilize at least one NMFSqualified, vessel-based Protected 

Species Observer (PSO) to visually 

watch for and monitor marine mammals 

near the seismic source vessel during 

daylight airgun operations (from 

nautical twilight-dawn to nautical 

twilight-dusk) and before and during 

ramp-ups of airguns day or night. Three 

PSOs shall be based onboard the vessel. 

(i) The Palmer’s vessel crew shall also 

assist in detecting marine mammals, 

when practicable. 

(ii) PSOs shall have access to reticle 

binoculars (7 × 50 Fujinon) equipped 

with a built-in daylight compass and 

range reticles. 

(iii) PSO shifts shall last no longer 

than 4 hours at a time. 

(iv) PSO(s) shall also make 

observations during daylight periods 

when the seismic airguns are not 

operating, when feasible, for 

comparison of animal abundance and 

behavior. 

(v) PSO(s) shall conduct monitoring 

while the airgun array and streamer(s) 

are being deployed or recovered from 

the water. 

(b) PSO(s) shall record the following 

information when a marine mammal is 

sighted: 

(i) 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 

airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 

approach, paralleling, etc., and 

including responses to ramp-up), and 

behavioral pace; and 

(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel (including number 

of airguns operating and whether in 

state of ramp-up or shut-down), 

Beaufort sea state and wind force, 

visibility, and sun glare; and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 68545 

(iii) The data listed under Condition 

6(b)(ii) shall 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. 

Buffer and Exclusion Zones 

(c) Establish a 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

buffer zone, as well as a 180 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) exclusion zone for cetaceans and 

a 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) exclusion zone 

for pinnipeds before the two GI airgun 

array (210 in3 total volume) is in 

operation. Establish a 120 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) buffer zone for cetaceans and 

pinnipeds before icebreaking activities 

begin. See Table 2 (above) for distances 

and buffer and exclusion zones. 

Visual Monitoring at the Start of the 

Airgun Operations 

(d) Visually observe the entire extent 

of the exclusion zone (180 dB re 1 mPa 

[rms] for cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 mPa 

[rms] for pinnipeds; see Table 2 [above] 

for distances) using NMFS-qualified 

PSOs, for at least 30 minutes prior to 

starting the airgun array. 

(i) If the PSO(s) sees a marine 

mammal within the exclusion zone, 

NSF and ASC must delay the seismic 

survey until the marine mammal(s) has 

left the area. If the PSO(s) sees a marine 

mammal that surfaces, then dives below 

the surface, the PSO(s) shall continue to 

observe the exclusion zone for 30 

minutes, and if the PSO sees no marine 

mammals during that time, the PSO 

should assume that the animal has 

moved beyond the exclusion zone. 

(ii) If for any reason the entire radius 

cannot be seen for the entire 30 minutes 

(i.e., rough seas, fog, darkness), or if 

marine mammals are near, approaching, 

or in the exclusion zone, the airguns 

may not be ramped-up. If one airgun is 

already running at a source level of at 

least 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms), NSF and 

ASC may start the second airgun 

without observing the entire exclusion 

zone for 30 minutes prior, provided no 

marine mammals are known to be near 

the exclusion zone (in accordance with 

Condition 6[e] below). 

Ramp-Up Procedures 

(e) Implement a ‘‘ramp-up’’ 

procedure, which means starting with a 

single GI airgun and adding a second GI 

airgun after five minutes, when starting 

up at the beginning of seismic 

operations or anytime after the entire 

array has been shut-down for more than 

15 minutes. During ramp-up, the two 

PSOs shall monitor the exclusion zone, 

and if marine mammals are sighted, a 

shut-down shall be implemented as 

though the full array (both GI airguns) 

were operational. Therefore, initiation 

of ramp-up procedures from shut-down 

requires that the PSOs be able to view 

the full exclusion zone as described in 

Condition 6(d) (above). 

Shut-Down Procedures 

(f) Shut-down the airgun(s) if a marine 

mammal is detected within, approaches, 

or enters the relevant exclusion zone (as 

defined in Table 2, above). A shut-down 

means all operating airguns are shutdown (i.e., turned off). 

(g) Following a shut-down, the airgun 

activity shall not resume until the 

PSO(s) has visually observed the marine 

mammal exiting the exclusion zone and 

determined it is not likely to return, or 

has not seen the marine mammal within 

the exclusion zone for 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). 

(h) Following a shut-down and 

subsequent animal departure, airgun 

operations may resume, following the 

ramp-up procedures described in 

Condition 6(e). 

Speed or Course Alteration 

(i) Alter speed or course during 

seismic operations if a marine mammal, 

based on its position and relative 

motion, appears likely to enter the 

relevant exclusion zone. If speed or 

course alteration is not safe or 

practicable, or if after alteration the 

marine mammal still appears likely to 

enter the exclusion zone, further 

mitigation measures, such as a shutdown, shall be taken. 

Survey Operations During Low-Light 

Hours 

(j) Marine seismic surveying may 

continue into low-light hours if such 

segment(s) of the survey is initiated 

when the entire relevant exclusion 

zones are visible and can be effectively 

monitored. 

(k) No initiation of airgun array 

operations is permitted from a shutdown position during low-light hours 

(such as in dense fog or heavy rain) 

when the entire relevant exclusion zone 

cannot be effectively monitored by the 

PSO(s) on duty. 

(l) To the maximum extent 

practicable, schedule seismic operations 

(i.e., shooting airguns) during daylight 

hours. 

7. Reporting Requirements 

The NSF and ASC are required to: 

(a) Submit a draft report on all 

activities and monitoring results to the 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

within 90 days of the completion of the 

Palmer’s Ross Sea cruise. This report 

must contain and summarize the 

following information: 

(i) Dates, times, locations, heading, 

speed, weather, sea conditions 

(including Beaufort sea state and wind 

force), and associated activities during 

all seismic operations and marine 

mammal sightings; 

(ii) Species, number, location, 

distance from the vessel, and behavior 

of any marine mammals, as well as 

associated seismic activity (e.g., number 

of shut-downs), observed throughout all 

monitoring activities. 

(iii) An estimate of the number (by 

species) of marine mammals that: (A) 

Are known to have been exposed to the 

seismic activity (based on visual 

observation) at received levels greater 

than or equal to 120 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

(for icebreaking activities), greater than 

or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) (for 

seismic airgun operations), and/or 180 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) for cetaceans and 190 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) for pinnipeds, with a 

discussion of any specific behaviors 

those individuals exhibited; and (B) 

may have been exposed (based on 

modeled values for the two GI airgun 

array) to the seismic activity at received 

levels greater than or equal to 120 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) (for icebreaking activities), 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) (for seismic airgun operations), 

and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

cetaceans and 190 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

pinnipeds, with a discussion of the 

nature of the probable consequences of 

that exposure on the individuals that 

have been exposed. 

(iv) A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the: 

(A) Terms and Conditions of the 

Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take 

Statement (ITS) (attached); and (B) 

mitigation measures of the IHA. For the 

Biological Opinion, the report shall 

confirm the implementation of each 

Term and Condition, as well as any 

conservation recommendations, and 

describe their effectiveness, for 

minimizing the adverse effects of the 

action on Endangered Species Act-listed 

marine mammals. 

(b) Submit a final report to the Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 

within 30 days after receiving comments 

from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS 

decides that the draft report needs no 

comments, the draft report shall be 

considered to be the final report. 

8. Reporting Prohibited Take 

(a)(i) In the unanticipated event that 

the specified activity clearly causes the 

take of a marine mammal in a manner 

prohibited by this Authorization, such 

as an injury (Level A harassment), 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68546 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 2014 / Notices 

serious injury or mortality (e.g., through 

ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 

entanglement), NSF and ASC shall 

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: 

(ii) Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; the name and 

type of vessel involved; the 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 marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

the fate of the animal(s); and 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal (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, email, or telephone. 

Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammal With an Unknown Cause of 

Death 

(b) 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 Condition 7(c)(i) above. 

Activities may continue while NMFS 

reviews the circumstances of the 

incident. NMFS shall 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 

(c) 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 Condition 2 of this 

Authorization (e.g., previously wounded 

animal, carcass with moderate to 

advanced decomposition, or scavenger 

damage), NSF and ASC shall 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 the discovery. NSF and ASC 

shall 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. 

9. Endangered Species Act Biological 

Opinion and Incidental Take Statement 

(a) NSF and ASC are required to 

comply with the Terms and Conditions 

of the ITS corresponding to NMFS’s 

Biological Opinion issued to both NSF 

and ASC, and NMFS’s Office of 

Protected Resources. 

(b) A copy of this Authorization and 

the ITS must be in the possession of all 

contractors and PSO(s) operating under 

the authority of this Incidental 

Harassment Authorization. 

Request for Public Comments 

NMFS requests comment on our 

analysis, the draft authorization, and 

any other aspect of the notice of the 

proposed IHA for NSF and ASC’s lowenergy seismic survey. Please include 

with your comments any supporting 

data or literature citations to help 

inform our final decision on NSF and 

ASC’s request for an MMPA 

authorization. Concurrent with the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of 

this application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: November 7, 2014. 

Perry F. Gayaldo, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26915 Filed 11–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES